Featured Post

An American Coup D'etat?

This has gotten completely out of control. I never thought I would see our country's politics reduced to the degrading levels of a Banan...

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Russia Hoax: Coming to an End

At long last, Mueller has submitted his report to the AG on his 22-month investigation into the nonsensical Trump-Putin collusion story--a story the DNC and the Clinton campaign invented with the support of senior Obama officials, as this little blog said oh so long ago, e.g., here and here.

In the second of those referenced ancient posts (March 17, 2017) I noted,
The Dems claim that Trump is in bed with the Russians; Trump denies it and countercharges that the Dems had him under surveillance. We have here a problem. If the Dems have official intel on Trump's connections with Russia, how did they get it? Presumably from the official intel services which then it would appear were monitoring Russian contacts with Trump's people. If there was no surveillance order given to US intel, from where did the intel on Russian contacts come? The British is apparently the Trump answer. I have a more plausible one. I think there was surveillance of Russian activity, probably by the NSA, and it found nothing to show that Trump had contacts with the Russians; the Obamistas and the Clintonistas then made up the accounts of Russian interference. In other words, they lied. That's the most charitable explanation I can develop. There, of course, are harsher ones which I hope are not accurate, ones that would show, once again, Obama's misuse of the nation's intel and enforcement capabilities.
That pretty much covered it.

Other Diploposts noted that the nonsensical Trump-Putin story would and did prevent us from cooperating with Russia where we could, e.g., here and here, making our fight against Islamic terror and countering the rise of the PRC all that more difficult.

It appears that Mueller has recommended no further indictments. Many on the right have taken that to mean Trump's vindicated, that the left must throw in the towel. Victory!

I urge a little more caution. The left seeks to undermine this presidency, destroy Trump and his family, and completely discredit anybody who has supported him, regardless of what that does to the country. That determination remains a constant.

Furthermore, none of us has seen the report, or knows how Mueller will phrase his conclusions/recommendations. Will he say, as he should, that he undertook a massive waste of time, for which we spent nearly $26 million, and tore apart the country for nothing? I doubt that very much. He might say, that well, he has no ability to go further with the investigation for this or that reason, and recommends handing off portions of it to other prosecutors. He might also go full reptile and state that there was collusion but it does not rise to the level of prosecution, but maybe Congress should consider impeachment, or any number of variations on that theme.

I don't see the effort at destruction, of canceling the 2016 election results, coming to an end.

Let's wait before we do the touchdown victory dance.

23 comments:

  1. "I also noted that the nonsensical Trump-Putin story was preventing us from cooperating with Russia where we could, e.g., here and here, making our fight against Islamic terror and countering the rise of the PRC all that much more difficult."

    In more civilized times, such a co-ordinated and sustained campaign would have been correctly labeled TREASON; with all the interesting consequences to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Let's wait before we do the touchdown victory dance."

    Victories will be few and far between in this century, but there will be survivors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the recap Mr. Dip!
    So here we/I stand, John Q. pondering, after 2 years of watching the diseased anti-American Leftist and pseudo-Centrist organs, agencies, and corrupt institutions of the American Government, execute a Deep-Dark slow-motion snake-like Coup D'état against a dually elected POTUS and Commander-in-Chief! And the stinking SNAKE/s is/are NOT dead yet! Muleler and Barr had better be very careful how they play through the end game! The question remains "WHO DO WE TRUST"! Or maybe who can we trust, or, who should we trust?! A wise way of thinking, based on past public performances, and NONE of the sons-a-bitches including the bitches w/or without balls, who BO and Cadre seduced, poisoned and empowered! Let's Face It, if the SOB doesn't have a current signed,sealed and delivered POTUS/CinC issued Carte-Blanche, he/she should NOT be trusted with affairs of State, National or Local! THIS MEANS YOU ---> 'rats, rinos, and other domestic or imported beasties aka POS!
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't believe they've been able to prevent leaks for this long. Heard rumor can't confirm that nyt has it. It doesn't look good for Democratic interests.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe the hidden reason for the Mueller probe might have been to create an air of investigation fatigue which would then allow all the Clinton/Obama wrongdoing to be ignored by the American public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More on this: “https://fletchcast.blogspot.com/2019/03/investigation-fatigue.html”

      Delete
  6. Will he say, as he should, that he undertook a massive waste of time, for which we spent nearly $26 million, and tore apart the country for nothing?

    37 entities were indicted in the Mueller investigation, and there have been several convictions. By comparison, there were perhaps 20 entities indicted in the six-year investigation into the Clintons. So, not nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '37 is more than 20' and >O'...opined The Uni-browed Left'O Prog arse wipe, as some brown snuff fell from his overworked snoot~~~
      Chief hOWlin Woof reported~~~

      Delete
    2. Yes of course One Brow there are all of those "indictments & [some] convictions" but what are we to make of the particulars?

      ‘Collusion’ not being subject to statute Mueller’s possible statutory remedies: 18 U.S.C. §371; §462; §953; Conspiracy (possibly some others BUT moot now)

      Manafort - 22 U.S.C. § 611 violation: 7.5 years in a Federal institution. Credited time served.

      Richard Pinedo – Identity Fraud: 6 months Federal incarceration & 6 months home confinement.

      Alex van der Zwaan § 1001 violation: sentenced to 30 days low security Federal institution then deported.

      George Papadopoulos § 1001 violation: sentenced to 14 days low security Federal institution.

      Michael Flynn § 1001 violation – Mueller sentence recommendation “little to no time.”

      W. Samuel Patten – Pled to 22 U.S.C. § 611 violation: Sentence to be determined.

      Rick Gates – Pled to § 1001 violation: Sentence to be determined.

      Michael Cohen – Pled to § 1001 violation: Sentence to be determined.

      Roger Stone – Indicted: Presumption of Innocence.

      Various Russian Nationals – Indicted: Presumption of Innocence.

      Three Russia based commercial entities – Indicted: Presumption of Innocence.

      *Also I'd argue it is incorrect to say, "indicted in the Mueller investigation" but rather more accurate to state, "indicted in other jurisdictions for crimes uncovered as a result of the Mueller investigations"

      But of course One Brow you may quibble - Quibble away.

      JK

      Delete
    3. Not one, not ONE American was indicted much less convicted for "collusion" with Russia. Some 26 of those indictments were of Russian bots who will never face justice; a joke. A bad joke. It was a fraud.

      Delete
    4. DiploMad,

      How many times have I heard from right-wingers that collusion is not a crime? I've lost count. Are you now saying it was a crime?

      JK,

      After that long list of quibbling, why would I need to compete? Although, since we recently impeached a President for lying under oath, I'm a little surprised you take it so lightly.

      Delete
    5. One Brow, You continue with your classic inability to make sense. Gotta work on your English language and cognitive skills.

      Delete
    6. DiploMad,

      Which was the hard part to understand?

      If collusion is not a crime, how can anyone be indicted for it? JK asked what we are to make of the particulars, as if they were minor offenses, but one of those minor offenses was impeachable for Clinton.

      While I frequently have typos in my comments, I didn't notice any here.

      Perhaps it's just that I am a lib/prog, and therefore requiring being owned.

      Delete
  7. Affirm George!
    BUT! The USA surely does not need to Sweep the DemoCrap socio-progressive waste under the Rug! Break-out the NEW broom and sweep out every corner--nook'n'cranny! Followed by a double application by trainloads of disinfectant, and fleets of garbage trucks to haul the mountain of anti-American TRASH products into environmentally approved plastic-lined concrete covered LANDFILLSs! With Maximum Security Prisons on top, as the secure housing for any surviving treasonous residue. That is, the identified, charged, prosecuted, and sentenced Anti-Constitutionalist Biologicals! We the people might even elect to call such primary 'sanitation sanitariums' the " DONALD TRUMP MAGA MEMORIAL PARKS and PRISONS":A Place Where America Stored WW-3~~~
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"

    ReplyDelete
  8. My esteemed Diplomad said: "Many on the right have taken that to mean Trump's vindicated, that the left must throw in the towel. Victory!"

    Trump IS vindicated. There are NO indictments! Does anyone really think that swamp rat Mueller would have not charged Trump or anyone in his family if he had ANYTHING? He's got nothing, nada, zip!

    If he was an honest man he would've said so long ago, and concluded his witch hunt, but he isn't and he didn't. This is the same attorney who so badly screwed up the Anthrax case that not only was no one convicted, but the poor chap who Mueller falsely charged was awarded $8.5M by a jury because of the hell Mueller had put him through! But even this partisan witchhunter couldn't find anything that would stick, and that IS a victory!

    It means Donald J. Trump is the cleanest and most honest President we've had, probably since Washington! Let's not forget that the Democrats have accused Trump of being a traitor in thrall to the Russians, who was supposed to have "stolen the election." This can't be dismissed with a "oh shucks, sorry we were wrong." They accused our President of TREASON. This is a false accusation; their intent was to overthrow our government; they planned- and almost accomplished- a COUP!

    Now I hope that justice will begin, and that the real malefactors are exposed, indicted, convicted, and I would very much like to see them hang for their crimes!

    Mark Levin has a great speech, >10 min long, over at the Treehouse; I'd recommend it to everyone. In it, he says many things, among them is this jewel: "There is no such crime as collusion, and if there was then nobody did it."

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/03/24/mark-levin-discusses-mueller-report-and-media-role-in-perpetrating-false-russia-collusion-story/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Trump IS vindicated. There are NO indictments! Does anyone really think that swamp rat Mueller would have not charged Trump or anyone in his family if he had ANYTHING?

    Justice Department policy forbids indictment of a sitting President.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't prohibit indicting those around him. Well?

      Delete
    2. "Justice Department policy..." oh boy. As countless as the stars in the sky is the number of policies bent, broken and ripped asunder in this lawless Democrat quest to overthrow our elected President and the government he leads.

      That would include policies of the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA and numerous other alphabet agencies, who also threw away policies of honesty & following their oaths of office!

      Delete
    3. Eskyman,

      Such amusing fever dreams!

      Delete
  10. DiploMad:
    Doesn't prohibit indicting those around him. Well?

    You don't think of a campaign manager or a close adviser as being people around Trump?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Mr. Amselem,

    Take some (however little) cheer for at least the one thing. Oh, And thank you for putting some stuff on your sidebar I'd not known of prior:

    https://dailytimewaster.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-9th-circus-is-slowly-being-reformed.html

    Oh and One Brow? Should you be returning this way your asserting "Justice Department policy forbids indictment of a sitting President" I would have expected from any of the cohort of Progtards (but as you've protested many and oft' you're neither a Right-Thinker or a Progtard) At any rate - trumpeting such blather is a waste of pixels until such time as Barr presents his reasoning behind his and Rosenstein's decision to six (Navy term) the accusation Mueller left in the wind.

    Yes yes the Progtard Media may keep waving that around as a call to prayer but until (and be assured - we will) we see the argument we can not conclude anything other than "merit was lacking."

    JK

    (I place this here to avoid cluttering the present post)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Justice Department policy forbids indictment of a sitting President" I would have expected from any of the cohort of Progtards (but as you've protested many and oft' you're neither a Right-Thinker or a Progtard) At any rate - trumpeting such blather is a waste of pixels until such time as Barr presents his reasoning behind his and Rosenstein's decision to six (Navy term) the accusation Mueller left in the wind.

      I respect that you assign no value to trumpeting the truth about Justice Department policy. As for my politics, I don't recall ever denying to be progressive, so much so that I'm sure it would give you night sweats.

      Delete
    2. Au contraire One Brow to your impugning my opinion as regards actual Department policy.

      What you seem to be stating is that the so-called Barr memo was, officially adopted as DoJ policy? Please correct me if I err. I trust you will.

      But whether policy or theory (which latter I contend rather than a "supposed" booger-man-policy) no bar on the Judiciary exists owing to a mere policy having none of that an actual legislatively enacted Statute would have.

      Put simply One Brow, whether policy or theory matters not a whit - Law as codified in Statute reigns supreme.

      You might enjoy looking in to what, at it's most basic is, merely theory ... or perhaps laymanly, Barr's opinion. Bearing in mind that, where Opinion really counts is not that that any lowly Attorney General might express but rather those that issue through our enshrined by Statute, courts system.

      https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Barr%20Responses%20to%20Durbin%20QFRs1.pdf

      Your politics causing me night sweats One Brow?

      JK

      Delete