Barack Obama’s dealings abroad looked just as suspect, by Karl Rove, who twice masterminded the election of George W. Bush.
Ask yourself: What if Hillary Clinton won in 2016? After she took office, it would have been revealed that her campaign hired the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, which assigned Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence official, to reach out to Russian counterparts to solicit dirt on Donald Trump. Recall that the since-discredited dossier Steele peddled to the media in the fall of 2016 was made up of unsubstantiated rumours from former Russian agents.
It’s naive to believe the Kremlin was unaware that Steele asked Moscow pals for dirt on Trump. Those spies are retired, but they rely on Vladimir Putin for their pension checks. Who among congressional Democrats would now be calling for Clinton’s removal if she were in the Oval Office? I doubt any. I’ve searched in vain for Democratic criticism for her soliciting foreign involvement in the 2016 election — the principal charge of their impeachment case against Trump. …
Democrats are now hyping a Government Accountability Office report finding that Trump’s Office of Management and Budget broke the law by delaying the Ukrainian aid. But that $125m was released 18 days before the end of the 2019 fiscal year, the deadline to obligate the funds. Not only is the GAO’s legal reasoning suspect, but the Democrats ignored the office when it found the Obama administration violated the law seven times, most prominently in trading detainees from Guantanamo Bay for the deserter Bowe Bergdahl, as well as twice spending government funds to lobby, and preventing a regional housing and urban development director (far from an immediate presidential adviser) from testifying to congress. Again, why did no Democratic leader criticise Obama, let alone demand his removal?
The fortunes of the Clinton Foundation rose and sank in synchrony with Hillary’s ability to change US policy. Isn’t that evidence of corruption on a huge scale?