Mueller Investigation

$25 Million Later, 3 Pundits Kind-of-Sort-of Change Their Minds on Collusion

Shockingly, most people are sticking to their guns.

|

Chris Kleponis/AdMedia/Newscom

In case you've been living under a rock, special counsel Robert Mueller's nearly two-year probe into Russian election meddling did not find that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in 2016.

Though as Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted this morning, various #Resistance journalists and other pundits have clung to the narrative that Trump is not necessarily exonerated.

They may have a point. Mueller's report does not reach any conclusions as to whether Trump obstructed justice during the investigation, according to a letter to Congress from Attorney General William Barr summarizing the report. These same pundits spent much of the past two years trying to convince people that Donald Trump and/or members of his campaign colluded with Russia based off of little concrete evidence. Mueller found the evidence available to him less airtight.

As so often happens with new information, many people stuck to their priors. Trump supporters and collusion skeptics feel vindicated. Those who pushed the Trump/Russian collusion narrative were hesitant to admit that they may have been wrong.

With that in mind, I scoured the internet for someone, anyone, who had done the unthinkable and changed their mind. I found just three examples of people who have kind of, sort of, done so. There may be more; I just couldn't find them.

  1. New Yorker staff writer and chief CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Toobin has never explicitly said with certainty that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. But he's definitely suggested there was something fishy going on.

"We've only had 45 presidents. We now we know, one of them was elected with the explicit and intentional help of a foreign power, in violation of American law, with the open support of the candidate who benefited from the crimes," he said last July. Toobin admitted at the time there was no evidence that Trump had broken the law, but he certainly seemed to imply that Trump was in some way responsible. "Who was encouraging Russia to keep stealing these e-mails in violation of the law? Donald Trump," he said.

Flash-forward to Sunday, when Toobin said on CNN: "Certainly the most important thing is the total vindication of the president and his staff on the issue of collusion. There's just no way around that."

Toobin said he wasn't sure on obstruction.

  1. Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough

Scarborough is another pundit who never outright accused Trump or his campaign of collusion. He did suggest in December that due to Mueller's Russia probe, Trump was "under a pressure he's never seen in his entire life and it's just the beginning."

Then on Monday morning, Scarborough called "the release of Robert Mueller's report was the best day of [Trump's] presidency."

"But also another big headline: It is good news," he added. Scarborough may be a frequent Trump critic, but he appeared willing to take Barr's summary of Mueller's report at face value.

  1. Former CIA Director John Brennan

A harsh Trump critic, Brennan really seemed to believe that Mueller's report would implicate Trump in some sort of criminal wrongdoing. As recently as Wednesday, he tweeted:

"Mr. Trump's claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash," he wrote in an August 2018 New York Times op-ed.

Speaking on MSNBC this morning, Brennan acknowledged he had been at least somewhat wrong. "Well, I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected that there was more than there actually was," he told Scarborough, referring to Mueller's report.

Still, Brennan said he believes "there are a lot of questions that need to be answered."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

220 responses to “$25 Million Later, 3 Pundits Kind-of-Sort-of Change Their Minds on Collusion

  1. >>>#Resistance journalists

    requires air-quotes

    >>>They may have a point.

    no.

    1. I basically make about $6,000-$8,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it?

      HERE? http://www.AproCoin.CoM

    2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here ======?? http://www.finestylereview.com

  2. Theres always questions just like who shot Kennedy and Obama’s birth and how many UFOs is the government hiding and when did you quit beating your wife. some questions have no answers and we shouldn’t waste our time on them

    1. Of course the Pentagon can’t give you the count of UFOs in its possession; accounting is tough.

  3. “”Still, Brennan said he believes “there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.”””

    Yeah, like why does Brennan think ruining someone’s life by financial and political means is a good thing?

    Chuckie Schumer is right when we mentioned having a fear of the intel agencies because they can screw you six ways to Sunday.

    1. The main unanswered question is why Brennan wasn’t brought up on charges of lying to Congress as he applauded Mueller for the same convictions of others.

    2. Parse Brennan’s quote and he’s the one needs to answer questions.

      Questions about why he made the claims he so publicly made. Either they were baseless speculation on his part; which does not speak well, of him, the “intelligence community”, or the person who hired him (Barack Obama) OR he was given false information from sources that he – for some reason – chooses to keep anonymous.

      Shameless that someone in his position did such a thing, even more shameless that the people who gave him the megaphone are not calling him to account.

      1. Brennan is not some random politician. He was head of the CIA. It was his job to know with absolute certainty of any such links. If they exist he should have been able to present these links to the FBI who can then arrest the individual, in this case Trump.
        The fact he had absolutely zero proof in his position and still declared to the world that Trump is guilty is evidence that he is a bare faced lying scumbag. He knew there was no evidence. Trump needs to have him arrested for lying to congress. There is definitive proof he did so as well as others including Clinton.

    3. I wonder how a Sovie-loving Communist got a job in the cold-war era CIA to begin with

        1. Brennan was in the CIA for decades.
          The rot goes much deeper than the thoroughly rotten former president

          1. That Obama elevated him to director is not only a sign of corruption, but also extreme incompetence.
            In other words, decadence

  4. Pundits can be wrong 100% of the time and still have a job

    1. Much like politicians, interestingly enough.

      1. …and economists (lookin at you, Krugman) and climate modelers.

        1. and website commentators…

      2. And police.

    2. Much like weathermen (weatherwomen?) on TV.

    3. And “scientists.” (see Ehrlich, Paul).

  5. Of all these bad takes to choose from I honestly think Friesdorf and Popehat have the worst ones.

    1. Dopehat’s is appalling. I haven’t heard Friesdorf’s. What kind of a trainwreck of stupidity is his take?

      1. It’s like a retarded algorithm of the pox on both houses that we usually get from him. Trump broke him.

      2. What specifically is appalling about Popehat’s article (linked below)?

        I read it as him basically saying that we don’t know much from Barr’s letter other than that Mueller didn’t find enough evidence to substantiate a charge of collusion, or that he doesn’t recommend an indictment on obstruction. It’s hard to disagree with those positions without seeing Mueller’s actual report. Being not guilty because the evidence says you’re not guilty vs there simply not being enough evidence to go forward with indictments are two distinct positions even though their practical implications are the same. I read Popehat as saying that we simply don’t know which position Mueller is taking on either collusion or obstruction.

        1. White is pushing for a dead ender argument. Three investigations have now found no there there (the House, the Senate, and not a special counsel) and yet PopeHat is holding out hope that maybe he is not insane. But, he most certainly is. Further, you can’t claim to be a “civil libertarian” (lol) and then pretend as if lack of evidence for prosecution somehow does not undercut the original allegation.

          He fell for a conspiracy and now he’s embarrassed, as he should be.

          FTA:

          “Trump’s triumphant supporters notwithstanding, we don’t yet know what that means. When prosecutors say that an investigation “did not establish” something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened. Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence.”

          1. Further, you can’t claim to be a “civil libertarian” (lol) and then pretend as if lack of evidence for prosecution somehow does not undercut the original allegation.

            I don’t read the article as necessarily saying that, only that we don’t know which it is. Certainly it doesn’t matter from a legal perspective, but it might matter politically.

            He fell for a conspiracy and now he’s embarrassed, as he should be.

            That might well be the explanation. I think you and John might be reading more into White’s article than is really there. I’d hold off judgement of his position until we know more from the Mueller report, and how White reacts to the facts he lays out (or doesn’t).

            Certainly Mueller’s report means that there isn’t anything to go after Trump or his inner circle on either possible charge. But seeing what evidence of lack of evidence in the actual report is something that both sides seem to be interested in politically. I read White’s point as saying that, nothing more, nothing less.

            1. Maybe you’re new to the Ken White experience?

              He’s a suicidal lunatic that acts Very Serious. He’ll either finish the job or be back in a padded cell shortly.

            2. Sure, but considering that White happily labeled anyone who questioned the Russia story as either a Trumpist or a Russian stooge (regardless of whether it was coming from the Right or Left) I have no interest in giving him the benefit of the doubt.

              There have been three investigations (House, Senate, Special Counsel) all reaching the same conclusion. I have no idea what last hope White wants to cling to, but he’s going to give it the old college try. I personally don’t think there is any reason why conspiracists should be afforded the benefit of the doubt.

              1. I think Thaddeus Russel (who argued with Ken White about free speech earlier this year) says it best:

                Thaddeus Russell
                ?
                @ThaddeusRussell

                Every journalist and politician who pushed the Russia hoax attacked our civil liberties and brought us closer to war. They need to be held accountable.

                1. Agreed, just sayin

          2. Is it possible that he’s just being very technical? I don’t know much about they guy, so I can’t guess his motivations, but it seems like what he is saying is in fact true. Lack of evidence to charge someone doesn’t exonerate them, legally speaking.

            1. Lack of evidence to charge someone doesn’t exonerate them, legally speaking.

              Legally speaking it does. As a matter of logic, it doesn’t.

              1. I really don’t think it does. A finding of not guilty doesn’t mean the same thing as innocent.

                I could be wrong, but my understanding is that exoneration means (legally speaking) a legal finding that a person did not do a criminal thing. Correct me if I’m wrong.

                1. A finding of not guilty doesn’t mean the same thing as innocent.

                  Maybe I’m missing something here? I’ve never heard of “innocent” as an option.

                  my understanding is that exoneration means (legally speaking) a legal finding that a person did not do a criminal thing.

                  I don’t think “exonerate” is a term in criminal law at all. You’re either indicted or you’re not. You’re found guilty, or not.

                  It should be noted that Reason has referred to people having convictions overturned as “exonerations” for as long as I can remember, even though many of those people were surely (but no longer legally) guilty.

                  1. I’ve never heard of “innocent” as an option.

                    That;s sort of my point. Our legal system doesn’t tell you if anyone is innocent, just if there isn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

                    Just to be clear, I think that the report means it’s time to move on and there’s nothing really there. I’m not trying to say that there is any good reason to keep trying to find Russia dirt, because I don’t think there is and I haven’t for a long time.

                    1. Our legal system doesn’t tell you if anyone is innocent, just if there isn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

                      Actually that was my point correcting your original assertion that “not charging” and “exoneration” are two different legal concepts.

                      Just to be clear,

                      No need. You’ll know if I think you’re acting retarded.

                2. Under the American system of justice, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Being exonerated requires a not guilty verdict or dismissal of the case by a judge, which requires first being indicted by a grand jury, then tried in a court of law. None of those things ever happened in this instance because there was never enough?or possibly any?evidence to even indict President Trump. He is not actually exonerated, he is simply?as he has always been and still is?innocent under the law. Any argument to the contrary must rely on some foreign concept of justice and should be viewed as attempting to undermine our own system of justice. This is what much of the press has been doing for two years. They should be chased down with pitch forks and torches if necessary.

            2. Zeb, there have been three investigation (Senate, House, and Special Counsel). It’s over.

              Why anyone would think that the same people who peddled the WMD myth would be right this time is beyond me, but people certainly should have known better than to trust Frum, Dowd, and Kristol again.

              1. I don’t disagree, Just, but I think you are not addressing what I’m saying.

                Yeah, it’s over and I’m pretty glad it is. I’m just asking questions because this is a place to come and engage in pointless nerdy debate.

            3. This was my read as well Zeb. I don’t follow White closely, I’ll have to take the others at their word. I would agree with Sidd though, legally he’s exonerated, but maybe not politically (in the court of public opinion) until we see Mueller’s report. I suspect that’s what you meant.

              1. Dude, you are crawling around Al Capone’s vault praying that Geraldo missed something, anything.

                It’s over.

                You lost.

                Again.

                1. What makes you think I lost? I don’t have a dog in this fight. I have consistently thought the whole thing was silly and would come up with pretty much exactly what it did come up with.

                  My comment was about Ken White, not Trump or the investigation. One should always ask questions that challenge one’s own biases. Get a grip.

              2. Maybe I misunderstand what “exonerate” means.

                1. Consider that Ken White’s argument is a de facto “a suspect in perpetuity until proven guilty.” Which is not exactly a libertarian approach to American jurisprudence.

                  Trump is presumed innocent. To deny that presumption is, as a matter of fact, evidence of animus.

            4. An investigation can’t exonerate someone. It can only put together evidence. Maybe I killed OJs wife. An investigation can say ‘there is no evidence he did this’, but it can’t say definitely I didn’t do it. I can’t be exonerated by it. This is a weasel way of muddying the waters. There is no evidence, he is innocent, legally. And, personally if after $30 mill and 2.5 years of investigations they found nothing, then people should say, morally, ‘he’s innocent’. Or else ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is meaningless.

              1. I thought exoneration was a jury finding the accused “not guilty” after facing a trial.

                So indictment also doesn’t imply guilt, just that there is a there.

        2. Mueller moved on to obstruction almost as soon as the thing started. The idea that Trump wasn’t fully cleared of collusion is delusional fantasy.

          1. Mueller kinda had to go with obstruction.

            Because there is no crime called collusion.

            That he could not make a case says there is no case.

        3. Just say’n pretty much covered it. White basically is claiming that there not being enough evidence to indict much less convict does not exonerate someone. That is a curious position for a civil libertarian to take to say the least.

        4. I read it as him basically saying that we don’t know much from Barr’s letter other than that Mueller didn’t find enough evidence to substantiate a charge of collusion

          IOW, the absence of smoke only proves that the fire may be very well hidden.

        5. “Being not guilty because the evidence says you’re not guilty vs there simply not being enough evidence to go forward with indictments are two distinct positions even though their practical implications are the same.”

          If there’s not enough evidence discovered after tens of millions of dollars spent, with dozens of investigators focused on that one question, shaking the tree hard enough to come up with dozens of basically unrelated indictments of other folks but not the primary…

          Either Trump is a criminal genius who can plan and execute this sort of high treason without a hint of real evidence, or may there was nothing but innuendo in the first place.

          I for one have a hard time imaging that Trump is any sort of genius, let alone a criminal mastermind.

    2. PopeHat is just the special kind of civil libertarian (lol) who accuses people of being Trumpists for asking how FISA warrants were issued based upon a political document, but also wants to reassures all of his cocktail party friends that the lack of an indictment doesn’t mean their myth isn’t real.

      1. Got a link? I checked his twitter and the official website but don’t see anything. I assume y’all mean Ken White specifically.

              1. Crucially, we don’t know whether Barr concluded that the president didn’t obstruct justice or that he couldn’t obstruct justice.

                If he couldn’t then it would seem that by definition he didn’t.

  6. Maher, OTOH, ‘has a TV’, so he knows Mueller either screwed up or is lying:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL20XUNapBc
    At 4:36

  7. My favorite is Jonah Goldberg claiming on Twitter today that he has nothing to apologize for and that he never believed in the hoax. Sadly for Goldberg, the internet is forever

    “I think it is collusion,” Goldberg said in August 2018 during a Fox News radio interview, even as the interviewer explained how the meeting was clearly set-up by Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson. “I do think Donald Trump Jr. is in trouble . . . if he was led to believe that he was gonna get stuff that was illegally stolen from Hillary Clinton’s server or from the DNC server and that he was looking forward to getting it.” (There is no mention of emails or any server in the exchanges between Don Jr. and the intermediary.)

    Goldberg then weirdly claimed, “I understand that [Don Jr.] said some things under oath to Congress about what his state of mind was going into all this.” How did he “understand” this? Was Adam Schiff was leaking private testimony to Goldberg?

    1. Goldberg also mocked the idea that the Obama Justice Department enlisted spies to infiltrate the campaign, and claimed that Carter Page and George Papadopoulos had “expressed an eagerness to work with a foreign power, Russia.” He repeatedly suggested that Trump and his associates were behaving like men with “something to hide” about Russian collusion.

      Then this in May 2018: “Meanwhile, the argument that President Trump secretly colluded with the Russians to beat Clinton has more plausibility than those shouting ‘conspiracy theory!’ and ‘witch hunt!’ are willing to entertain,” Goldberg wrote, while dismissing the real evidence about the origins of the Russiagate scandal. “In the New York Times’ telling of the story, the investigations into the Trump campaign were a necessary and good-faith effort to discern whether a foreign power had infiltrated the Trump campaign. For those who subscribe to a Hannitized version of reality, this was a lawless extension of the Deep State’s plot to thwart Trump and protect Clinton.”

      http://amgreatness.com/2019/03…..sion-hoax/

      1. >>>nothing to apologize for and that he never believed in the hoax

        Jonah should be shunned. No person has a reason to read him.

        1. Jonah and many at National Review should have been shunned a long time ago after the WMD farce imploded. So, yeah, no one is going to face repercussions for any of this

          1. On NRO, Kevin Williamson, Victor Davis Hansen, Kyle Smith, and Conrad Black are always interesting, provocative, and are generally on the side of liberty. Jonah Goldberg and David French are not worth the time to read them.

        2. Jonah’s pic should be in the dictionary next to “TDS.”

          And also next to “gasbag.”

        3. I disagree. Absent the Trump references, his “Suicide of the West” is great writing, and works well as a libertarian manifesto.

          It’s not like there are other prominent libertarians who are better.

          1. Except for the libertarians who never fell for WMDs or Russia Fever Dreams. Jonah fell for both

          2. Jonah’s caved-in-head ideology leads to the deranged essay I posted at the bottom of this thread.

          3. Goldberg’s problem is that he is a Libertarian when it suits him and he can use his “meh principles” to just decalare an ideological opponent’s position to be morally illegitimate and unworthy of response. He does this on trade and immigration and any critique of internationalism. That would be bad enough except that as soon as he is talking about something he wants stopped, like drugs, then his principles go out the window and it is totally different because reasons.

          4. >>>other prominent libertarians who are better.

            all libertarians are more libertarian than Jonah. invade Africa? wtf

          5. If you read the real Suicide of the West, you’d see some good writing. Where does dumb Jonah get off stealing that title?

            Dumb Jonah.

            Dumb dumb dumbass Jonah.

      2. Jonah Goldberg strikes me as the perfect avatar for the slur “cuck”
        I could absolutely see him crying in the corner while some random dude just hammers his wife. Weekly.
        Then she probably tells him to was the sheets and make the bed afterwards.
        Maybe it’s the goatee

    2. I honestly hate French and Goldberg. Anybody that posts French’s takes I refuse to take seriously the man is a royal asshole.

      1. Goldberg will still fart out a decent take every once in a while.

        1. Yeah, I don’t know why people think they need to either embrace or shun a writer. If they write something good, then that thing is good. If they write something dumb, then that thing is dumb. Goldberg isn’t the most consistent or principled person. I’m not going to look to him for moral guidance. But he’s not stupid and has some worthwhile things to say.

          1. Goldberg is a propangandist, like everyone else who writes for moneypit magazines propped up by a few rich guys. He should be judged as such.

          2. >>>embrace or shun a writer

            he lacks credibility. i don’t bother anymore to see whether he is dumb today as opposed to yesterday because he was dumb so many days in a row he’s off the shelf of “people who should be read”

    3. I wonder how many of the neocon cruise brigade spent most of last night scrubbing their Twitter feeds of any tweet that mentioned “collusion” or “obstruction”.

  8. Once again, there is far more evidence Democrats colluded with the Chinese government to sway the 1996 elections than Trump did with Russia in 2016, yet every single fucking journalist in this country is a Democrat so don’t give a shit. How many people even know about the scandal?

    Multiple close associates of Al Gore and prominent Democrats were caught helping Chinese nationals illegally funnel millions into Democrat campaigns in 1996. None of the witnesses cooperated with Congress, and Clinton and the DOJ refused to allow an independent counsel, despite the demands for one from the director of the FBI.

    You think DiFi had absolutely no idea her driver could be a Chinese asset?

    1. Where was former Pres. Obama born, you uneducated bigot?

      1. This has nothing to do with Obama. This isn’t some crackpot conspiracy like birtherism. Every intelligence agent knew the Chinese government was behind the illegal fundraising scheme in the 1996 elections, but Janet Reno refused to allow an independent investigation so we never got to the bottom of it. A semi-hostile foreign government was caught directly interfering in the 1996 US elections. That is no conspiracy. It is fact.

        Sure, you can argue that linking it to Clinton and Gore is a conspiracy, and buy the Democrats’ claims that it only involved Congressional elections, but seeing as the officials caught had close ties to Al Gore and they refused to allow a proper investigation, there is far more reason to believe that conspiracy than Russian collusion.

        1. Clinton was going after Chinese money while he was still the Gov of AR.

          The only time the Concorde ever landed at LIT was in 1987 when Clinton brought in a bunch of Chinese investors.

        2. “That is no conspiracy. It is fact.” Actually, it can be, and it sounds like it is, both.

          Identifying something as a conspiracy should have no implications as to whether it’s true or not. It’s just that some people use the term “conspiracy theory” to shut down inquiry.

          Let’s not do that here.

          1. Good call, Bill.
            Also, good call, colorblindkid.

          2. As Mr. Walker has pointed out here, they even use the term to shut down inquiry when it has nothing to do w conspiracies. It’s the term that cried “wolf”.

      2. He was born in the type of family that believes if the Democrats increase the size of the Supreme Court when they get back in power, or form a pact among other liberal states to ignore their own voters in choosing their representatives to the Electoral College, or if the government decides to shut down the one economical fuel system, or that using the spy and police agencies of the government to go after the Presidential candidate of the opposing party, that there will be no consequences.

  9. Gen. Tata: ‘Communist John Brennan’ Never Should Have Had a Security Clearance

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1mlUL7EIrg

  10. LOL!

    It’s been comical watching Drumpf supporters and phony progressives gloat all weekend. “This proves we’ve been right and MSNBC has been wrong all along!” Hahahahaha NOPE!!!!

    These facts remain unchanged:
    Russia hacked the 2016 election.
    Clinton still won by 3 million votes.
    Drumpf has ruined the economy.
    Drumpf is historically unpopular.
    Voters are moving toward the Koch / Reason position on immigration.
    Democrats dominated the 2018 election.

    In short, #TheResistance is as healthy as ever.

    1. Overplaying your hand, OBL.

    2. Facts?

      Did they?
      And?
      Economy looks good to me since he took office.
      Gaining popularity by the day.
      Immigration isn’t the issue. Legality is.
      Dominated? Oh you mean that failed attempt by the D’s in Georgia where the loser claims she won?

      #youreafuckingretard

    3. Well at least you listed all the MSNBC talking points for us

    4. The economy is the best ever. Trump is without question the most popular politician of all time. He can pack 2-3 30,000 seat arenas a day for about six weeks straight. And, have 50,000 more watching on a big screen TV outside each event. Voters are about 70% in favour of Trump’s immigration positions. Democrats won back an historic fewer seats in a mid-term, which almost always goes to the party not in the WH. Russia did not hack the election – whatever that even means. Clinton lost the popular vote, if you remove all the illegal voters.

      Keep up the good work. Sooner or later MSN BC might notice you and give you a free month of Netflix or something.

      1. Of note, Paul Ryan was still speaker during the 2018 midterms. Lame duck at that.
        Hard to believe he didn’t tank.

    5. You are truly deluded.
      1. Russia did not hack the election. Not one single person has ever provided proof that they did. Some Russians bought facebook adds totalling a measly few thousand dollars.
      2. It is common knowledge that Clinton garnered the votes from millions of illegals and that she only won the populous states like California and New York.
      3. Where are you getting your information. The economy is soaring according to every metric. This one is just plain lying.
      4. ‘Historically unpopular’ His polling is actually higher than Obamas at this time during his presidency, which considering the constant bombardment by the press and the 3 years investigation is actually an incredible feat.
      5. The majority of American people polled have categorically supported Trumps call to prevent illegal immigration. Trump himself has no problem with legal immigration.
      6. What planet do you live on. There is no real change to the historical norm that a sitting president does not do well in his first midterm, however, Trump absolutely bucked the trend in the senate and actually gained seats. How the hell can you equate this to the ‘Democrats dominated the 2018 election’ They LOST seats in the senate. this has rarely ever happened to a sitting president.

      Your stupid resistance is losing support daily as stupid progressives continue to push outlandish and totally ridiculous policies which the majority of Americans know will completely wreck the economy.

  11. “Speaking on MSNBC this morning, Brennan acknowledged he had been at least somewhat wrong. “Well, I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected that there was more than there actually was,” he told Scarborough, referring to Mueller’s report.”

    He’s 100% wrong, and this is the best he can do? Scumbag.

    1. The whole thing was Brennan’s idea.
      This him setting up an “honest incompetence” defense to cover for the fact that he was never anything other than a totalitarian functionary

  12. Are you, Joe Setyon, sticking to your guns? Or as Rev. Bea Arthur Kirkland would say ” bitterly clinging?”

    1. I see no reason to insult Bea Arthur like that.

  13. At this moment, I want to reiterate that we should be very careful about what counts as collusion with foreign powers. At the very least, as long as we keep being a major player in other nations affairs, it is both dishonest and unethical to throw a shit fit if they interact with ours.

    Buying ads should not be collusion. Make sure people define what they mean by collusion, because during this investigation it’s meant 50 different things, most of them benign.

    1. I don’t know how to state this clearly. I believe this investigation and hysteria was fueled by ill-defined terms, continuously stretched so that they could eventually encompass SOMETHING. This is a very dangerous thing.

      Recall that the early Russian issues were described as “hacking” strong implying actual vote changing. The accusation slowly morphed over time to become as amorphous as possible to allow some way of forcing it in the situation. Always be fearful of these kinds of language games.

    2. Honestly the entire thing is interesting the whole thing could have been an honest discussion for how campaigns work. What’s normal for country’s lobbying and seeking to influence/spy during the course of political campaigns, but the media can’t be trusted to provide context with anything DRUMPF does.

    3. At the very least, as long as we keep being a major player in other nations affairs, it is both dishonest and unethical to throw a shit fit if they interact with ours.

      This is what makes the temper tantrum so insane. Gamesmanship between global powers is inevitable, especially between nations with so many competing interests like the US and Russia. While we shouldn’t simply sit back and accept out-and-out interference of the kind that Trump was accused of, neither should we be deliberately stoking tensions with them over actions that, relatively speaking, are exceedingly benign compared to what we did to get Yeltsin elected in 1996.

      One of the complaints surrounding the DNC email hack was, “Well, why did they do the DNC and not the RNC or Trump?” Maybe the simple answer is because the DNC, thanks to being transformed into Hillary, Inc. prior to the election, really was that corrupt and incompetent, and the RNC wasn’t.

      1. Or perhaps the RNC didn’t have someone as dumb as Podesta to click on the phishing link.

        1. Surely there’s a better explanation.

      2. “This is what makes the temper tantrum so insane. Gamesmanship between global powers is inevitable, especially between nations with so many competing interests like the US and Russia.”

        What competing interests?
        Ukraine? Syria? Venezuela?
        Wtf are OUR interests there?
        And: who else did as much or more than the Russians?
        Certainly Israel, probably Iran, and most egregiously Great Britain. Though I’d guess China rivalled GB’s level of interference.
        Then there’s Mexico, of course.

        1. And the thing is, the British Foreign Office always turns out to be behind evil, never good.

  14. Avenatti arrested on federal charges of extortion, bank fraud and wire fraud

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ-jdwvWk-M

    It just gets better!!!!

    ahahhaaaaaaaa

    1. We are in the best timeline.

      1. It constantly amazes me how retarded Trumps enemies are.

        1. So much winning. I can hardly handle it.

        2. “Idle Hands|3.25.19 @ 2:13PM|#
          It constantly amazes me how retarded Trumps enemies are”

          Does it?
          Have you ever considered that that might be why they are Trump’s enemies?
          It’s at least a significant factor.

          1. But yes, the incompetence of our “betters” is still amazing.
            It’s a huge part of what led to Trump in the first place.
            We’ve all been waiting for someone to finally come along and prove just how worthless the “elite” are.
            Decadent bitches

            1. These are people who succeeded within a necessarily arbitrary system. They have little natural ability, and couldn’t succeed in a system not expressly contrived to disadvantage fundamental physical laws.
              That’s where the idea of “politically correct” comes from – it’s a euphemism for “necessarily erroneous”. Our leaders for so long have been those who are best at being necessarily erroneous.
              I dont want to rant.
              Cutting myself off here.

    2. God damn. The Trump Curse strikes again.

  15. Matt Taibbi has the best change of heart over this, even saying the Collusion Narrative was worse than the Iraq WMD narrative under Bush.

    1. Matt Taibbi, along with Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate at the Nation, and other anti-war Leftist never bought into Russia Fever Dreams.

      You should trust them on these conspiracies more than others who are fearful to ever question status quo narratives

      1. The Russian Collusion fever dream and Trump have been a great litmus test for who is and who isn’t an honest broker in the media. If nothing else this makes his presidency worth while. It was sorta clear before but now they shoot flares up to show the world.

      2. Jimmy Dore, Michael Tracey, Max Blumenthal, Mark Ames

        1. Max Blumenthal is a broken clock. He is seriously deranged.

          1. Everbody in the media and Hollywood is seriously deranged. Mentally healthy people don’t choose those careers.

        2. There are a lot of people on the Left who never bought this farce from the get go. Russia Fever Dreams was not a “progressive conspiracy”- it was always a status quo conspiracy theory. The same people who didn’t buy WMDs never bought this nonsense either

          1. Progressivism is status quo.
            Has been for over a hundred years.
            Totalitarianism is a bitch

      3. I would trust Glenn Greenwald more if his site wasn’t such a trainwreck of anti-semetism and leftist pipe dreams. I love how often his personal articles are attacked on there by his own team/crowd.

        1. I have to give Greenwald credit for always calling bullshit on this. There is no denying that. The problem is that is literally the only thing he seems to be right about.

        2. That comment board is infested with rightwing trolls and other complete lunatics. Those people are not friends of Greenwald. Anyway, let’s talk about facts instead of opinions. Here’s a fact for you. A Republican Trump appointee appointed Mueller. The same Trump appointee discussed secretly recording Trump. A Republican Senator lately turned Trump sycophant says he confronted Trump about Russia and looked in the eye says he supported the Mueller probe. This opinion that probe was unjustified is not supported by the facts. We haven’t seen what Mueller uncovered. We know Manafort was passing off polling data to a Russian spy. We know Don, Jr was meeting with another Russian agent. We know Papadopoulos was talking to Russian connected people about dirt on Hillary. I guess the shit isn’t to prove criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable but that doesn’t mean there’s not evidence of cooperation.

          1. The irony of you calling anyone a lunatic is lost on no one.

            1. Whatever John. You can’t handle the truth. It’s same old shit just a different day on this planet of the apes.

              1. Whatever John. You can’t handle the truth.

                Christ, you’re projecting more here than a 20-screen movie theater.

                You lost. You’re a loser. Your friends and family are losers for indulging your derangement instead of smacking you upside the head and telling you to MoveOn.org. Nothing you’re writing here has any basis in reality. It’s diarrehtical fanfiction of the laziest kind. All because you’re emotionally incapable of accepting that the YAAAASSSS QWEEEEEEN lost through her own incompetence.

              2. Ordinary Person|3.25.19 @ 3:28PM|#
                “You can’t handle the truth…”

                This from the fucking lefty ignoramus who is still trying to claim “COLLUSION!”
                Fuck off and die, you pathetic excuse for humanity. Make the world a smarter place.

                1. He can’t handle the fact that Hillary’s campaign paid for foreign research including information from the Russians. The FBI assisted Steele and used unverified information in a FISA court. Why? Well according to Steele himself, it was to contest an election which is far worse than using Russian info to make someone look bad during a campaign.

              3. “You can’t handle the truth.”

                You want [me on] that wall!
                You need [me on] that wall!

          2. Anyway, let’s talk about facts instead of opinions.

            That would be nice, but your posting career indicates we’re getting none of the former from you and plenty of the latter.

        3. I’ve always said Glenn is 100% right 50% of the time and 100% wrong the other 50% of the time. It’s never in between. I do respect him, though, even when I vehemently disagree with him.

        4. Anti-semitism? You are aware of Greenwald’s ethnic background, right? Oh, wait, I know: Greenwald is obviously one of those “self-hating” Jews.

          1. Look at who one of the main intercept podcasts is hosted by. I said his site was full of it, not him. Learn to fucking read.

      4. “”Matt Taibbi, along with Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate at the Nation, and other anti-war Leftist never bought into Russia Fever Dreams.””

        Don’t forget Chomsky. He didn’t buy it either.

    2. Don’t worry, just like with the Iraqi WMDs, within a few years Democrats and the press will have already absolved themselves of all wrongdoing and will claim that they were tricked by evil Republicans into believing things that weren’t true.

    3. Matt Taibbi wrote a column called ‘Something About This Russia Story Stinks’ in December 2016 where he nailed almost everything that was wrong with this silly fairy tale that was just then starting to take shape. Even in that column he drew the comparison to WMD, making the case that it was really just a matter of printing what your told by by intelligence agencies, and calling that ‘reporting’. Probably the first, best, clear headed assessment of this whole sham that I read anywhere.

  16. So now can we discuss how these FISA warrants were first issued or will you guys be too busy writing another front page article calling for sanctions against Russia for lolz?

    1. lol. I’m waiting for the all of this was Trumps fault for acting suspicious take. Whose going to be on that duty? Suderman?

      1. Now the ‘narrative’ is that Trump colluded after the fact, helping Putin as a big thank you for the election meddling.

    2. Remember when the Cato crowd was arguing that all the really strong evidence in the FISA warrant was in a few pages at the end because that’s how big brained types make sophisticated arguments?

  17. I stopped by Reason this morning to see how the cosmos were handling the news. This is a real sentence in the AM links thing:

    For the lawyer takes on this, Eugene Volokh recommends this this Volokh Conspiracy post as well as pieces by Ken White, David French, Noah Feldman, Cass Sunstein, Benjamin Wittes, and Marty Lederman.

    Ken White, David French, Noah Feldman, Cass Sunstein, Benjamin Wittes, and Marty Lederman

    Reason is officially beyond parody. OBL, you can hang ’em up now.

    1. They’re never out of step with status quo opinion. Reflexive conservatism is the defining feature of the cosmo. Actual, left-libertarians never bought this nonsense from the get go

      1. Open borders and ‘prostitution is just like any other career’ doesn’t strike me as “reflexive conservatism.”

        1. The entire Russia Fever Dreams episode was one giant appeal to authority (the intelligence community) and kept alive by those needing to conform with conventional wisdom. That is the definition of “conservatism” in the traditional sense. Say what you will about other positions, but cosmos have always been conservative with regards to foreign policy.

          1. But they don’t accept military conventional wisdom on women in combat, etc.

            It seems to me the underlying elements are universalism and utopianism, like the left generally.

            1. 100+ years into the progressive era, parroting whatever the current progressive perspective is, as just sayin correctly notices, is entirely conservative.
              When one is as committed to the status quo moral paradigm as Reason is, one is very reluctant to consider even the possibility of other perspectives.

              1. “parroting whatever the current progressive perspective is, as just sayin correctly notices, is entirely conservative.”

                I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing that the theory fits all the known facts, rather than a few convenient ones. E.g. the promotion of prostitution as just another viable career is extremely radical in the Beltway. My theory explains IMO the entire cosmo platform.

  18. BWAHAHAHA at Brennan. Some people are lower than the scum on your shoe, lower than anyone could have imagined. He’ll face justice whether it’s in this life or the next.

  19. A Continent Bleeds
    By JONAH GOLDBERG

    We should spend billions upon billions doing it. We should put American troops in harm’s way. We should not be surprised that Americans will die doing the right thing. We should not be squeamish, either, about the fact that (mostly white) Americans will kill some black Africans in the process. Yes, this would be a display of arrogance of historic proportions, even a crusade. But it wouldn’t be a military one. On one hand, this cannot be merely an armed invasion, but on the other hand it must not be some UN initiative which just shuffles poverty around. This would be America and its allies doing right as we see it.

    Yes, this would seem imperial, for there would certainly be wars declared against us. French writers would break their pencils in defiance of the American Empire. Kofi Annan would need a pacemaker. Pat Buchanan would move to Canada. But being imperial is not necessarily a bad thing. The British Empire decided unilaterally that the global practice of slavery was a crime against God and man, and they set out to stop it. They didn’t care about the “sovereignty” of other nations when it came to an evil institution. They didn’t care about the “rule of international law,” they made law with the barrel of a cannon.

    1. You know, I understand Jonah’s sentiments here. It sounds noble (at least, on the surface). And I have no doubt in my mind that it would start as a legitimately noble enterprise. I imagine the vast majority of the US Armed Forces would feel good about what they were doing. At first.

      Jonah’s problem is the same for so many on both the “right” and the “left” who have never served. This is not what armies are for. The military is for 2 things: killing people and breaking things.

      Of course, during the course of their duty, soldiers (sailors, airmen and Marines!) sometimes use their ability to destroy to save some people. Counterterrorism operations (Entebbe anyone?) for example. But you can’t save those people without killing the enemy first.

      And precisely who would be the enemy? All members of African governments? Anyone who is armed? Anyone who is black? (Sorry that was a bit far on the sarcasm). I don’t think Goldberg truly understands the scale of what he is talking about. It would be an endless war, that would require the same level of brutality as any that the dictators and warlords perpetrate. Liberating one country from a foreign aggressor can be done. Even removing a specific dictator can be successful (regardless of whether or not we should have invaded, I still believe we snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq).

      But this would result in the deaths of millions of Africans (and I am not being hyperbolic).

      1. Good analysis but … the problems with “invade and fix the entire continent of Africa” don’t really need elucidating.

  20. Collusion isn’t the relevant legal term. In the ordinary sense of the word Trump, Manafort, Jared and Don Jr, “colluded” with the Russian govt. They met with various different representatives of Russia and accepted their offers of help. We have written emails saying things like, “Let’s get Russia on board with the effort to elect Trump!” We have an email saying, ” Russia wants to help you win. Can we meet? I represent the Russian govt.” And the reply, ” Yes, I love it”. And then they meet. You have Papadopoulos meeting with agents of Russia looking for help. That’s collusion it’s just not a criminal conspiracy apparently. Y’all need to be more discerning.

    1. They met with various different representatives of Russia and accepted their offers of help.

      That is a complete lie. If that had been true, they would have found collusion. Just stop fucking lying. You are not going to gaslight anyone.

      1. Don Jr did it writing. Read his emails. It said a Russian state prosecutor wanted to help your father’s campaign by giving you dirt on Hillary and Don, Jr responded “I love it”. Another Trump guy emailed his Russian contacts and said we need to get Putin and Russia behind Trump’s candidacy. It was written down. How can you say I’m lying?

        1. You have no source for any of that because none of it is true. That is just bullshit. Again, stop lying.

          1. Don Jrs emails were leaked. I read his words. That’s my source. Manafort fucked up his plea agreement in part by lying about giving his little Russian buddy polling information. I got that information from a federal prosecutor.

            1. LOL @ Ordinary Person = loser

              1. Not one of you addressed the substance of my point.

                1. “”Not one of you addressed the substance of my point.””

                  When you dig into that substance, you realize that the whole thing was a setup as part of the contest the election plan if Trump won.

                  Sure, they might have been falling for the bait.

                  Bonus question. Where did the professor that told Don jr. about Russian dirt get his information that Russians had dirt on Hillary?

                  1. Actually, I think that was Papadopoulos, not Don jr.

                2. The irony of all this is that the entire crux of the collusion hoax was that Trump was the Manchurian candidate, in a transactional relationship with Putin where Putin would get him elected and Trump would pay him back by…uhh, changing the republican platform. To anybody with the ability to think clearly the Trump Tower meeting destroyed that narrative. Why would Trump’s team have to meet with some obscure Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary, when they are already in partnership with the highest levels of Putin’s government. It made absolutely no sense to acknowledge the Trump Tower meeting, while still clinging to the ‘Trump as agent of Putin’ fantasy.

                  And as for the Trump Tower meeting, what campaign in America is not going to meet with someone who says they have dirt on an opponent. There’s nothing illegal about that. Now if at the meeting they say ‘we hacked the DNC servers and want to give you all their emails’ and you say ‘Great, send them to me’, that’s a different matter. But nobody is saying that is what happened.

                  1. “Why would Trump’s team have to meet with some obscure Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary, when they are already in partnership with the highest levels of Putin’s government. It made absolutely no sense to acknowledge the Trump Tower meeting, while still clinging to the ‘Trump as agent of Putin’ fantasy.”

                    Making sense was not part of the TDS-driven narrative.

            2. If they were leaked, then they are on the net somewhere. Link to them and prove me wrong. Otherwise, stop lying.

              1. Did you fall down and hit your head? Just Google Don Jr’s Trump Tower emails. Google Manafort gives polling data. Google Papadopoulos lies about trying to get dirt on Hillary from Russian sources. Google Carter Page useful idiot for Russian spys. Google Michael Cohen Trump Tower in Moscow.

                1. Ordinary Person|3.25.19 @ 3:35PM|#
                  “Did you fall down and hit your head? Just Google Don Jr’s Trump Tower emails.”

                  No body cares about your delusions, you pathetic piece of shit.
                  Fuck off.

                  1. That’s called projection Sevo.

                    1. “That’s called projection Sevo.”

                      No body cares about your delusions, you pathetic piece of shit.
                      Fuck off.

                2. Funny how none of this actually led to indictments for collusion or obstruction.

                  Your fanfiction is a fever dream of the most retarded kind.

                  1. No, it led to an unprecedented investigation of a presidential campaign. That happened. I didn’t imagine it. Proving a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt is a different animal than an ordinary understanding of proof.

                    1. No, it led to an unprecedented investigation of a presidential campaign.

                      Which turned up exactly jack and shit regarding the actual scope of the investigation, and resorted to process indictments on technicalities rather than anything associated with your feverish, wrong, stupid claims of collusion.

                      Proving a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt is a different animal than an ordinary understanding of proof.

                      If there was proof, there would have been indictments, based on nothing more than your fanfiction fever dreams.

                3. I did. And I don’t see anything that shows what you are claiming. Its not there. Moreover, it is not up to me to prove your contention. Go get your proof or shut the fuck up.

                  1. Guiliani says “Manafort sharing polling data with Russian connected Ukrainian was poor judgment…” . I’m on a cell phone so pulling out quotes is the best I can manage.

                    Don Jr gets an email from a close associate who says he knows of a Russian govt connected source with dirt on Hillary. Jr replies “I love it”.

                    Papadopoulos “pleads guilty to lying about using Russian connected sources to get dirt on Hillary”.

                    Russian spys cultivated relationship with Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page refers to page as a “useful idiot”.

                    1. Trump personal attorney was instructed by Trump to pursue a real estate deal in Moscow during the campaign.

                    2. Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying about discussing sanctions relief for Russia. Trump and Pence publically disavow Flynn claim they knew nothing about Flynn’s discussions with the Russian govt.

                    3. Nothing that you’ve written here is based in reality.

                      You lost. You’re a loser.

                    4. “Guiliani says “Manafort sharing polling data with Russian connected Ukrainian was poor judgment…” . I’m on a cell phone so pulling out quotes is the best I can manage.
                      […]
                      Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying about discussing sanctions relief for Russia. Trump and Pence publically disavow Flynn claim they knew nothing about Flynn’s discussions with the Russian govt.”

                      There’s a certain level of idiocy which allows a pile of shit to post that collection of hearsay and challenge others to ‘prove it wrong’.
                      That level of idiocy is actually far surpassed by our most prolific TDS victim.

        2. Someone with a Russian last name is not Russia.

          If I’m campaigning against someone and someone with a Jewish last name contacts me and says ‘I have some dirt on your opponent that is huge’ do I listen? Of course. Does that mean I have colluded with Israel?

  21. Oh the libTard tears

    Are still

    A flowin’

    ’cause Hillary

    Why she’s a

    LOSER

  22. Scarborough may be a frequent Trump critic, but he appeared willing to take Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report at face value.

    That’s the type of thing a Republican, or a bigoted right-winger, or a recent graduate of a backwater religious school, or a Russian botfarm project might write . . . but not what a libertarian would write.

    Carry on, clingers. Especially the faux libertarians sheepish about their conservative views.

    1. Good God you are an idiot. A libertarian site woudln’t report what Scarborough actually said? You are just dumb as a post.

    2. The reality of the situation, Reverend, isn’t conservative or liberal or for that matter libertarian.

      Truth is never ideological.

    3. Arthur L. Hicklib is still salty that Mueller Claus dumped a pile of coal in his stocking.

      1. Arthur L. Hicklib is a total sex pervert

  23. Not buying the whole premise of this article. These people were fanning flames, adding gasoline and encouraging shoddy infotainment characters to run amok unchecked. Brennan needs to go away, despite his being retired, I believe he should act in a higher standard, and he knows some of the key players and how that dossier was passed around. Toobin is an atty, made people believe the garbage being spewed was legit and wasted hours of precious oxygen on assertions and bar talk.
    The only person in the whole debacle I continue to trust is Glen Greenwald. He is an actual journalist, not an activist. Pundits are blasphemous bastions of treachery.

    1. Glen Greenwald. He is an actual journalist, not an activist.

      LOL

      I don’t hate Greenwald or anthing. But he’s most certainly an activist.

      1. Greenwald has never been wrong on civil liberties or foreign policy. You can criticize his domestic politics, but the guy is a greater friend to those who believe in civil liberties and a restrained foreign policy than most “journalists”.

        1. He has been very wrong on a lot of foreign policy. He has the opposite of American Exceptionalism, where every single bad thing that happens anywhere in history is the fault of the US and Europeans, and his hatred of Israel is far beyond reasonable and into the hysterical.

          1. agree

          2. I don’t agree. I don’t think his Israel rhetoric is anywhere near as reckless as others (who largely default to a criticism of Jews) and I don’t think his general foreign policy is all that different from a standard libertarian view that use to be more common among those who called themselves such.

  24. “shockingly” he says. As if this was ever anything more than a partisan witch hunt. As for the obstruction of justice charge, has anyone ever in the history of the US been exonerated once investigated for that? Neither google or duckduckgo showed any instances. Given that a major component of the crime is intent, I suspect the answer is no since in order to exonerate someone you would have to prove a negative.

  25. If there was no collusion, in other words no crime, how could obstruction of justice even occur?

    1. What’s funny is how people are throwing around the word obstruction while pretending the deletion of emails you know are going to be subpoena is not obstruction.

      1. They pretended that making a homebrew server for US classified material was somehow not illegal either.

        The saga of Hillary’s email server displays the unquestionable corruption of Hillary, the Deep State, and the MSM.

        There was never a doubt for a millisecond that such a server was a violation of US law.

        There was never a doubt for a millisecond that Hillary knew that was illegal. “The most experienced Presidential candidate evah”, who had been in the bowels of the Deep State for decades, knew what any low level bumpkin who had ever had to deal with classified information knows – her email server was unquestionably illegal.

        The MSM showed their verminosity as they maintained the farce of “there’s no proof there was classified information” for *months* when there was never a shred of a doubt that a server used by the Secretary of State for her State Department business would be *loaded* with classified material.

        The Deep State showed their treasonous subversion of the Constitution when Comey stood before the country with the Big Smirking Piss in Your Face Lie that somehow Hillary had no “criminal intent” for her crime. I guess she was possessed by Demons when she ordered her server be built and used it. It wasn’t her that “intended” it, it was the Demons!

        1. “They pretended that making a homebrew server for US classified material was somehow not illegal either.” But it’s so much easier than having to keep, say, 900 paper FBI files in your closet.

          1. What ever happened to the fall guy for that bullshit anyway.

    2. Because “obstruction of justice” doesn’t actually mean what it says.

      1. It’s a good point. Obviously if you’re burning documents or threatening witnesses there’s an obstruction case. But if the case is entirely circumstantial, it’s hard to imagine how the circumstances could outweigh the plain fact of there not being anything to obstruct.

        1. Oh, I agree there. But it’s also one of those bullshit procedural “crimes” they can use to get you if they can’t put anything else on you because it’s so broad and vague.

    3. Obstruction is a process crime. Process crimes in no way require an actual crime to have occurred.

  26. Still, Brennan said he believes “there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.”

    Such as: “John, in what decade did you last see your own dick without the aid of a mirror?” and “John, have you ever seen Hillary Clinton naked and did it make you throw up?”

    1. Such as: “When will Brennan hang for treason?”

  27. “Who was encouraging Russia to keep stealing these e-mails in violation of the law? Donald Trump,” he said.

    Trump encouraged the Russians to *return* stolen emails that the FBI and DOJ had subpoenaed from Hillary and which she refused to surrender.

    That the media continues to spin that as “encouraging Russia to keep stealing these e-mails” shows what dishonest vermin they are, and just what doublethink NPCs the Left are.

    Hillary’s server had been offline for *years* when Trump made his quip about Russia returning her emails. There wasn’t even a server to hack anymore, yet the Left has marched under this idiotic spin that Trump was encouraging Russia to hack Hillary’s email server for *years*. The accusation is absurd on it’s face, and the *opposite* of the truth. Trump suggested the return of stolen property under subpoena, not a new theft, which was impossible at that point.

    1. “Trump encouraged the Russians to *return* stolen emails that the FBI and DOJ had subpoenaed from Hillary and which she refused to surrender.”

      Yep.
      That’s the (rather obvious) joke.
      “Maybe Russia can FIND them…”
      Those inclined towards Trump, such as people attending his rally would logically be, were well aware or of the belief that numerous foreign governments had hacked her long ago.
      That’s why it’s funny.
      Hell, I expected the Russians to do such a thing in the last month or week leading to the election.
      I’m still a little annoyed that they didn’t, but it worked out.

  28. I thought exoneration was a jury finding the accused “not guilty” after facing a trial.

    So indictment also doesn’t imply guilt, just that there is a there.

  29. I thought exoneration was a jury finding the accused “not guilty” after facing a trial.

    So indictment also doesn’t imply guilt, just that there is a there.

  30. I thought exoneration was a jury finding the accused “not guilty” after facing a trial.

    So indictment also doesn’t imply guilt, just that there is a there.

    1. “I thought exoneration was a jury finding the accused “not guilty” after facing a trial.”

      How about you are so “not guilty” no one bothers to take you to trial?

  31. No collusion. Shocker. That writing has been on the wall for a very long time. They spent 20-30 million of taxpayer dollar that could have been spent in better areas in my opinion. Think Trump earned “Lady Justice does not do NDAs.” Time for justice. How did this happen? Don’t let it happen again

  32. Haha! As if Brennan wasn’t in on the frame job.

    /rolleyes

  33. I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it. http://www.home.jobs89.com

  34. At a time where sober contemplation is sorely needed, we are not getting it. That worries me more as an American than anything else. And the media? Ouch! To say they’ve behaved irresponsibly is about as kind as I can put it.

    The report has not yet been released, but it will be released for all to see. Does anyone think in their ‘heart of hearts’ that AG Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstein would knowingly and deliberately mischaracterize or misrepresent the report contents – knowing that most of it will be made public (and/or leaked)? C’mon, be serious. They did not, and would not do that. It is sheer lunacy to think that they would.

    As an American, I feel relieved. We have now had four investigations of the POTUS and the campaign and the investigations all made the same conclusion: There was no collusion (whatever that means) with the Russians (or any other foreign power).

    I fear what is coming next, though it must be done. Whomever started this sorry saga and pushed my country on this 2-year detour needs to be held to account. There were representations made to a Federal judge on the FISA Court. Some of these representations to the Court appear to have been dishonest, and not forthright and candid. The people who signed off on that warrant need to explain themselves fully. If they broke the law, then they need to be prosecuted. That is not ‘payback’ – that is ensuring there is one rule of law for all of us.

    1. If this is the final word the public gets on the investigation, it will be more disappointing (and leave more questions unanswered) than the series finale of Lost.

      Neither Barr nor the part of the report made public state “no collusion.” Barr stated that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Didn’t establish collusion =/= proved no collusion happened.

      Additionally, despite “collusion” having no concrete legal significance, “coordination” and “conspiracy” definitely do have legal significance. This implies that the investigation was conducted through the lens of a criminal investigation – i.e. whether there was evidence of the latter that could be provable beyond reasonable doubt such that prosecution is justified. Barr’s letter indicates that there is substantial evidence of obstruction in Mueller’s report, enough such that Mueller determined he could not make a legal decision, but Barr nevertheless felt that obstruction charges were not warranted. It’s also interesting to note that, unlike other scholars, Barr believes that any act by the POTUS that’s within the president’s constitutional authority cannot be obstruction, including the termination of FBI directors. So, in Barr’s view, Comey’s termination could never be obstruction in any context.

  35. The report is not out. The people who matter most have not read it. The rachel maddow crowd was always going to be disappointed, and the alt-right crowd has been claiming vindication since day one, regardless of the evidence. It seems likely, that the report does neither quite damns trump, nor exonerates him.

    When the report is released, it will be up to the public and congress to decide whether Trump’s behavior as POTUS is acceptable. Collusion is not a crime per se, so the question of Trump’s conduct has always been of morals and ethics, not of the letter of the law.

  36. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $72/hr on the . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21863 just working on the for a few hours. Read more on this site

  37. Sarah. if you, thought Douglas`s blurb is unimaginable… I just received Dodge after I been earnin $8657 this-last/5 weeks and even more than 10/k this past-month. it’s definitly the best-work Ive had. I began this six months/ago and almost straight away began to make more than $87, per hour. I follow this website,,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.