The idea that the Democrats were the ones who solicited and utilized Russian-supplied, damning information about Trump instead of Trump using Russian-supplied, damning information about Clinton is something that Trump’s opponents cannot process. So, today, when the Democrats and their allies in the media insist that we need to know what the Russians did to influence the election and interfere in the democratic process, it is fair to ask which Russians are they talking about? Are they talking about the Russians who were solicited by Steele and his Democrat paymasters? What were the Russians’ interests and were any of them paying Steele? (A new story links Steele to Putin ally Oleg Deripaska.) And what about the sources that Shearer solicited for the anti-Trump dossier he gave to Blumenthal? It seems that there were a lot more meetings with Russians and information collected from Russians on behalf of the Clinton campaign than there ever was on behalf of the Trump campaign.
It may be difficult for Democrats to accept this, but their outrage towards the president doesn’t change the fact that neither he nor his campaign colluded with the Russians. And it must be difficult knowing that more evidence or downright admissions keep surfacing pointing to Democrats facilitating Russian influence in the 2016 campaign. Russian fingerprints are all over the work of Blumenthal, Winer and Steele. Exploring their actions must be a priority for the media.