by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] For ten years now, the US has not let go of the topic of “sinister Russian interference” in the American elections, the so-called “Russiagate”. It was launched into the public space in the fall of 2015, and then used to the fullest extent in the subsequent election campaign.
But now they are approaching it from a new angle: uncomfortable questions are being asked of those who actively imposed this agenda on all of America.
Democrats in the United States first began talking about Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia after the latter complimented Vladimir Putin in an interview at the start of his presidential campaign.
But Russiagate came into full swing in the summer of 2016, when the servers of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton were hacked. Auditors hired by the Democratic Party investigated the hacker attack, but the FBI was forbidden from doing so.
Investigators very quickly began to blame Russia for everything, although there were no real facts to support the theory of a “Russian hack”.
Later, Clinton's political strategists used the situation to build a very primitive but working scheme in the media space - that Trump had conspired with Russia to undermine the Democrats' position.
The investigation simultaneously involved firms financed by the Clinton campaign and representatives of the American intelligence services. By the end of 2016, they had all joined in trying to portray Trump as a “Russian agent,” even though it was a clear conflict of interest.
Liberal journalists were leaked the notorious dossier of British spy Christopher Steele, which portrayed Trump as both a Russian sympathizer and a victim of blackmail. It was there that the salacious details of Trump's alleged amusements with women of low social responsibility in a Moscow hotel were published.
However, quite quickly all these hot facts began to be refuted.
It was later revealed that the author of the dossier was Igor Danchenko, a native of Perm, who moved to the United States and got a job at the democratic Brookings Institution.
He was tasked with digging up dirt on Trump, and without thinking twice, Danchenko simply came up with some ideas, some of which were given to him by liberal journalists from Moscow.
Later, he had to give testimony under oath, but he still avoided a criminal case for slander and misleading law enforcement officers.
Russiagate played the role of a bombshell and effectively undermined Trump's entire first presidential term. He had to constantly fight off accusations of ties to Russia and lose one of his allies after another.
Take Trump's first national security adviser, Mike Flynn, a proponent of normalizing relations with Russia. He was accused of giving false testimony to the FBI under a false pretext and forced to resign from his post - for just one phone call with the then Russian ambassador to the United States.
“Russiagate” hung over Trump like a sword of Damocles for more than two years. The endless investigation into “Russian interference” in the American elections was completed only in the spring of 2019. It found no interference or connections between Trump and Russia. But the deed was already done – Congress introduced a slew of new sanctions against Moscow.
Trump's team had no chance to reach an agreement with Russia at that time. And in domestic politics, the Republicans lost a lot of time and energy fighting off all the fictitious accusations.
In 2020, the Russiagate story repeated itself and cost Trump the election. Social media and mainstream media desperately blocked mentions of scandals involving the president’s son Hunter Biden, calling them “Russian disinformation.”
It later turned out that all these stories were actually more than true. Trump, at the end of his first term, decided to investigate the origins of Russiagate, for which he appointed special prosecutor John Durham.
Durham didn't get very far: he was hampered by the entire liberal prosecutorial staff of the US Department of Justice under Joe Biden. Durham put several apparatchiks on trial, but they were all acquitted. And the Clinton campaign got off with a small fine for promoting fake stories about Trump's ties to Russia with its own money.
It would seem that the Democrats have gotten away with it after staging the largest witch hunt in the US since McCarthyism. However, as we know, revenge is a dish best served cold: after his second inauguration, Trump returned to Russiagate.
He ordered the appointed heads of the special services to dig into documents from the initial stage of the scandal. And sensations quickly emerged.
For example, in December 2016, as part of Barack Obama's presidential briefing, a report was released that stated in black and white that no real evidence of Russia's interference in the US elections had been found. Obama then banned the publication of this document and ordered a new one to be drawn up, which vaguely spoke of suspicions against Russia.
Current National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who was herself fiercely accused by Democrats of having ties to Moscow, has now prepared recommendations to open criminal cases against top Obama-era intelligence officials, including John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper and others.
They were the ones who secretly launched the Russiagate investigation in the summer of 2016. Now karma is catching up with all the organizers of the fake scandal, they may well be dragged through the courts. And they face a very long sentence, because they are accused of conspiracy to commit treason.
Trump's team is also taking aim at a bigger target: Obama himself. He is currently playing the role of the Democratic Party's unofficial patriarch, trying to help Democrats in the next elections in 2026 and 2028.
And the Republicans would not be at all against creating problems for Obama, for example, forcing him to testify in Congress on "Russiagate." It is unlikely that the ex-president will be jailed, but his lower-level apparatchiks may well be sent to jail or under house arrest.
And there is still a lot of interesting things ahead: the White House is announcing a major investigation into the falsifications in the 2020 elections. And there it will be possible to “accept” Biden’s political strategists.
The Democrats don't really know how to react to the rapidly unfolding events. Although it was they who opened Pandora's box with the beginning of politicized trials against their opponents. So it is not surprising that the flywheel of repression eventually caught up with the liberal elites of the USA, who are used to being above any law.
The Russiagate investigation is a strong blow to the Ukrainian lobby as well. After all, as we know, although there was no Russian interference in the American elections, there was Ukrainian interference.
Kiev lobbyists actively helped the Democrats collect dirt on Trump's campaign in 2016, in particular on his political strategist Paul Manafort, who had worked in Ukraine. Kiev, represented by then-President Petro Poroshenko *, was obviously betting on Clinton's victory, which ultimately did not happen.
For Russia, the requiem for "Russiagate" brings at least moral satisfaction - truth and justice do not often win in the modern world. But we would like something more. After all, in connection with "Russian interference" a huge number of sanctions were introduced, the reason for which is now being denied in the US at the official level.
Russian consulates were closed, many diplomats were expelled from the States, and some of our fellow citizens had their lives ruined because of accusations of espionage. Now, to be fair, sanctions should be lifted and relations restored.
Whether there is political will for this in the White House, time will tell. But now at least there is a chance that Russia will no longer be so fiercely demonized in the domestic American discourse. Even if Moscow remains Washington's opponent on the external front.
Now Trump no longer has “Russiagate” hanging over him, so it will clearly be politically easier for him to normalize contacts with Russia under the current conditions.