PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on May 22, 2019, 11:06:19 AM
-
This has reached a level of lame that is indescribable. The dims meet this morning and their new talking point/accusation is that the President is involved in a "cover up". Oh fuckin' please.
-
I caught something of that. Are they trying to say the entire Barr, Durham, etc. investigation is a "cover up"?
-
They will float out any lie they can and most of the Media will repeat, and support it like they did with Russian collusion for two and a half years, and are still harping on it. People believe things they hear over and over, unfortunately.
2016 was the election to delay Fundamental Transformation which Hillary was supposed to complete. 2020 is even more important. The Democrats know that and will do anything they can to stop Trump. Anything.
-
I caught something of that. Are they trying to say the entire Barr, Durham, etc. investigation is a "cover up"?
Yep.
The Mueller Investigation was 2+ years, $30 million, 1.5 million pages of docs, lawyers, prosecutors, FBI agents, interviews, etc. And the dims said they wanted it completed.
So it's complete, no collusion, no obstruction. But they can't accept that. They wanted the report, AG Barr supplied it. They wanted it without redaction (against the law) Barr allows select members to view the unredacted copy, they refuse.
Now they want all of the investigative evidence including Grand Jury transcripts. Again, against the law. They want Mueller to testify. Why? He did his investigation and report.
They want a new investigation, to be done by Congress (oh fuckin' please).
Now, after a meeting demanding impeachment, the new talking point is "Cover Up". Rest assured the MSM will run with this, over and over, for the next week.
This has become beyond stupid.
-
I’ve never seen a party overplay their hand so poorly as the Dems are doing today. Reminds me of the GOP with Bill Clinton.
-
I’ve never seen a party overplay their hand so poorly as the Dems are doing today. Reminds me of the GOP with Bill Clinton.
It's so over the top, and so fraudulent. It's just a circus now, and the dims are the main attraction of the freak show.
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2019/05/22/mueller-changed-everything-n2546684
From now on, the Trump-Russia affair -- the investigation that dominated the first years of Donald Trump's presidency -- will be divided into two parts: before and after the release of Robert Mueller's report. Before the special counsel's findings were made public last month, the president's adversaries were on the offensive. Now, they are playing defense.
The change is due to one simple fact: Mueller could not establish that there was a conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign to fix the 2016 election. The special counsel's office interviewed 500 witnesses, issued 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants and obtained nearly 300 records of electronic communications, and still could not establish the one thing that mattered most in the investigation.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-false-trump-narrative-pelosi-sean-spicer
Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Wednesday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party are trying to push a false narrative about President Trump's administration to make up for their own failings.
Ahead of a meeting on infrastructure earlier this morning with Trump, Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters, “We believe that no one is above the law including the president of the United States. And, we believe that the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up.”
On “America’s Newsroom,” Spicer told anchors Sandra Smith and Eric Shawn, “My reaction is what cover up? If there’s no underlying crime, there’s no underlying issue—which Mueller was conclusive about—then you can’t cover up nothing. And, what Nancy Pelosi is saying frankly doesn’t make sense. The president of the United States, over and over again, has been vindicated on this point.”
“These guys can continue to dig, to look under rocks, because they’ve been proven wrong so many times that I think it’s embarrassing, Spicer said. “What they’re trying to do is find some way to dignify this false narrative and false investigation that they’ve supported all along to make up for, frankly, the fact that they blew this last election.”
-
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/no-nancy-its-the-dems-who-are-engaged-in-a-cover-up/
The Democrats are like a beehive that has lost their queen -- only, in this case, the queen is not Nancy Pelosi, but Barack Obama. He alone was able to hold this fractious cuckoo's nest together. And one wonders if he could do it now.
Nevertheless, Pelosi, anxious to do her part and stave off impeachment charges she knows are electoral poison for her party, did her best to damp things down by accusing Trump of a "cover-up" when she emerged from the Democratic caucus Wednesday morning.
Talk about projection!
Was it Machiavelli who said: When they accuse you of something, they're the ones who are doing it? No, it wasn't, not exactly anyway. But no question the brilliant Florentine saw that happening on a daily basis, as we do.
At this moment, since we know there was no Russia collusion, the big "cover-up" is the provenance of the Mueller investigation itself. And some of that, at least, is about to be revealed, as the Democrats are no doubt aware.
-
I’ve never seen a party overplay their hand so poorly as the Dems are doing today. Reminds me of the GOP with Bill Clinton.
The sad thing is that there are millions of people out there that believe, don't care, and encourage the Dems to do whatever it takes regardless of the facts or legality of their actions.
-
The sad thing is that there are millions of people out there that believe, don't care, and encourage the Dems to do whatever it takes regardless of the facts or legality of their actions.
That's because to most liberal/Progressives (Democrats) the ends justify the means. They are self righteous, believe their way, and views are correct, and justify illegal, unethical, and immoral actions to achieve their goals. The vast majority are like that, plus they are just plainly dishonest, and use emotion, not facts.
-
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2019/05/22/joe-concha-calls-out-media-parroting-pelosis-cover-slogan
As an observer of the liberal media’s narratives and habits, Fox News host Tucker Carlson noticed that they had suddenly formed a chorus to preach about President Trump’s supposed “cover-up” of the Mueller investigation. He found that their new slogan popped up after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi uttered it earlier Wednesday morning. The Hill's media reporter Joe Concha confirmed the theory to Carlson and even pointed to other instances where the media ran with a Pelosi talking points.
“I think you're seeing a pattern here, Tucker. I remember back in January, the term ‘manufactured crisis’ was used to talk about what was going on at the U.S. southern border,” Concha recalled. “And then you heard over and over, dozens upon dozens of times, not just from one network, but different networks, different anchors or pendants or guests using that same exact term to the word: ‘manufactured crisis’.”
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49dabc6389145372130ce56d04bd2aa5ef3493328b500389beab9b0cad764aab.jpg?w=800&h)
-
They are self righteous, believe their way, and views are correct, and justify illegal, unethical, and immoral actions to achieve their goals.
In their view, if it helps them achieve their goals, it must not be illegal, unethical or immoral.
-
In their view, if it helps them achieve their goals, it must not be illegal, unethical or immoral.
The Army that wins determines what is legal, or illegal.
-
Yep.
The Mueller Investigation was 2+ years, $30 million, 1.5 million pages of docs, lawyers, prosecutors, FBI agents, interviews, etc. And the dims said they wanted it completed.
So it's complete, no collusion, no obstruction. But they can't accept that. They wanted the report, AG Barr supplied it. They wanted it without redaction (against the law) Barr allows select members to view the unredacted copy, they refuse.
Now they want all of the investigative evidence including Grand Jury transcripts. Again, against the law. They want Mueller to testify. Why? He did his investigation and report.
They want a new investigation, to be done by Congress (oh fuckin' please).
Now, after a meeting demanding impeachment, the new talking point is "Cover Up". Rest assured the MSM will run with this, over and over, for the next week.
This has become beyond stupid.
I agree with everything you say except the part I bolded. Mueller did NOT exonerate Trump on the issue of obstruction and went out of his way to stress that.
And of course that's what the Dems are pinning their hopes on, but as long as the Repubs control the Senate they have ZERO chance of getting a conviction in an impeachment proceeding. Popular support seems to be rising in favor of impeachment, but that's mainly among hard-core Dem voters. Independent (and of course, Republican) voters still strongly oppose any attempt to impeach Trump. Seems to be a case of mass political suicide on the part of the Dems.
-
I agree with everything you say except the part I bolded. Mueller did NOT exonerate Trump on the issue of obstruction and went out of his way to stress that.
How can there be obstruction if there's no underlying crime?
-
I agree with everything you say except the part I bolded. Mueller did NOT exonerate Trump on the issue of obstruction and went out of his way to stress that.
The Attorney General of the United States, along with the Deputy Attorney General of the United Sates have determined no obstruction existed and that no charges of obstruction could be brought. The Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) works for the AG and DAG of the US. In filing the report concluding his investigation the SC can either make a recommendation of indictment or decline. He chose to decline.
A Special Counsel cannot "exonerate" anyone. He can either make a recommendation to indict if the investigation has enough evidence. And they didn't.
What Mueller did in his report (Vol 2) was a political hit piece and not standard practice among DoJ SC.
That's how the legal system works. You are once again relying on "talking points" which have no basis in law or legal procedure.
Have you actual read the Mueller Report?
-
How can there be obstruction if there's no underlying crime?
Exactly.
-
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/05/23/pelosi-schumer-continue-charade-later-think/
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stops on the way to an important meeting with the President on infrastructure. She tells reporters that he is engaging in cover-up activities.
Pelosi had just emerged from a meeting of House Democrats where they had discussed the progress made in their myriad investigations of Trump. After giving reporters an update, she delivered the real message she’d wanted to convey:
"We believe it’s very important to follow the law. We believe that no one is above the law including the President of the United States. And we believe that the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up. (repeats) In a cover-up. And that was the nature of the meeting."
-
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/05/23/pelosi-schumer-continue-charade-later-think/
Demented insane deluded old lady. I don't know how anyone can stomach these female communist bitches. God help us.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2019/05/23/polls-voters-tired-of-trumprussia-investigation-say-theyve-seen-enough-n2546782
Two new polls, similar results: The American people, having watched the political class bicker and blather about Russiagate for years, have heard enough. In a new national survey by conducted by Monmouth, a majority of Americans say it's time for Congressional Democrats to move on to other subjects -- this, as Democrats appear to be moving in the opposite direction, with a growing number of members calling for a highly unpopular impeachment process to commence:
While a clear majority of the public supports getting more details about the Mueller report, just over half (52%) say that Congress should move on to other issues now that the investigation has concluded. Just 41% say that Congress should continue to look into concerns related to the inquiry. These results are similar to the public’s opinion last month just before the report was released...The poll finds that 39% of Americans feel that Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the presidency while 56% disagree with this course of action.
-
How can there be obstruction if there's no underlying crime?
That's a very interesting question and one on which, from what I've heard, legal scholars disagree (I don't pretend to be one). And that is part of why they would never get a conviction in the Senate. They would argue about the point ad infinitum and in the end, they would reach either no conclusion if that's possible, or vote to acquit.
-
The Attorney General of the United States, along with the Deputy Attorney General of the United Sates have determined no obstruction existed and that no charges of obstruction could be brought. The Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) works for the AG and DAG of the US. In filing the report concluding his investigation the SC can either make a recommendation of indictment or decline. He chose to decline.
A Special Counsel cannot "exonerate" anyone. He can either make a recommendation to indict if the investigation has enough evidence. And they didn't.
What Mueller did in his report (Vol 2) was a political hit piece and not standard practice among DoJ SC.
That's how the legal system works. You are once again relying on "talking points" which have no basis in law or legal procedure.
Have you actual read the Mueller Report?
I've read the executive summary to both parts. And yes, the word "exonerate" was explicitly used, so I'm not making things up or relying on what you call "talking points".
Here is the direct quote from the relevant paragraph (I have to type it in as I cannot cut and paste from the pdf, so there might be typos):
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Then again, if you believe Vol 2 was a "political hit job", then none of that carries any weight with you anyway. But it's there in the thread, just for the record.
-
I've read the executive summary to both parts. And yes, the word "exonerate" was explicitly used, so I'm not making things up or relying on what you call "talking points".
Here is the direct quote from the relevant paragraph (I have to type it in as I cannot cut and paste from the pdf, so there might be typos):
Then again, if you believe Vol 2 was a "political hit job", then none of that carries any weight with you anyway. But it's there in the thread, just for the record.
I've read the whole thing. From a legal standpoint, Mueller was way off base in the way he constructed Vol 2. It was strictly political vs a legal basis. Why? He had nothing and the pressure was on for him to produce something to appease the left. So he departed from normal legal norms and proceeded to turn the document into a political document.
But let's go back and look at the true mechanism here. The Mueller Report was submitted to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, with no referral for indictment. That's fact. Take away the political aspect of the report and you are left with no collusion and no obstruction, period. The AG and the DAG looked at the document in it's entirety and concluded there was no conclusion and no obstruction, period.
It's over. No crimes, no underlying crimes. No Obstruction, No Collusion. And that decision comes from the top of the Department of Justice.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alan-dershowitz-congress-is-not-above-the-law-when-it-comes-to-impeachment-dont-weaponize-the-constitution
The mantra invoked by those Democrats who are seeking to impeach President Donald Trump is that “No one is above the law.” That, of course, is true, but it is as applicable to Congress as it is to the president. Those members of Congress who are seeking to impeach the president, even though he has not committed any of the specified impeachable offences set out in the Constitution, are themselves seeking to go above the law. All branches of government are bound by the law. Congressmen, presidents, justices, judges must all operate within the law. All take an oath to support the Constitution, not to rewrite it for partisan advantage.
It is the law that exempts presidents from being prosecuted or impeached for carrying out their Constitutional authority under Article 2. The same Constitution precludes members of Congress from being prosecuted for most actions taken while on the floor of the House and Senate or on the way to performing their functions. The same Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, bestows immunity on judges for actions which would be criminal or tortious if engaged in by non-judicial individuals. None of this means that these government officials are above the law. It means that their immunized actions are within the law.
-
I've read the whole thing. From a legal standpoint, Mueller was way off base in the way he constructed Vol 2. It was strictly political vs a legal basis. Why? He had nothing and the pressure was on for him to produce something to appease the left. So he departed from normal legal norms and proceeded to turn the document into a political document.
What's your basis for saying this?
-
Azure, Andrew Weismann was a part of the Mueller team. They have a long history together. Do some research on Weismann and Enron, you might be quite surprised.
-
Azure, Andrew Weismann was a part of the Mueller team. They have a long history together. Do some research on Weismann and Enron, you might be quite surprised.
Weismann had a much larger involvement in the investigation than was first assumed. He handpicked the lawyers that was on the team.
His legal history is that of a very corrupt lawyer. And he is a leftist liberal with a political agenda. Absolutely biased.
-
What's your basis for saying this?
To start with, read this letter from Emmett Flood:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5986154/WHSC-to-AG-4-19-19.pdf
Here is a google search on what several prominent legal experts have stated. There is much more on this.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-muellers-preposterous-rationale-for-tainting-the-president-with-obstruction-allegations/
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/04/22/the-folly-of-the-mueller-investigation/
https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/
https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2019/04/19/Andrew-C-McCarthy-No-obstruction-on-the-facts-of-the-case/stories/201904190051
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-mccarthy-muellers-outrageous-report-is-unbecoming-behavior-for-a-prosecutor/
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439647-alan-dershowitz-who-won-who-lost-in-mueller-report
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/dershowitz-on-mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-explains-the-most-interesting-part-of-muellers-report
http://www.salemnews.net/news/local-news/2019/04/fox-commentator-says-mueller-report-dirty-political-trick/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8VCb-_Gh8U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7vpn1cOtQ4
https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-barr-and-mueller-report
-
Azure, Andrew Weismann was a part of the Mueller team. They have a long history together. Do some research on Weismann and Enron, you might be quite surprised.
Thanks, Eppy, for the heads-up. It seems Weissmann played very close to the edges of prosecutorial misconduct more than once, may have even crossed the line. Only reason I can think of that Mueller picked him is that they're buddy-buddies. Probably an unwise choice, in that had they come down on Trump, the history of misconduct would seriously taint their findings. Kind of a moot point though, in that they did not come down on him. And I'm not finding evidence that he's a leftist -- probably a Democrat, given his campaign contributions, but a lot of people supported Obama and even Clinton who are not leftists.
So what I gather from Lucifer's links is that there are two main points of contention regarding Mueller's findings:
1). whether a president's actions can be actionable, even if constitutionally lawful in and of themselves, if motivated by "corrupt intent", and
2). whether Mueller overstepped his authority as SC by identifying actions that "could amount to obstruction" while at the same time declining to recommend bringing charges.
I think I see better how Mueller's reasoning regarding actions that "could amount to obstruction", plus punting to the AG on the obstruction issue, have opened him to severe criticism.
I'm still not ready to say that the Mueller findings in V2 are tainted by political bias, though, any more than I would say that Comey's smearing of Hillary by damning her "poor judgment" in running a private email server, but deciding that it didn't rise to the level of criminal conduct, was politically motivated. I read a piece somewhere a few days ago that compared those two actions, but I can't seem to find it now.
Yes, you can suspect it, if you're in the camp that defends Trump at all costs and by any means necessary. But from where I sit, and I admit that I don't care for Trump personally but I still want to be fair to him, I just don't see a smoking gun for bias there. Legally flawed perhaps, but probably not a hit job.
-
Thanks, Eppy, for the heads-up. It seems Weissmann played very close to the edges of prosecutorial misconduct more than once, may have even crossed the line. Only reason I can think of that Mueller picked him is that they're buddy-buddies. Probably an unwise choice, in that had they come down on Trump, the history of misconduct would seriously taint their findings. Kind of a moot point though, in that they did not come down on him. And I'm not finding evidence that he's a leftist -- probably a Democrat, given his campaign contributions, but a lot of people supported Obama and even Clinton who are not leftists.
So what I gather from Lucifer's links is that there are two main points of contention regarding Mueller's findings:
1). whether a president's actions can be actionable, even if constitutionally lawful in and of themselves, if motivated by "corrupt intent", and
2). whether Mueller overstepped his authority as SC by identifying actions that "could amount to obstruction" while at the same time declining to recommend bringing charges.
I think I see better how Mueller's reasoning regarding actions that "could amount to obstruction", plus punting to the AG on the obstruction issue, have opened him to severe criticism.
I'm still not ready to say that the Mueller findings in V2 are tainted by political bias, though, any more than I would say that Comey's smearing of Hillary by damning her "poor judgment" in running a private email server, but deciding that it didn't rise to the level of criminal conduct, was politically motivated. I read a piece somewhere a few days ago that compared those two actions, but I can't seem to find it now.
Yes, you can suspect it, if you're in the camp that defends Trump at all costs and by any means necessary. But from where I sit, and I admit that I don't care for Trump personally but I still want to be fair to him, I just don't see a smoking gun for bias there. Legally flawed perhaps, but probably not a hit job.
Bottom line: No "collusion", and No obstruction. It's over.
-
Bottom line: No "collusion", and No obstruction. It's over.
Yet the Media and the Democrats (same thing) are accusing Trump of a "Cover Up". If there was no collusion, nor obstruction what is Trump covering up. Also, he just said for he DOJ to declassify everything, which as Obama used to say is "UNPRECEDENTED". LOL!
-
Yet the Media and the Democrats (same thing) are accusing Trump of a "Cover Up". If there was no collusion, nor obstruction what is Trump covering up. Also, he just said for he DOJ to declassify everything, which as Obama used to say is "UNPRECEDENTED". LOL!
The "cover up" narrative is grasping at straws. Everything is about to be declassified and we are going to get to see, first hand, what these despicable scumbags were up to.
Admittingly at first I was skeptical of Barr being brought back as AG. But as this continues to unfold, I now see why Trump brought him in. First, he has a stellar record as a previous AG. Second, he knows how the DoJ works, and he knows where to look. His actions to date in investigating the attempted coup have been spot on.
The dims are scared to death at what's about to be revealed, and no doubt there will be indictments.
-
The Democrats have already written the script for the next two years. The little battles with cabinet members are going to continue through the end of the year and into the spring. They may or may not try to impeach one of the cabinet members for obstruction. My guess is no, because almost any impeachment charge will die quickly in the Senate and they can only go to that well once. However, if they have a pretty much overwhelming case, then they'll push for it.
Their goal is to press for the big prize, which is to impeach the president in early fall next year and make it an election issue. Of course, they'll only do it because the president forces them to, but they won't really care about the Senate by this point because the whole exercise will be about talking about all the negative things that make the president unfit. The impeachment process in the House will be long and drawn out, lasting at least a month, probably 2.
In other words, they're going to weaponize government yet again...
-
Thanks, Eppy, for the heads-up. It seems Weissmann played very close to the edges of prosecutorial misconduct more than once, may have even crossed the line. Only reason I can think of that Mueller picked him is that they're buddy-buddies. Probably an unwise choice, in that had they come down on Trump, the history of misconduct would seriously taint their findings. Kind of a moot point though, in that they did not come down on him. And I'm not finding evidence that he's a leftist -- probably a Democrat, given his campaign contributions, but a lot of people supported Obama and even Clinton who are not leftists.
So what I gather from Lucifer's links is that there are two main points of contention regarding Mueller's findings:
1). whether a president's actions can be actionable, even if constitutionally lawful in and of themselves, if motivated by "corrupt intent", and
2). whether Mueller overstepped his authority as SC by identifying actions that "could amount to obstruction" while at the same time declining to recommend bringing charges.
I think I see better how Mueller's reasoning regarding actions that "could amount to obstruction", plus punting to the AG on the obstruction issue, have opened him to severe criticism.
I'm still not ready to say that the Mueller findings in V2 are tainted by political bias, though, any more than I would say that Comey's smearing of Hillary by damning her "poor judgment" in running a private email server, but deciding that it didn't rise to the level of criminal conduct, was politically motivated. I read a piece somewhere a few days ago that compared those two actions, but I can't seem to find it now.
Yes, you can suspect it, if you're in the camp that defends Trump at all costs and by any means necessary. But from where I sit, and I admit that I don't care for Trump personally but I still want to be fair to him, I just don't see a smoking gun for bias there. Legally flawed perhaps, but probably not a hit job.
You are aware that Comey had wording changed in his statement on Hillary? Might want to research that one a bit. Hint, you won,t find that info at MSNBC or CNN.
-
Bottom line: No "collusion", and No obstruction. It's over.
No *charges* of obstruction. But the suspicion that he acted to cover something up has been planted, and the Dems are going to run with that as far as they can. I think bflynn is on the right track, they may press for impeachment during the last few months of the 2020 campaign to make all of Trump's missteps and clumsy attempts to affect the investigation look to have been corrupt in intention, and that they're all fresh in everyone's mind.
They have no chance of winning otherwise - especially if they nominate someone (anyone, just about) from the current crop of hopefuls.
-
Wonder what the timing will be for Barr to start declassifying things a d dropping that info. 8)
-
The “cover up” narrative is already blowing up in their faces. It’s so buffoonish even those on the left aren’t buying it.
Impeachment proceedings only guarantee Trumps re-election, and Chuck and Nancy know that. The alt left progressive radicals are the ones that think impeachment will damage Trump.
Going into 2020, congress has a huge problem in that they have gotten nothing accomplished except for harassing the President. This is coming back to bite them badly.
-
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/445353-why-obstruction-and-cover-up-charges-smack-of-desperation
A friend of mine who is — I’ll just say it — a devoted Trump-hater recently was talking about President Trump’s obstruction and asked what I thought.
After listening to his views, I told him there’s plenty about which to criticize the president, as is true of any political leader. But the obstruction charge doesn’t make logical sense. I used an analogy to explain why. When I finished, this friend still hated Trump — but surprised me by saying, “Nobody’s ever explained it that way. That makes sense. You should write about it.”
Obviously, I don’t kid myself that this analogy will “make sense” to everyone. But after listening to both sides and looking at the publicly available evidence, here’s how I see it:
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a “witch hunt,” and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case — that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth.
But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent — accused of a murder you didn’t commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn’t commit.
Imagine that this cloud of the murder you knew was never committed hangs over you, month after month, until it drags on for years. It’s distracting you from your ability and authority to do the job in the public’s interests. But every time you speak publicly to defend yourself and proclaim your innocence, the media and your political enemies declare you to be a liar and say you are obstructing the investigation.
It begins to look like the fix is in.
Under these circumstances, you wouldn’t be human if you didn’t possess a desire to stop a potentially conflicted investigation by your political enemies into a crime that was never committed — least of all by you. Since you are innocent, your attempts to stop an unfair investigation could be fairly seen as an attempt to see justice done, not to obstruct it.
If special counsel Robert Mueller is correct and there was no coordination of any kind between any American and Russia, then the latter analogy seems more applicable to President Trump than the former.
If Mueller is right, then Trump knew from the start that he didn’t conspire with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Nonetheless, he became the target of a supposedly independent investigation which, it turned out, included top team members who expressed personal disgust and hatred for him as well as a desire to take him out.
Extensive information about the probe, some of it false, was leaked to and reported by an unquestioning national press. Every time Trump spoke up for himself and — according to Mueller, in the end — rightly declared his innocence, his enemies accused him of being a liar and cited nonexistent, secret evidence.
This cloud of supposed collusion, a crime that never happened, hung over Trump month after month until it dragged on for years. For someone who’s innocent, it would obviously begin to look like the fix was in.
Trump’s alleged conversations about trying to switch out Mueller, as documented in interviews with the special counsel, could fairly be interpreted as attempts to seek justice, not to obstruct it.
The story would be entirely different, of course, if Trump had turned out to be Putin’s agent — and for two years, I and many others fully suspected that could be the outcome of the Mueller probe, based on all the leaks and reporting. But it wasn’t the case.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/05/28/spygate-and-just-like-thatthe-democrats-are-opposed-to-investigations-n2546977
SPYGATE: And Just Like That…The Democrats Are Opposed To Investigations
The Democratic response was predictable: a total meltdown. From psycho talking points that a cover-up is being undertaken. Yeah, it’s a cover-up, where Trump fully discloses everything. It’s insanity. Also, they say all of this is being done to attack political enemies of the president. Uh, hello—the intelligence community appears to already have been weaponized against Trump. And all this proves is that AG Barr is on the right track. He recently said in an interview that the answers he was given about the whole Russia affair just “don’t hang together.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Yes, he really tweeted this:<br><br>“Trump and Barr conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies.”<br><br>He spent 2 years pushing a hoax created by weaponized law enforcement, a bogus dossier & FISA warrants. No wonder he’s worried <a href="https://t.co/ka9Xz49ZQI">https://t.co/ka9Xz49ZQI</a></p>— Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1131960148728193027?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“Cover-up” via declassification. Got it, chief 👌 <a href="https://t.co/8Tx7cTA6o0">https://t.co/8Tx7cTA6o0</a></p>— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) <a href="https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1131900742896377858?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
-
(https://www.whatfinger.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/hyeikg-300x215.jpg)