Theory: The Russia Investigation Was Not Meant To Stop Trump

As I type these words, the American people are still reeling from the testimony of Agent Peter Strzok in front of the House Judiciary Committee. Speculation on both the left and right sides of the aisle continues in the wake of his responses, with both sides pushing their own narrative that fits the entire story into a nice, neat little package that solidifies democrats as heroes, republicans as villains, or vice versa. 

That's completely understanable, actually. As Americans, and probably as humans, we like our good vs evil narratives to be simple and clear cut. We want the black and white folk legend of old Star Wars, not this mushy confusing "Jedi are bad because they tried to do good" nonsense of the new films. But the problem is that each time we look at the Russia investigation and run our draft picks and sort each political figure out onto their respective teams, we end up creating more questions than answers. On his namesake daily news commentary show, Ben Shapiro has put for the following question multiple times to no answer: "If the FBI wanted to discredit president Trump through the Russia investigation, why didn't they release their findings before he was inaugurated?" That's a good question. Here is another Shapiro has asked: "If Trump knows the documents related to the Russia investigation will exonnerate him of any wrongdoing, why doesn't he  declassify them himself?" 

In an appearance on "The Ingraham Angle", former NYC mayor and current Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani put forth another interesting question in the wake of Strzok's testimony. Giuliani said, "I am ashamed of the justice department today. Why aren’t they moving against this guy? Why is he still have a security clearance?" Why, indeed?

With so many unanswered questinos floating around, it's not unreasonable to reach the conclusion that both republicans and democrats, both Trump and the deep state, are lying to the general population. That's not exactly uncharted territory in the realm of American politics, but it still doesn't give us any reason as to why they would bother to do such a thing. Trump doesn't like Hillary, the FBI doesn't like Trump, nobody likes Jared Kushner, so why would all of these different players agree to put forward an agreed upon lie to the American people? 

Well, I think I actually have an answer to this one. And the answer comes from information that has already been given to the public.

On November 8th, 2016, the New York Times gave Hillary Clinton an 85% chance to win the presidential election. Other media outlets had similary forecasts and poll numbers. Democrats especially were confident in Hillary's chances at winning. And Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and several others who were involved in the Russia Investigation were and still are dyed in the wool democrats. They didn't need to investigate Trump to discredit him, they figured he would lose on his own merits. No, the Russia Investigation was not conducted to discredit candidate Donald Trump.

It was conducted to justify President Hillary Clinton's military action against Russia.

From 2013 all the way to the election debates in 2016, Hillary Clinton pushed for no fly zones in Syria which Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said would require the US to go to war against Syria and Russia. There is no question she would have proceeded to do this had she been elected President of the United States. Given the political division among the American population and the statements from the joint chiefs at the time, as well as the relatively positive foreign relations between the US and Russia over the past two decades, its an understatement that not everyone would be on board with the President's plan, and that reluctance from both the people and the military would lead to overall failure, not unlike the Vietnam war or the war in Iraq.

But what if the war was already on American shores? What if the FBI had evidence that Russia had almost installed an asset as the American president? Trump wouldn't be able to argue, he wouldn't be in charge of the department of Justice or have any sort of security clearance. He'd just be a private citizen again, albeit one with some high powered lawyers and security defending him. He'd be the perfect scapegoat to inject some much needed fear and motivation that would unite the country against the common Russian foe.

That isn't what happened, of course. Trump became president, and the Russian investigation has seemingly gone around and around in circles ever since. It has to. If the truth were revealed, Russia would be furious and at the very least would gain leverage against the US in the international community, and the American people would become even more distrustful of their government (half would say Trump is lying and trying to march us into a war, the other half would say Hillary tried to march us into a war).

This answers all the questions put forward by Shapiro and Giuliani. It explains why Trump and the department of justice are reluctant to reveal the truth. It explains why the FBI didn't bother releasing their findings until it was too late. And it explains why the truth is now so far out of reach from the people.

So please do me a favor: the next time you see any development in the Russia investigation on tv, consider the possibility what you're finding out was meant to promote a Clinton war, not discredit Trump. See if the new information fits the theory.

I'm confident that it will.