2019.03.22 Mueller Report
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.
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.
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?