When it comes to the narrative that former President Donald Trump made a Faustian deal with the Russians to steal the 2016 U.S. election from Hillary Clinton, there is one ever-present condition that cannot be ignored: All roads lead back to the Clinton campaign.
Now that Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into how this conspiracy theory began appears to have gathered steam, the former first lady, senator, and defeated presidential candidate might be on the run – from infamy and suspicion, if not from actual legal jeopardy.
She has chosen to emerge from a semi-private life to lash out at Trump once again, but a question must be asked: If there’s no there, there, why even bother?
Having recently refused to address the issue when confronted in New York City by a Daily Mail reporter, Clinton soon took to Twitter with a response to swirling rumors in conservative circles that the walls are closing in on her campaign’s efforts to discredit her presidential rival.
“Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones,” she tweeted, presumably referring to the efforts of hyper-partisan New York Attorney General Letitia James to pin charges on the Trump family relating to real estate business deals.
Trump, his son, Donald Trump Jr., and daughter Ivanka have been ordered to testify before James’ office.
Liberty Nation has reported extensively on the Russian collusion hoax since it first attracted the spotlight.
From the very beginning, this saga brings to mind Bacon’s Law, a game enjoyed by movie buffs – otherwise known as Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon – in which enthusiasts attempt to divine connections between a random movie and the actor.
Briefly, this involves establishing a sequence of six professional or personal relationships between Bacon and anyone connected with the film in question.
Examining the details of the Trump-Russia collusion theory uncovers an undeniable pattern; everyone involved in the discovery, investigation, and promoting of this unlikely fantasy was either working for Clinton’s 2016 campaign, promoting her as the preferable victor, or desperately trying to prevent Trump from becoming president, as Christopher Steele, the creator of the “Steele dossier,” admitted.
Steele, a former British intelligence officer, was paid by a U.S.-based law firm to gather information damaging to Trump.
That law firm was Perkins Coie, which was receiving payments, at the time, from the Clinton Campaign. One of the three individuals indicted as a result of John Durham’s findings is Michael Sussmann, a former partner in a prominent law firm.
This is only one example of the Six Degrees of Hillary Clinton. There are many more – and few, if any, require as many as six connections.
It now seems that Mrs. Clinton feels it necessary to clear her name in the court of public opinion. Whether she will have to do the same in criminal court is unknown – but unlikely.
Going forward, it will be interesting to see whether Clinton brushes off this “fake scandal” or continues to push back against it, which could tell the American people a great deal about her guilty conscience, or lack thereof.
All the while, Durham continues his work and what comes of his ultimate conclusions might convince the nation that the political class is indeed above the law – or maybe, just maybe, some people in high places will finally get their comeuppance.
Holding one’s breath is not advised.