Russian Collusion between Democrats( Leftists) and Soviet Union/Russia

The Democrat ( Leftists) have colluded with Soviets/Russians for years. the Leftist Media does not Report this because it dos not support their agenda. The Elimination of a Constitutional Republic called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! 

 

 Here is evidence!

1) KGB Memo – Senator Ted Kennedy – Democrats

 

All the prior shenanigans of the 2016 Presidential election beg a look back. As to how far the Democrats are willing to go to foil and disrupt an election, an election as important as the ultimate prize, President of the United States.
Senator Ted Kennedy wanted to diffuse the arms race and run for President in 1984 against Ronald Reagan. Is this real collusion or not? There is no doubt in my mind at least that if Kennedy had been the Democratic nominee and beat out Reagan in 1984, there would still be a Soviet Union today along with the Warsaw Pact; Warsaw Pact countries that are free today as independent nations. The Berlin Wall would have never come down for East Berliners and the old Warsaw Pact countries would still be living under Communist tyranny today.

State Emblem of the Soviet Union

KGB Symbol

Before getting to the text about Kennedy contacting the Russians, what or better yet, who is the KGB (1954-1991)?  A short description may help us understand who they are – “Its main functions were foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, operative-investigatory activities, guarding the State Border of the USSR, guarding the leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government, organization and ensuring of government communications as well as combating nationalism, dissent, and anti-Soviet activities.”

FSB

Today the KGB was replaced with the FSB— Its main responsibilities are within the country. It does counter-intelligence, internal and border security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance.^[2] It also investigates some other types of serious crimes. Its headquarter is in Lubyanka Square, Moscow’s centre, in the main building of the former KGB. The Director of the FSB since 2008 is army general Aleksandr Bortnikov. Not much difference except the name has changed.
Now, what was Senator Ted Kennedy a Democrat doing, one who many considered ‘The Lion of The Senate”, up to as this KGB information indicates, if it is in fact true and I’ll bet the CIA knows one way or the other—
KGB MEMO ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY
_________________________________________
Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow 
Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov 
Comrade Y.V. Andropov 
On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov. 
Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. 
According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.” 
Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop. 
The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength. 
However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals. 
Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov: 
1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. 
If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. 
Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.) 
2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.
If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side. 
Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration. 
Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples. 
The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney. 
Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan. 
We await instructions. 
President of the committee
V. Chebrikov

_________________________________________

Now that we know that Fusion GPS was a go-between for the DNC to do what they call operation research, you know, the kind that included a false Dossier on Donald Trump’s campaign and the set-up with Trump Jr. luring him to sit down with the Russians over some Clinton information, which there was none, it was all just a set-up. A set-up to make it look more like what the Democrats were saying openly had to be true in order to ensure Clinton won the 2016 election.
It appears now all this fake collusion business was to stop President Trump’s agenda if he just happens to win, which of course he did. The American people have caught on and in particular many are upset with the Republicans’ in Congress for sitting on their hands about the fake “collusion business”. Besides Trump is an outsider anyway, not part of the “good ole boys club” and they would rather see the American people suffer than to do the right thing thus blaming Trump for it.

2) MANY OF YOU MAY NOT CONNECT THE DOTS FROM THIS HOT MIKE EXCHANGE.. WHEN OBAMA WAS CAUGHT TELLING MEDVEDEV THAT HE WOULD HAVE MORE "FLEXIBILITY" AFTER HIS 2012 ELECTION!

Ever ask yourself what Obama was being Flexible about ?? What did he do to appease the Russians?

Obama Offered Deal to Russia in Secret Letter
sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran. Russia’s military, diplomatic and commercial ties to Tehran give it some influence there, but it has often resisted Washington’s hard line against Iran.

“It’s almost saying to them, put up or shut up,” said a senior administration official. “It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and therefore you have to suspend.’ It says the threat has to go away.”

On Tuesday, a press secretary for Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Interfax news agency that the letter did not contain any “specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

Natalya Timakova said the letter was a reply to one sent by Mr. Medvedev shortly after Mr. Obama was elected.

“Medvedev appreciated the promptness of the reply and the positive spirit of the message,” Ms. Timakova said. “Obama’s letter contains various proposals and assessments of the current situation. But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

She said Mr. Medvedev perceives the development of Russian-American relations as “exceptionally positive,” and hopes details can be fleshed out at a meeting on Friday in Geneva between Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

DID HE ?    YES HE DID

Obama abandons missile defence shield in Europe 

 Obama has abandoned the controversial Pentagon plan to build a missile defence system in Europe that had long soured relations with Russia.

In one of the sharpest breaks yet with the policies of the Bush administration, Obama said the new approach would offer "stronger, swifter and smarter" defence for the US and its allies. He said it would focus on the threat posed by Iran's short- and medium-range missiles, rather than its intercontinental nuclear capabilities.
Obama announced the reversal officially at a news conference today. "This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems to offer greater defences to the threat of attack than the 2007 European missile defence programme," he said.
He phoned the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic last night to tell them he had dropped plans to site missile interceptors and a radar station in their respective countries. Russia had furiously opposed the project, claiming it targeted Moscow's nuclear arsenal.
The change of tack had been prompted by advances in missile technology and new intelligence about Iran's existing missile capabilities, Obama said.
The US president said "updated intelligence" on Iran's existing short- and medium-range missiles showed they were "capable of reaching Europe". He added that the US would continue its efforts to end Iranian attempts to develop an "illicit nuclear programme".
He said: "To put it simply our new missile defence architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, swifter defences of American forces and America's allies."
During a visit to Moscow in July Obama indicated he was ordering a 60-day review of the scheme. According to today's Wall Street Journal, the findings, to be released next week, conclude that Iran's long-range missile programme is progressing more slowly than previously thought. Citing US officials, the paper said the White House believes Iran's short to medium-range programme poses a more potent and immediate danger.
In his press conference today, Obama made a point of rejecting Russia's objections to the missile defence shield. "Its concerns about our previous missile defence programmes were entirely unfounded," he said.
The Russian response suggested Obama's decision would not be met by any swift or generous concessions. A foreign ministry spokesman, Andrei Nesterenko, described the move as "obviously a positive sign for us" but made clear the decision had been a unilateral one taken by Washington alone. He suggested there had been no deals with Moscow on Iran or other issues. "That would disagree with our policy of resolution of any problems in relations with any countries, no matter how difficult or sensitive they may be."
The US decision will cheer many in government in western Europe who believed the scheme was an unnecessary provocation to the Russians. But today the Czech Republic and Poland expressed disappointment at the White House's decision to reverse track after six years of difficult negotiations. Senior sources in Warsaw and Prague said they would insist on the Americans honouring pledges they made to the Nato allies in return for agreeing last year to the plan for missile defence deployments.
Alexandr Vondra, a former Czech deputy prime minister and ambassador to Washington intimately involved in the negotiations with the Americans, said he was surprised. "This is a U-turn in US policy," he said. "But first we expect the US to honour its commitments. If they don't they may have problems generating support for Afghanistan and on other things."
Under the Bush administration the Pentagon spent years planning and negotiating to place 10 silos with interceptor rockets in northern Poland and to build a large radar station south of Prague to defend against a perceived ballistic missile threat from Iran.
The central European countries were keen to acquire the US installations and other military hardware as partial security guarantees against a resurgent Russia. Moscow claimed the project was aimed against Russia and threatened to deploy short-range nuclear weapons in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which sits inside the European Union.
Obama's climbdown is likely to be seen by Russia as a victory for its uncompromising stance.
Today, however, analysts pointed out the decision would help Obama secure Moscow's co-operation on a possible new sanctions package against Iran and would further his desire to "reset" relations with Moscow following a dismal period under the Bush administration.
It would significantly boost the chances of a new treaty on strategic nuclear arms reduction between Washington and Moscow, they said. Both the US and Russia have agreed to come up with a successor treaty to Start 1 by December, when the current agreement expires.
"Hardliners in Russia don't want an agreement on Start. It will be very difficult now for Russia to avoid an agreement," said Ruben Sergeyev, a defence analyst in Moscow. "It [the decision to drop the US shield] creates a very positive ambience, despite the fact it was really an artificial thing."
The decision strengthens Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, who is due to make his first presidential trip to the US next week for the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh. The Obama administration has been keen to boost Medvedev's standing and authority at home, seeing him as a more moderate and less hostile interlocutor than Putin.
Today the Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said Obama's decision was "a positive step". Rasmussen said he had been briefed by the US envoy to Nato about it.
But the timing of the announcement is regarded as disastrous by the Poles. Eugeniusz Smolar, a former chief of Warsaw's Centre for International Relations, said: "We are disappointed." But he added that the Polish government had been assured by the Americans that promises of training with Patriot missile batteries and help in modernising the Polish military remained valid.
A few weeks ago, in a cri de coeur to Washington, several senior eastern European officials and public figures wrote a public letter to Obama complaining that their security interests were being ignored by the west to improve relations with Moscow.
Rasmussen, in his first big speech, is to call tomorrow for a new relationship between the western military alliance and Russia, taking more account of Moscow's security and strategic interests.
Russian experts said Obama's decision could only be seen as an unambiguous concession to Moscow, adding that it would severely disappoint the new Nato countries of eastern Europe. Yevgeny Miasnikov, a senior research scientist at Moscow's Centre for Arms Control, said the US administration would now consider ways of assuaging the Poles and Czechs, which might include providing Poland with Patriot interceptors capable of shooting down short- and medium-range missiles.
"Obama has taken a step in the direction of improving US-Russian relations. This will definitely help build a partnership," Miasnikov said. "Russia will also now make some concessions, maybe on strategic talks over nuclear arms reduction or maybe over Iran.
"Moscow will try to catalyse the process of improving US-Iranian relations and will facilitate dialogue between the two sides. I don't think threatening Iran is the way to solve this problem."

COLLUSION  WITH RUSSIA?
Then he worked with Hillary Clinton to give Russia 20% of US Uranium. Why ? How Naive can you be ? If US Uranium shows up in a Suitcase bomb.. that Russia give to a 3rd party Rouge regime or Actor... the bomb signature will show US Uranium and so we will not be able to blame other countries!

Remember this..

              

What were they resetting?
  They were setting up the sale of Uranium to The Russians...
Robert Mueller Conspired with Hillary Obama Gang. Was a Secret Paid Uranium Mule..
Julian Assange at WikiLeaks has exposed a 2009 State Department cable to the Russians raises fresh questions about the objectivity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller (shown), the man named to investigate any possible “collusions” between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the Russians.
In 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed FBI Director Mueller to deliver a sample of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to Russia. The uranium had reportedly been stolen. It seems particularly odd, considering that the FBI is not under the supervision of the State Department, and that the FBI director would personally make the transfer.

Assange released the controversial cable on May 17, the same day that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tapped Mueller as an “independent” counsel to investigate any supposed Trump-Russian ties. 
Obama and Hillary conspired on their secret email server to sell 20% of US URANIUM to the Russians..  
Click below for details

https://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2018/02/robert-mueller-conspired-with-hillary.html

HERE is STATE DEPT (under HRC) cable documenting MUELLER secret squirrel TRAITOR mission to MOSCOW on Sept 21 2009 to DELIVER URANIUM to Russia 

Mueller’s Role in Delivering Uranium to Russians Raises Questions. HE WAS THE CLINTON OBAMA URANIUM MULE

 

5 Times The Obama Administration Helped Russia At The United States’ Expense

If Russian President Vladimir Putin really did think a Donald Trump presidency would be good for Russia, the first year of that presidency must be quite the disappointment. There has been no indication that the Trump administration’s policies are influenced by Russian preferences.
Perhaps that’s why some found interesting a recent Daily Beast article claiming Trump National Security Council senior staffer Kevin Harrington recommended withdrawing U.S. troops from Eastern Europe to curry favor with Russia. This, the article states, was “something that smelled, to a colleague, like a return on Russia’s election-time investment in President Trump.”
Sure, it’s the speculation of an anonymous source, but it would be bad, if true. Then the article goes on to say a second anonymous former colleague “noted that Harrington’s proposal was largely politely brushed aside, even at the uniquely chaotic early days of the Trump era.” Oh.
Yes, that was a horrible, dangerous, unbelievably stupid idea. It was also rejected. It never approached the possibility that it could become a reality—unlike all the times people in the Obama administration had ideas about capitulating to the Russians and then those ideas becoming reality.
Here are just five times the Obama administration considered then carried out bad policies that helped Russia and hurt the United States.
1. Choked at Russia’s Cyberattacks and Election Meddling
While there is no evidence that anything Russian efforts did affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, the intelligence community assesses Russia interfered in the months leading up to it to sow public discord and undermine confidence in the democratic process. The Obama administration knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people.
In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. In a hearing on the subject, Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff asked Obama Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, “Why wasn’t it more important to tell the American people the length and breadth of what the Russians were doing to interfere in an election than any risk that it might be seen as putting your hand on the scale? Didn’t the public have a compelling need to know?”
Indeed. Even Tom Donilon, a former Obama national security advisor, argues Obama should have made “aggressive public attribution” that Russia was responsible, long before the administration did.
Then there was all that Russian hacking that went on throughout the Obama presidency. The Russians pilfered American intellectual property and attacked private companies, Nasdaq, and banks, as well as government agencies, including the Pentagon.
2. Abdicated Leadership on Syria to Russia
The Islamic Republic of Iran funds and exports terrorism that has directly led to the deaths of American soldiers. Syria is a proxy state of Iran, and in 2011 an uprising challenged its brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad. In 2015 President Obama drew his infamous red line, threatening a U.S. military response if Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrian people.
Later that year, Assad used chemical weapons, killing more than 1,500 people. President Obama failed to enforce the red line, instead choosing to accept a deal with Russia to “remove” all of Syria’s chemical weapons. After some of the chemical weapons were removed, President Obama declared victory, saying, “American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated.”
Months later, Secretary of State John Kerry boasted, “We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.” That was false. Assad continued to use chemical weapons against his own people. According to former Obama administration officials, Obama’s failure to punish Assad and enforce prohibitions on chemical weapons was directly due to his administration’s desire to assuage Russia, Syria’s—and Iran’s—ally.
3. Cancelled U.S. Missile Defenses In Eastern Europe
Russia’s government strongly opposed Bush administration plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. The pretext for their disapproval was that the system would weaken the effect of the Russian offensive force.
This was always nonsense. The defenses’ 10 interceptors and associated radar could not handle the massive offensive Russian force. The plan was to deploy the system to provide additional coverage of the U.S. homeland and European allies from Iranian long-range ballistic missiles. The placement in Poland provided an optimal angle from which to shoot at any incoming missiles. Russians actually opposed this because it would entail placing U.S. forces in Poland.
It took courage from the Polish and Czech governments to stick their necks out and push for these deployments, knowing it would anger the Russian government. This is why the missile defense initiative took on a greater political significance beyond the mere technical protection it would offer. Then in 2009, just as President Obama was kicking off his “Russia reset,” he pulled the rug out from under the Poles and Czechs and cancelled the missile defense plan.
Polish newspapers called the decision a betrayal and some Polish politicians wondered publicly if the United States under President Obama’s leadership was demoting Poland’s allied status. In 2012, still smarting over the cancellation, Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski said, “Our mistake was that by accepting the American offer of a shield we failed to take into account the political risk associated with a change of president… We paid a high political price.” Jan Vidim, a Czech lawmaker, told the Associated Press, “If the Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it.”
Obama defenders will dispute this and argue the cancelation was due to the missile defense system’s ineffectiveness or that the administration merely wanted a different kind of missile defense architecture. WikiLeaks released the State Department cables in 2010, revealing that appeasing Russia was a motivator for canceling the plan with Poland.
But President Obama wasn’t done using missile defense as a negotiating chip with the Russians. Three years later the infamous “hot mic” incident occurred when President Obama met then Russian President Medvedev and was caught asking Medvedev to communicate to Putin, then prime minister, that he should give Obama “space” on “all these issues, but particularly missile defense” until after the U.S. presidential election, because once he had the headache of the American peoples’ wishes behind him, he’d have “more flexibility.” You can watch and listen to the exchange here.
4. Allowed Russia to Sell S-300 Air Defenses to Iran
Should the United States or Israel decide it is in their interest to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, the Iranians wouldn’t have a robust air defense system to shoot down the attacking aircraft. Unless, of course, the Russians sold the powerful S-300 air defense system to the Iranians, which they did.
The United States firmly opposed and prevented the Russians from doing this for years, threatening sanctions if they so dared. But in pursuit of the Iran deal, in 2010 the Obama administration opted not to prohibit the Russian sale of the S-300s to Iran. The Russians delivered the systems to Iran and Iran promptly deployed them around its nuclear facility at Fordow. The Obama administration declined to impose sanctions on Russia despite its clear violation of laws that opposed the move.
5. Ignored Russia’s Treaty Violations
U.S. congressmen from both parties grew increasingly frustrated when repeatedly seeking answers from the Obama administration over reports that Russia was violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, negotiated by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, that abolished an entire class of missiles. In 2014 the Obama administration finally publicly admitted that Russia had been violating the treaty as early as 2008.
What made this episode especially maddening was that the Obama administration negotiated yet another arms-control treaty with the Russians, the New START Treaty, and rushed it through the Senate, all while Russia was cheating on INF and appearing to keep this violation from Congress. (By the way, Russia is still cheating.)
So far, the Trump administration has been moving forward with a variety of initiatives that would strengthen U.S. security despite Russian objections. This includes its energy policy, arming Ukraine, rolling back Iran’s influence, investing in U.S. military preparedness, and significantly improving the U.S. nuclear deterrent and missile defense system.
The Trump administration should keep this up, and if it starts to do otherwise, it deserves every bit of criticism and condemnation from both ends of the political spectrum that is likely to follow. Thankfully, it certainly seems as though the policy of Russian appeasement ended with Trump’s predecessor’s second term.

SO YOU TELL ME WHO HAS COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS AND THE SOVIETS?

They are trying t bring down The CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND THEY ARE HIDING THE TRUTH !!

Democratic ties to Russia are ample, and often ethically Crooked!

Here are just a few examples:
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner (D-Va.), had extensive contact with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch to help connect with the author of the anti-Trump “dossier.” Warner reportedly texted at the time that he didn’t wish to “leave a paper trail.” Warner allegedly waited six months before disclosing the contacts to the committee, which is investigating Russia matters. 
The anti-Trump “dossier” that the FBI secretly used to justify wiretaps on a Trump adviser was compiled by a man at a political opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, who relied on and quoted Russian sources who are close to President Putin.
According to anonymous intel officials quoted in the New York Times, U.S. intelligence officials made a deal with Russians who offered unverified, compromising material on Trump.
A Washington lobbying/consulting firm, the Podesta Group, founded by Obama adviser and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and his brother, lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, owned by the government (or, as you like, President Putin). John’s brother, Tony, also lobbied for Ukrainian interests (reportedly in partnership with Trump associates Manafort and Gates). John Podesta left the firm years ago; Tony stepped down last November amid controversy over the lobbying. He has not been charged with any crimes.
The Podesta Group also represented Russia-owned Uranium One, which received approval from a federal oversight board that included the State Department under Hillary Clinton to buy about one-fifth of the U.S. production capacity of uranium, a key material for making nuclear weapons.
Uranium One interests reportedly contributed $145 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation.
Former Sens. John Breaux (D-La.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) lobbied for Russia’s banking giant, Gazprombank, owned by Putin’s government.
The lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), engaged with a Russian caller posing as a Ukrainian contact offering Russian blackmail material against President Trump. Afterward, Schiff made arrangements for his staff to try to collect the material. It turns out the caller was a Russian radio-host spoofer. Schiff has said he was not really fooled by the call.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.),  and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also reportedly engaged in conversations with Russian comedians who posed as Ukrainian officials.
McCain secretly delivered to the FBI a copy of the anti-Trump “dossier” opposition research, which quoted Russian sources.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign funded the anti-Trump “dossier” that relied on Russian sources, who were close to Kremlin officials.