(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File) In this June 23, 2016, file photo, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, to discuss the Supreme Court's immigration ruling. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

My latest Counter Propa article addresses how Democrats paved the way for Jeff Sessions to circumvent lying under oath. It also highlights the absurd groupthink regarding the uncertain narrative Russia hacked the election. Regarding Putin’s involvement with our election, New York Magazine states “The CIA and FBI have high confidence in these findings, the NSA has moderate confidence.”

Wait, they’re not certain?

Why?

Yet, millions of disheartened Democrats, unable to believe Trump could defeat Clinton without Russia’s help, accept wholeheartedly a story that even intelligence agencies (the same people informing us of Russian hacking) only have high confidence about; not certainty.

If you think WikiLeaks was part of a conspiracy uncovered by the FBI, then please do a word search for “WikiLeaks” or “Julian Assange” within the 13 page DHS and FBI Russian Hacking Report.

Funny how the same intelligence agencies claiming grandiose Russian hacking operations don’t mention a word about WikiLeaks.

The disclaimer of this report is amusing and states “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise.”

Interesting.

“No warranties of any kind,” yet the same Democratic strategists angered that people know Bernie was cheated have championed the belief Russia absolutely hacked the DNC.

First, let’s get a couple of things straight about Jeff Sessions.

I don’t care if he’s forced to resign. I did care about General Michael Flynn being forced to resign, because he did nothing wrong.

Furthermore, Democrats don’t care about lying politicians. If they did value honesty, the DNC wouldn’t have cheated Bernie Sanders for Clinton and the Clinton campaign wouldn’t have elevated Trump.

Always remember, Clinton’s campaign elevated Donald Trump.

Sessions did lie to Congress, although perjury requires intent. Have fun, Democrats, you set the stage for all of this with Clinton’s lies under oath. Law Newz explains why simply lying under oath doesn’t mean you’ll get charged with perjury:

Based solely on the statutes and not any political influence, the decision to prosecute Hillary Clinton will come down to a question of her intent and belief at the time she testified before Congress. Most reports indicate that Congress’ referral is focused on at least three of Clinton’s statements: (1) that she did not have any classified material on her server; (2) her claim that there was only one server; and (3) her claim lawyers went through every email in full to determine what was work related.

…The key issue will be whether Clinton knew the statement was false at the time she made it — or if the statement was made with a reckless disregard for the truth. Unlike the statements about the classified material, Director Comey’s testimony does not help Clinton on this issue. That potentially gives prosecutors an opening to go after Clinton on this matter, if they choose to do so.

But here’s the reality: Prosecutors rarely go after individuals for lying to Congress. A Quinnipiac law review article mentioned earlier found only six people have been successfully convicted of lying to Congress between the 1940s and the mid-2000s.

Therefore, when people ask me to stop discussing Hillary Clinton, the legacy of her endless controversies are just as relevant today as they were during the election.

Sessions told the Senate he had no contact with “the Russians” but he could easily say (taking a page from Clinton’s dossier) he was referring to “the Russians” in unverified reports read by Al Franken. Here’s the exact quote used by Democrats to prove perjury:

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

Every top Democrat, the same politicians who vehemently defended Clinton’s erroneous statements, see a clear-cut lie in the words of Jeff sessions. However, as Law Newz and Hillary Clinton’s entire career point out, Sessions has a million ways to deny overtly lying to Congress.

Actually, he just did, and now states “I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign.”

See? He never said he didn’t meet a Russian official. He clarified that he didn’t meet “Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign.” His denial relates specifically to the unverified reports read by Senator Franken.

Sessions met with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but like Clinton, he could simply say he didn’t know Franken meant even a Russian ambassador would constitute “the Russians” who have dirt on Trump.

Most importantly, this story isn’t about perjury.

It’s about America’s intelligence community unable to say with certainty that Russians hacked the DNC and the Clinton Campaign.

Sorry, high confidence does not mean “certain” or 100% confident.

Everything from Russia sanctions to a neo-McCarthy Democratic Party is fueled by “high confidence” Russia hacked the DNC.

If somebody told you they were highly confident you’d live through the day, it’s doubtful you’d have a very good day.

As for nefarious Russian hackers, the DNC has never allowed it’s computer servers to be analyzed by the FBI.

It doesn’t matter how many intelligence agencies are highly confident in a theory, this level of confidence isn’t certainty.

In addition, WikiLeaks categorically denies any involvement with Russian state actors.

As for The Washington Post, much of its reporting comes from anonymous leaks.

Targeting Sessions is also about finding a scapegoat for Hillary Clinton’s $1.2 billion loss to Trump.

Therefore, let’s discuss one possible scenario that Democrats have in their minds at the moment. In the mind of Keith Olbermann, Jeff Sessions speaks to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about DNC emails that could help Trump in the election. These emails within the DNC lead to the following POLITICO article:

Three top officials were ousted Tuesday, as the organization struggles to right itself.

With just three months until Election Day and the Democrats’ official party apparatus struggling to right itself from months of dysfunction and the scandal caused by the WikiLeaks email hack, interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile cleaned house Tuesday with the ouster of three top officials.

CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda and chief financial officer Brad Marshall are all leaving the organization, the DNC announced Tuesday afternoon, shortly after staffers were informed of the changes in a meeting. The announcement praised all three outgoing officials, but people familiar say the departures were heavily encouraged.

For days, there has been a chill around the DNC’s Capitol Hill offices as staffers wait to find out about their futures within the organization. Former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepped down on the eve of the Democratic National Convention after a mass email hack spawned a host of unflattering revelations — including what’s been interpreted as bias by the committee toward Hillary Clinton during her primary contest with Bernie Sanders.

Jeff Sessions, in the daydreams of Al Franken, helps Russia destroy the DNC. Progressives are angry that Bernie Sanders was cheated and the knowledge WikiLeaks exposes hands the presidency to Trump.

Does this sound plausible?

Of course not, and if it does, make sure to give a big donation to Tom Perez and the DNC.

Then there’s the viewpoint Jeff Sessions (or any Trump surrogate speaking to a dastardly Russian) must have been discussing Trump’s business ties with Russian oligarchs. The only problem with this theory is that before the election, The New York Times published a piece titled Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia:

WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

…Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.

Before the election, the FBI already investigated Trump and found nothing in terms of dangerous Russian connections. The New York Times writes “none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”

Yes, Jeff Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador.

And…

And there’s no there, there. Remember that wonderful phrase?

I give my viewpoint on this latest controversy in the following H. A. Goodman YouTube segment.

Have fun trying to pin perjury charges on Sessions after Loretta Lynch stated she met with Bill Clinton to discuss golf, Brexit and grandchildren. She wasn’t under oath, but it’s an example of another attorney general lying.

Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador, yes. But do you think he was part of the DNC hack, or leak?

Do you think Sessions helped Russian hackers breach the impenetrable Podesta campaign?

Or is this about truth, honesty and the rule of law? Democrats now say it’s wrong to lie under oath. If so, remember when Hillary Clinton wasn’t charged under the Espionage Act because of intent?

We could have had President Bernie Sanders had Comey found intent. Sadly, Democrats didn’t listen in 2015 when I explained Why Sanders defeats Trump, but Trump defeats Clinton. I wrote this Hill article, by the way, long before DNC and Podesta emails. There were enough reasons in 2015 to see why Clinton would lose to Trump; Russia wasn’t one of them.

Now we have a “highly confident” narrative that Russia hacked the election for Trump.

The state of American politics is abysmal and this latest quagmire will bring out yet another bizarre version of Democratic nationalism. Russia will be the scapegoat, and Sessions and Trump the Russian stooges, with Democrats ironically claiming that lying under oath is a serious crime.

Sessions and Flynn should have just approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, then Democrats would have found no link to Putin. Just imagine if Trump approved a deal that sent this uranium to Russia, as his foundation received cash from Uranium One; exactly what happened with Clinton.

Establishment Democrats still have trouble comprehending a New York Times piece titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The next chapter of our new McCarthy era will undoubtedly reveal new revelations about Sessions, Democrats, and what a frightened liberal electorate is willing to believe. Just remember, always remember, we could have had President Bernie Sanders. But the same Democrats blaming Russia preferred Clinton and believed Sanders was either too extreme, or unrealistic.

H. A. Goodman is the creator of Counter Propa and the thoughts above are inspired by his new publication. Follow Counter Propa on Twitter and Facebook