The Mueller Report showed that there was no hint at collusion by Trump or his team, it was a Hillary funded hoax. | The Mueller Report showed that there was no hint at collusion by Trump or his team, it was a Hillary funded hoax, that was used to obstruct Trump and undermine our Democracy, start illegal investigations and wiretapping, distract from helping America and our interests, and keep the media occupied repeating criminal disinformation. |
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2019-03-24
|
The Mueller Report is out. I don't care if you like/dislike President Trump, I care whether people will defend the truth or perpetuate a lie. Soon we will be able to read the full report, but the summary is a smackdown: (a) there was no hint at collusion by Trump or his team, in fact they rebuffed attempts by the Russians. (b) without collusion there couldn't have been obstruction, but even if there had been, Trump wasn't close to obstruction (c) the media narrative has been a fraud (d) the media wasted 2,284 minutes, and 533,074 articles (245 million responses) to coverage of the fake narrative. The media doesn't admit their mistake and apologize to Trump and the public are not journalists following the facts, but polemics mad that someone shined the light of truth on their deception. And right on cue, a bunch of FakeNews, Democrat politicians, and Hollywood sheep try to spin this as it, "stops short of exonerating on obstruction", or shifting the narrative to Mueller's competence, Trump's guilt on something else, or anything other than their 2-year fraud. But all the outlets that championed it as the end of Trump, or shown for frauds. Expecially when they won't just apologize.
That means all the sub-narratives were bullshit too.
Think about it, if Trump knew he had no colluded, then he was correct in claiming it was a witch hunt, and the Press was FakeNews, every time they repeated something he knew was false. The left wing news lost another in a long line of battles with President Trump and the truth. And the hated right wing sources? They were materially far more right than the media the left puts their faith in. Will the left suddenly respect the truth that the other side was right and they were wrong? I wouldn't hold my breath. But that says something about their interest in their agendas over the truth.
Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report lays out the material points, despite 22 months, 19 lawyers, a team of 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, and interviewing ≈500 witnesses, there should be no further indictments. Trump had never colluded with the Russians. Or in their words, "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
There are two parts to the report
(1) Russian Interference into the 2016 election and any Americans that helped with those efforts.[edit | edit source]
The Russian efforts were:
- Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.
- Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election.
And it concluded that the neither the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
(2) Obstruction of Justice.[edit | edit source]
Without the crime of collusion, there can be no crime of obstruction. Since Mueller knew that using the DOJ Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions would exonerate Trump, he ultimately decided not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment -- but instead just laid out both sides arguments and leaves it to the court of leftist media to decide. To me, this is chickenshit. His job was to tell the truth, and the truth is there's nothing here, because the Chief Executive has the right to fire and control an investigation if he wants. (He just chooses not to, when it implicates himself). And there's no way that they would prosecute this case, with a complete lack of evidence that a crime was committed to be obstructed.
Fortunately, while Mueller punted to the AG (Attorney General), they (Rosenstein and Barr) pointed out that without even getting into the mess on whether you can indict and prosecute a sitting President (which many think you can not), it doesn't matter, since this doesn't come close to the standards required.
To quote the summary, in order for their to be a crime of obstruction, the government has to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding." -- e.g. without there being a crime of collusion, the government could never convict the crime of obstruction. Let alone prove that the President feared conviction, which would the only thing he obstructed. It goes on to explain that even if there was a crime of the President colluding, nothing he did would rise to obstruction ("the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct"), nor was done with corrupt intent.
This was a smackdown of smackdowns. There was no crime of collusion in the first place, no way we could convict on obstruction even if there had been. And the entire left/media's narrative has been one of the biggest frauds perpetuated on the American Public, ever.
Now since there was never enough evidence for a Special Council in the first place, we need an investigation into how this fiasco happened, include going after the perpetrators of this fraud in the Hillary Campaign, and the FBI/DOJ that used the Dossier as the basis for illegal wiretapping and abuse of power to use the government to attack political enemies. I figure that deserves at least 22 months, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, and interviewing ≈500 witnesses. Don't you?
🔗 More
New York Times
A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased, occasionally good content.
|
|
|
USA Today
A long history of dumb, and they should have been renamed USSA Today (United Socialist States of America).
|
|
|
Washington Post
A once great paper, now a liberal fake news rag that looks more like Bezos Blog (or the DNC's blog) than an objective Newspaper.
|
|
|
CNN
1980 Ted Turner started CNN to put his left center spin on "the news". Then it went downhill.
|
|
|
Donald Trump
A list of articles on Trump, his accomplishments, scandals (real and imagined).
|
|
|
Associated Press
The AP seems to have poor quality control, and was taken over by progressive Marxists in the 1980's.
|
|
|
The Atlantic
A far-left magazine that occasionally lets a good article or two past their woke staff.
|
|
|
Rachel Maddow
Her whole life seems like a lowlight of what a journalist could become if they lacked brains or ethics.
|
|
|
🔗 Links
- News:
- The scale of the hoax:
- FakeNews:
- This generation's WMD's, is the headline -- but that's false. Every major countries intel agencies thought Saddam had WMD's, they just disagreed over what proved it. And we did find and destroy a bunch that had not been accounted for (and were off manifest), though they weren't newly manufactured WMD's, they were still lethal. So the narrative is leftist spin. The rest of the article is very good. But that's kinda like saying other than the Pedophilia and incest, Woody Allen is a great guy: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million
- List of FakeNews offered wrt Russia, that have been proven wrong: https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/media-russia-collusion-mueller-report-fake-news/
- The Atlantic tried to spin it that it was all Buzzfeed (Ben Smith's) fault for publishing the dossier, but that's moronic finger-pointing. If they hadn't run it, someone else would have. Journalists should have checked the source, and never re-posted without offering the context, let alone all the other crap FakeNews stories that spun off, and that the other Journo's (like the Atlantic) ran with. So Buzzfeed might have been wrong to not offer more context, but so was every other News agency that piled on, and did as much or worse. Like the Atlantic. Oh, and the Atlantic fucked up on that article even more, as they repeated the long disproven lie that the dossier was started because of the Republicans.
Tags: NYT FakeNews CNBC USA Today WaPo CNN Trump AP Atlantic Maddow Steele Dossier
