The never ending Trump-Russia saga is back in the news. There has been a marked shift in the rhetoric of most behind this conspiracy and it was apparent in the latest open testimony from Sally Yates and James Clapper. Though there are a still noble holdouts on the collusion front, check out Keith Olbermann if you ever need a laugh, the more general idea seems to be spreading innuendo of nefarious doings. So we hear that Obama warned Trump about Flynn, with little mentioned that it was not for security reasons. That Yates boldly confronted the White House with evidence of wrong doing. And of course Obama didn’t seem too worried considering he cleared Flynn in 2016 and allowed him to retain security clearances. The Yates story looks to be entirely self serving. Her testimony is evidence that she is either uniquely informed or acting politically. When questioned on whether there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, she replied, ‘my answer to that question would require me to reveal classified information.’

Her insinuation needlessly raises speculation. Why? Because James Clapper was head of the DNI until Jan 20. He testified no evidence of collusion was found. Yates stayed in the government until Jan. 30 when she was fired for refusing to do her job. Information would have had to surface within a 10 days, been processed and presented to the DOJ. Not only that, but multiple senators with access to classified information have claimed otherwise in recent weeks, meaning they would be lying to the public or have been deceived by the intelligence community. She claims she is justified in discussing classified information in the Flynn because it is publicly known. Why then can she not do the same for the collusion case, since it too has publicly been discussed by various senators and James Clapper? The obvious answer is politics. She is either interpreting evidence in a way no one else is or she is spreading rumor purposefully.

This is the woman who so ‘boldly’ approached the White House with evidence of Flynn’s lie. Yes, according to all reports, Flynn did lie, though he claims he forgot. However, I have never heard of the Department of Justice involving itself in a domestic non-criminal act based on information obtained through national security channels. Do you mean to tell me that the DOJ monitored conversations from Obama’s various appointees with foreign governments and then reported to the White House whenever those conversations were at odds with public comments? National security issues included, like say for the Iran Deal? Of course not! What made this case so special that it required elevation? Politics, of course, and a scene that fit very well into the broader narrative being spun by the Democrat party. So let’s be clear on her testimony, it is a rationalization to mask an openly political act.