1.) Many so outraged by POTUS Trump’s response to regarding the intelligence agencies claims and indictments of Russian hackers, intimate that Trump should have denounced Putin on the World stage, and defended the US intelligence agencies… That Trump essentially (paraphrase) said: ‘I take Putin at his word, but I also believe my intelligence agencies’ has been widely condemned by the social-political Left (e.g., Chuck Schumer, Pelosi, John Brennan etc.), many RINO’s (e.g., Corker, Sass, Ryan etc.) and even some conservative stalwarts (Newt Gingrich), but Trump has been being tormented – unjustly – by those very intelligence agencies since before he won the Presidency. Those agencies have allowed – and/or perpetuated – the conflation of “actual” Russian meddling (Note: we must take the agencies word for the meddling…) in the 2016 election with the accusations of conspiratorial collusion of partisans paid for by Clinton campaign and the DNC. The intelligence agencies could draw a clear demarcation between actual Russian hacking and the absence of Trump campaign involvement with foreign interests, but it seems next to nobody – heretofore – has wanted to separate the two issues. To any casual observer POTUS Trump’s frustration would be completely understandable. Very likely Trump may think many – or most – rank-and-file FBI, CIA, NSA etc. agencies are good and honorable employees of the U. S. Government, but he likely thinks that the leadership of those agencies have an affinity for the social-political Left and the “deep-state.”
2.) Chris Wallace asked Putin about all of the deaths surrounding Putin. Putin response invoked the death of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King junior; it is a shame that Vladimir Putin apparently knows so little about the Clintons; had Putin know about the Clintons he could have asked Wallace why he is so lacking in curiosity when it comes to the dozens and dozens of dead former associates of the Clintons – most of the deaths resulting from near impossible ‘suicides.’ If only Putin had such knowledge, bet the question and response would never have made it on the air, but if it did Wallace’s response would likely have been priceless, as would all of the howls from so many of the historic Clinton defenders.
3.) When President Donald Trump was asked about the Russian interference he turned to invoke the Clinton server, and wondered where it was and why the FBI allowed themselves to be dismissed by the Clinton campaign rather than turning the server over for examination… It is a shame that Trump doesn’t make the fact that Hillary’s guilt was prima facie (the law covering classified information doesn’t excuse ignorance) a mantra; Hillary’s actions were felonious; the investigation – if an actual investigation had been conducted – would have prosecuted her and the outcome of the investigation would have only determined what punishment she would suffer.
4.) The contrast of treatment by the intelligence and investigatory agencies vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton (and Obama when in office; the agencies always had Obama’s back) and POTUS Trump has got to make Trump believe that “justice” is not really something that the Justice Department is that interested in!
5.) And given the intelligence agencies insouciance regarding Hillary’s – and Obama* -utilization of that private unprotected server, Trump has got to believe that those agencies tasked with National Security are not that interested in protecting National Security, at least not as interested as they are in politics. When Obama and Hillary need those agencies to “look-the-other-way” (Iran Nuclear deal, Benghazi, Fast-and-Furious, IRS Suppression of conservative media/bloggers et al), those agencies were proven to oblige; thus real crimes and real violations of National Security are ignored or aided and abetted by the agencies sworn to protect National Security. Trump must see those agencies as politicized and thus, he asserts that they are corrupt.
* Obama could not know of Hillary utilizing a private server, through which top-secret information passed; Obama himself communicated with Hillary through that server; without a doubt Obama’s agencies would have informed Obama…
6.) If Trump were to publicly denounce Putin – in accordance with the wishes of those behind the Russian-Trump campaign narrative – Putin may do any number of things contrary to long-term American interests e.g., Putin may solidify a common-ground with China against the USA. Russia – and Putin – could be an ally with the US against China and against the Sharia Supremacists (NRO Andy McCarthy’s coined apropos term). Russia has suffered from acts of Islamic terrorism – like damn near all nations – and China betrayed an alliance (Soviets and China in March of 1969; China ambushed Soviets); the Chinese seek world dominance (See Michael Pillsbury’s The Hundred-Year Marathon), and the Russians would likely prove far better friends than enemies…
7.) We wrote (@ bestthinking.com; the blog exists only in archive today) – before the election – that Putin likely preferred Trump to Clinton because Trump would actively engage with Islamic terrorism, and given Russian has suffered terror e.g., the school siege in Beslan, Russia (Chechnya); 334 people – many of them children – were murdered by Riyad-us Saliheen Brigade of Martyrs some variant of “soldiers of Islam.” Putin – likely thought Clinton would be a capitulator to Islam like Obama was. Moreover, we thought Putin would like a global economic boom – which Trump seemed likely to deliver – rather than a “3rd” term of Obama’s moribund economy.