Democrats launch delusional ‘Moscow Project’ to ‘uncover the truth’ about Trump and Russia
Have you been suffering sleepless nights over Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia? Have you been fearing for the future of American democracy? Have you been wishing there was something you could do to help get to the bottom of all this?
Well, worry no more. One Washington-based liberal think tank has heeded your pleas for action.
The Center For American Progress (CFAP) Action Fund has launched ‘The Moscow Project’ to help “uncover the truth” about Trump’s ties to the Kremlin. In particular, they want you (yes, you) to help verify claims made in the infamous Trump/Russia dossier published by BuzzFeed in January.
“By scouring the internet to investigate allegations, donating to fund our research, or sharing our findings on Twitter and Facebook, you can help uncover the truth about Trump and Russia,” the website’s landing page explains.
That’s right. The Democrats, through their CFAP action fund, are essentially trying to crowd-source an investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with the Russian government by encouraging random people to “annotate” an already widelydiscredited document full of wild and unverifiable claims.
So, what’s a concerned citizen to do? Simply “create an account, highlight a portion of the dossier’s text, and add a comment that includes corroborating evidence” — and bingo. If they think your “evidence” seems reliable, they’ll publish it. It’s that easy.
If, however, you’re among the few liberals left in America unconvinced that you possess evidence of Trump’s status as a long-time Russian agent, you can simply choose to make a financial contribution to the project instead. After all, “the American people need answers” and “without your donations” we’ll never get to the bottom of this never-ending saga of treachery and treason.
Liberal establishment betting everything on Cold War xenophobia https://t.co/8WZhGtwUbQ— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) March 23, 2017
For the confused among you, the think tank has helpfully added a timeline of events and incidents that reveal “a troubling pattern of alignment” between the American president and Russian officials. Like, for example, the scandalous fact that you can buy Trump vodka in Moscow — and the wholly unexpected and deeply troubling revelation that when Trump visited Russia in 2013, he was found to be in contact with actual Russian people. He even tried on a traditional Russian ushanka hat.
Another helpful aspect of the site is the “players” section, where readers can peruse the biographies of all the people mixed up in the scandal, sorted according to importance and marked with little American or Russian flags to indicate their nationality. The use of the Cyrillic letter “Щ” to replace the “W” in Moscow is also a nice touch. A subtle reminder to patriotic Americans that the Russkies remain enemy number one.
The only thing missing is some light balalaika music playing automatically in the background — and maybe a flashing red hammer and sickle. Then again, the latter was utilized fairly well already by the Progress For USA (PAC) when they launched their pre-election “Putin-Trump project” as the go-to source for information on the “unprecedented ties” between Trump and the Kremlin.
I was going to say you really couldn’t make this stuff up, but apparently you can; Russia-related conspiracies and subsequent amateur “investigations” into them have become quite the little cottage industry.
The Moscow Project is headed by Max Bergmann, who, rather ironically, was a former speechwriter for John Kerry at a time when Kerry was mocking Republicans for promoting the “preposterous notion” that Russia was the US’ main geopolitical foe. Ah, how quickly things change. Mitt Romney, Kerry said at the time, talks “like he’s only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.”
Fast forward a couple of years and the entire Democratic Party is talking like their only point of reference on Russia is Red Dawn.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.