By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In an attempt to distract from the Epstein case, Trump and his allies are using the declassified “Durham Annex” to allege Democratic misconduct related to the Russia investigation. The annex, which was released at the request of Senator Chuck Grassley, was touted as evidence that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to smear Trump with Russia collusion. However, the annex, in fact, appears to suggest that the “evidence” being touted as proof of conspiracies was fabricated by Russian intelligence. This diversion tactic, similar to the Durham investigation’s broader aim, is a way for Trump to redirect attention away from his own scandals, even if the claims prove to be false.
Read the original article here
MAGA’s New Russiagate ‘Evidence’ Likely Made Up by the Kremlin
The core of the matter appears to be this: the emergence of “new” Russiagate evidence, pushed by MAGA supporters, is very likely manufactured by the Kremlin. This is a consistent theme, repeated across various points, and the prevailing sentiment is one of deep skepticism. There’s a strong belief that this new information is not only false but also intentionally designed to distract from more serious issues. The Epstein files and allegations surrounding Donald Trump are prominently mentioned as the true targets of these distraction tactics.
It’s not just about doubting the veracity of the “evidence.” The narrative suggests a pattern. It highlights the recurring presence of Russia in the origin of these claims, echoing a familiar script of disinformation and interference. This goes beyond mere skepticism; it points to a deliberate strategy of sowing confusion and distrust. A key example provided references Tulsi Gabbard. The allegation is that the new evidence is framed around her comments regarding the 2020 election. This is seen as part of a larger effort to muddy the waters and deflect blame from the real issues, most notably the Epstein scandal.
The repeated calls to “Release the Epstein files” underscore the public’s perceived priority. The Epstein files and allegations are presented as facts and are the focus of the conversation. The emphasis on those files creates a sense of outrage, frustration, and a desire for accountability. This frustration seems to have been fueled by a belief that the “new evidence” is merely a smokescreen, designed to protect those implicated in the Epstein affair.
The general feeling, as expressed, is one of distrust. There’s an open admission that certain political groups would rather promote made-up stories. The comments point to an electorate that seems to be indifferent to the truth.
The implication is clear: this is a coordinated effort to protect Trump and his allies, with Russian disinformation as a key component. This perception is so pervasive that many people appear to be more inclined to believe foreign sources before their own intelligence agencies.
There’s also a strong sense of disappointment in the media. The comments lament the lack of trustworthy and competent reporting, suggesting that this makes it easier for disinformation to spread and influence public opinion. This lack of trust in the media further fuels the skepticism surrounding the new “evidence,” and the belief that it is meant to manipulate the public.
The conversation also touches upon the political context of this manufactured evidence. The comments suggest that the Republican Party, including the GOP, might be complicit in spreading disinformation, as well as questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court, which is a major concern. The underlying message, is that the “evidence” is merely a tactic in the political battlefield.
Overall, the article underscores the prevailing belief that the new “Russiagate evidence” is likely a Kremlin-manufactured distraction tactic designed to protect Trump and his allies. It points to a wider issue of disinformation, media distrust, and the political implications of these tactics.