Jump to content

The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!


Recommended Posts

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Colluders, Obstructionists, Leakers, and Other Projectionists.

How ironic that Russian “collusion” was used as a preemptive charge from those who actually had colluded with Russians for all sorts for financial and careerist advantages.

* * * * * * * *

Imagine the cries of outrage from Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) had Trump inadvertently blurted out to the world that he was willing to warp U.S. security interests to fit his own reelection agenda. (Remember: “This is my last election . . . After my election, I have more flexibility.”) Such a stealthy quid pro quo certainly would have been the crown jewel of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

 

The locus classicus of Russian collusion, however, is Hillary Clinton’s effort in 2016. The facts are not in dispute. Using the three firewalls of the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law firm, and Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign paid a foreign national, British subject Christopher Steele, to compile a smear dossier against Clinton’s then-opponent, Donald J. Trump.

 

Read the whole thing.

 
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. The inspector general already determined how the investigation began. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants were properly obtained and signed off by Republican-appointed judges. The IG found that Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had no influence on the course of the investigation. To call any of this “treason” is slanderous.
  2. There were more than 100 contacts between members of the Trump team and Russians.
  3. Trump and his son made clear they were open to receiving opposition research from a hostile foreign power. This was a violation of American sovereignty, a betrayal of our democracy.
  4. Trump’s open invitation to Russia (calling for emails) and obsession with the WikiLeaks documents gave Russia the encouragement to meddle in our election.
  5. We need to uncover redacted material to see if there is evidence Trump’s campaign conspired with WikiLeaks to influence the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/28/if-amash-can-do-it-so-can-house-judiciary-committee/?utm_term=.99b67c08b97e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nanker said:

You're a bag of smelly compost wasting our time here and providing a background stench of hate, division, and deranged lies.

 

do you fart in his general direction?

 

image.png.1dfcb02adb32124fad23e9feee749b5b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

He is reading a statement and is not taking any follow up questions.

 

Read into that what you will.

 

 

I surmise that he is smart enough to know that the questions will be leading, and full of untruths, so there is no point in trying to feed that animal.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

I surmise that he is smart enough to know that the questions will be leading, and full of untruths, so there is no point in trying to feed that animal.

 

.

 

I surmise he still works for DOJ and is following the advice of his superiors.

 

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

not a darn thing

 

 

You would have to know how to read first.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

I surmise he still works for DOJ and is following the advice of his superiors.

 

 

You would have to know how to read first.

 

read what exactly, very few things are closely read in DC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Most likely he's just clearing something up.

 

That was my initial reaction - that he was going to clear up the new Michael Wolff book's accusation - however each time the SCO ever cleared something up (twice) was by statements of Peter Carr.. and Carr cleared up the Wolff book accusation already this week. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Most likely he's just clearing something up.

 

I lean this way as well. Here's my pre-coffee analysis:

 

It's one of two options: 

 

1) He wants to do damage to Barr's/Trump's narrative by subtly dropping a line or two which will encourage Congress to push harder. 

 

or

 

2) He wants to save some face and put a ribbon on his part of this saga so he can move on. 

 

If he wanted to do 1, he would testify openly. This statement says to me he has no plan to testify publicly. If he wanted to do 1, he'd take questions from the media and likely work with a reporter to plant/ask the right leading question to allow him to "go off script" enough to drop some red meat. 

 

I think it's 2. He is going to save whatever face he can, and then essentially say his part is over. 

 

Which makes sense for the roll out plan going on right now with Barr. If Barr were to start to declassify documents before Mueller ever spoke in public, there would be a BIG backlash (there will be a backlash regardless, but this would give their opponents more merit to their arguments). But now Mueller will speak, say what he'll say, and then Barr will be clear to move on to the next steps. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...