- - Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Two recent stories, “Dossier fails the test of time; Trump-Russia collusion claims now called ‘likely false’” (Web, Dec. 30) and “‘Real Justice Department’ veteran emerges as Mueller’s top courtroom adversary” (Web, Jan. 1) are onto something in covering challenges to original Trump-Russia “collusion” claims.

Over the months of the special counsel’s investigation, not one of the many individuals seeking to mortally wound President Trump with “collusion” allegations has provided the American public convincing rationale, any substantive corroborating evidence or even a plausible theory for why Russia would have wanted a President Trump instead of a President Clinton. Russia could have obtained anything it wanted — more easily and at less cost — from a more pliable, globalist President Hillary Clinton. In reality, every autocrat, dictator and war lord around the world would have wanted a more malleable President Clinton over the nationalistic and assertive President Trump, who campaigned on and adopted a more aggressive “America first” leadership approach to foreign and defense policy.

Further, it stands to reason that Vladimir Putin was just as surprised as CNN to wake up that November 2016 morning to learn the “impossible” had indeed occurred.

For Americans, it is way past time for Robert Mueller to make his case and turn in his homework. But for him to do so, explaining Russia’s motive to “collude” with Mr. Trump must be a real head scratcher.

COL. CHRIS J. KRISINGER



U.S. Air Force (retired)

Burke, Va.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide