PRESS RELEASE
A ‘Foregone Conclusion’ on Russia by Forsworn Senators
May 8, 2017 (EIRNS)— A hearing was held today in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, chair Sen. Lindsay Graham, to re-ignite the McCarthyite witchhunt against Russia and Russians, and any U.S. foreign policy open to collaboration with Russia for security and against terrorism.
Republicans on the subcommittee won some minor battles defending President Trump and his campaign team from claims of colluding with Russians to fix the election. But they lost the battle by agreeing to Russian interference and agitating to block any cooperation with, or even neutrality on, Russia on any matter.
"It is a foregone conclusion that Russia interfered in the election to advantage Donald Trump," proclaimed Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein—though no evidence of this has ever been seen by the public or even by experts—and the GOP Senators went right along with that. "The greatest threat to our Democratic process in our history," said witness and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who has a documented record of lying to the Senate. Said Sally Yates, former Deputy Attorney General, her only reason for acting was "General [Michael] Flynn’s lying and his being compromised by the Russians."
Given the Senators’ agreement to McCarthyite incitement against any contact with Russians, the hearing can only damage the vital consultations in Washington May 10 between Secretary of State Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
A few discoveries were made. It was Barack Obama who first claimed, to Trump, that Russia could blackmail General Flynn—ten weeks before Sally Yates did so. The strong implication is that Obama demanded the "unmasking" of Flynn’s name in classified intercepts. But Clapper and Yates both admitted that they, too, had asked for unmasking of names of Trump team members and/or Members of Congress, and had discussed the unmasking at least with their colleagues. And Senator Graham established that if the Committee could determine exactly who unmasked Flynn’s name, it could then question that figure about how the intercepts of Flynn talking to Russian Ambassador Kislyak got into the Washington Post two days later.
But overall, the hearing must have pleased London.
