ChrisWeigant.com

Leak-Free To The Very End

[ Posted Monday, March 25th, 2019 – 16:17 UTC ]

Robert Mueller has now finished his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump, and he has handed in his final report on both to Attorney General William Barr. While others are commenting extensively on Barr's summary letter, which was made public over the weekend, instead I would like to draw attention one final time to the most extraordinary thing about the entire Mueller investigation. Because during the entire two-year scope of his investigation as special counsel, Mueller and Mueller's team set (and achieved) an absolute gold standard that, as far as I am aware, has never before been managed in the hotbed of Washington politics: Mueller didn't leak. At all. Ever. Not even once.

Consider the fact that even after Mueller's report was finished and handed in, nobody had any idea what was in it, other than the intended official recipients of the report. We all had to wait with bated breath for Barr to release his summary before anyone had a clue what Mueller concluded. That is downright extraordinary.

I've written about this before, numerous times. The first time I did so was (strangely) on Hallowe'en of 2017, when I concluded with:

Rampant speculation over what Mueller is planning next is not going to go away, especially if his investigation remains as leak-free as it has been. We likely aren't going to find out the whole scope of his investigation until he has fully completed it, in other words. There will doubtless be more surprises along the way, and more shocking indictments filed. After each of these, we'll all enjoy another round of parlor speculation about "What message is Mueller sending?" and "What will Mueller do next?" This is because of the total lack of "unnamed sources," and even the complete absence of inside rumors from the Mueller team.

Personally, I find all of this extraordinary. Like the dog which remarkably didn't bark in the classic Sherlock Holmes story, what is truly amazing about the Mueller investigation so far is the leaks which have not happened. Speculation about what happens next is necessary to fill the airwaves because absolutely nobody outside Mueller's team has any idea whatsoever about what the team is up to and where they are heading next. The singular thing, Doctor Watson, is that there were no such leaks in the dead of night.

A year and a half later, my predictions turned out to be remarkably accurate. Even now, after the investigation has concluded, there are still no inside sources or other leaks from within Mueller's tight-knit team. That is a record that is pretty unparalleled in Washington politics.

We're still waiting to see what exactly was in the Mueller report. From this point on, leaks of this information may actually happen. But it's a pretty safe bet that if such leaks do develop, they will be from inside sources at the Justice Department, or Congress, or some other realm outside of Mueller's team. I seriously doubt they're going to spoil their perfect record now, in other words, no matter how intense the public interest has gotten.

As I said, I will be commenting on the results and the fallout from the Mueller investigation in due time (along with the rest of the political universe). But today, I didn't want to draw any sweeping conclusions along those lines. Because I thought it was worth noting (one final time) the extraordinary high bar that Mueller's team set and kept throughout their entire investigation, apart from what they discovered. Such a feat is so unique in the political maelstrom inside the Beltway that it deserves recognition in and of itself, in my opinion.

Robert Mueller investigated the most powerful person in Washington, for almost two whole years. During that entire time, the press and the politicians tried mightily to extract information about how the investigation was progressing, but the entire investigation stayed hermetically sealed, from start to finish. There were no leaks, at all. No matter what you think of Mueller, his team, his investigation, or his conclusions, you've got to admit that that is a pretty impressive feat.

 

[Program Note: Thanks to everyone for having patience with the site last week, while it was inactive. I was hit so hard by the flu that I could not even manage to post re-run columns or even Program Notes to explain that there wouldn't be a column that day. In fact, I spent the whole week either asleep or in such misery and exhaustion that getting out of bed was a major accomplishment. I am not totally back to 100 percent strength even now, which is partly why I chose such a tangent for today's column (it was easier to form coherent thoughts about, in other words). Hopefully things will improve here over the course of this week, and my writings will become more focused and analytical. But I did want to apologize for the extended dark period last week, and to thank everyone once again for their extended patience.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

75 Comments on “Leak-Free To The Very End”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I'm back! (well, kind of...)

    I would again like to thank everyone for their patience. I'll try to get to reading some comments later tonight, and there should be new columns up all this week for everyone to enjoy...

    Stay healthy, everyone. Wash your hands. Take some vitamin C. I wouldn't wish this flu on anyone, personally...

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Glad to hear you are on the mend CW.

    I look forward to an interesting week as more of the details of the report become public, especially as Trump has claimed "total vindication" which means it is only downhill from here for him - not a good idea.

    Also, after 2 years of Mueller being the most evil person on the planet, it will be hilarious to watch a pivot and then are recant as the Mueller findings start to cast a darker and darker cloud over the 2016 election and the actions thereafter.

    Normally I wouldn't speculate, but with Trump announcing a complete, 100%, whiter-than-white, "Not Guilty" verdict, things are obviously going to get more nuanced and problematic.

    Also, now we'll see Trump start to realize that Mueller was always going to be the easiest of the legal hurdles, based on the remit he had - all his spin-offs, and in particular the NY investigations, are going to come to the front of the press attention. This is only going to get worse, because, as your column states, the lack of leaking is almost unbelievable - the likelihood of negative leaks against Trump from the rest of the investigations, as the decent part of America starts to re-assert itself, will be frequent and damaging.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Glad you're feeling better.

    Hope you do cover this in due time- which would be when actual information is available.

    It is doubtful the rest of the media will show such integrity when they could spend so much time between now and actual information speculating on what that information might be.

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re: "Nobody had any idea what was in it".

    I suppose that represents a fairly accurate overall assessment, but if I can point out without bragging too much - Oh what the hell, I'm gonna brag at least a little - 'some' of us knew damn well a thing or two that were NOT in it.

    Common sense told some of us that regardless of how many times local retard girl spouted off to the contrary, that if getting political dirt on your opponent is legal SOP for any and all politicians, that getting it from Russians could not possible cause it to become illegal, meaning 'collusion' and 'conspiracy' were NOT "in it"!

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    know what else doesn't leak until it's served? pie!

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Rural old men who think they are especially intelligent because they've been kicked by cows need to become the next laughing stocks of this country. For too long these slow witted, poorly educated dunces have had a special place of privilege in our conversations based on hackneyed stereotypes from 1950's cowboy fantasies.

    Since our own rural cowpoke representative has decided he has bragging rights because he thinks he knows what is in the Mueller report, even though we've only been given the spin from two very biased sources so far, I'd like him to answer a question using the inside knowledge he is bragging about:

    Did Mueller conclude that, even though there was evidence of a conspiracy including top Trump campaign members with Russian operatives, that there was insufficient grounds for a prosecution that met the standards of "beyond reasonable doubt"?

    I expect a nonsense reply as the real depth of knowledge that is being bragged about turns out to be "I pulled it out of my cow".

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    6

    I know, right!? Awesome post.

    No matter how many times and in no manner how many ways the "cowpoke" posts this ridiculous repetitive nonsensical drivel to the contrary, it simply does not and will not change the multiple different sections of the United States Code that make it illegal to conspire with Russia or any other foreign nationals to defraud the United States by interfering in elections. Typing out his repetitive bullshit multiple times will also not change campaign finance law:

    (a) Prohibition

    It shall be unlawful for-

    (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

    (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

    Opposition research is a "thing of value." If it wasn't, there'd be absolutely no reason whatsoever for Trump and company to attempt to purchase it and/or to cover up trying to obtain it from Russia. Another quite obvious reason to obfuscate and outright lie to the entire country about working with Russia to build a Trump Tower Moscow while at the same time denying you had any dealings with Russia would be the possible receipt of funds into your campaign by foreign nationals. Although this violation of law might not qualify as a crime under a statute for "conspiracy," it would certainly meet the definition of violations of campaign finance... as it would equally be illegal to receive money from a foreign national into your inauguration committee.

    Of course, not everyone who commits a crime will be prosecuted for violations of said statutes since "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar to clear, and people who violate said laws going unprosecuted does not remotely and in any way change the statutes.

    Of course, I'm certain you and most everyone here knows all this, but my aim here is to educate the goobers of the country... one "cowpuke" at a time. Since CRS seems unable to understand, comprehend or even demonstrate the tiniest ability to grasp this simplest of legal concepts, I would wager that Chris Weigant would be happy to change his moniker on these boards to "local retard girl" in honor of his sitewide demonstrable and repeated slow-wittedness and in deference to the fact that Stucki really has come up with an absolutely perfect description for himself.

    Well, he did say he was very inclusive of girls with penises, and I would wager that's because he is one. :)

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    Glad to hear you are better, CW. :)

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    There were some McCain people who took a piece of garbage and tried to go after Trump after the election. But I told the president it was not John McCain. I know because John McCain showed me the dossier, and I told him the only thing I know to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows, turn it over to somebody whose job it is to find out. And John McCain acted appropriately. ~ Senator Lindsey Graham

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/lindsey-graham-says-he-urged-mccain-to-turn-over-steele-dossier-to-fbi

    Setting aside the caginess of his concession, ask yourself why it is that Lindsey Graham would finally make a public admission that it was him and McCain that made the decision to turn over to the FBI the dossier of Christopher Steele that was initially financed by Republicans against Trump?

    Anyone who was thinking that Trump and Nunes were alone in their wish to keep the Mueller report under wraps might want to take note. :)

  10. [10] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    How galling it must be when the rural old men of the land of Podunkia turn out to be smarter and more perceptive than the urban stuffed shirts of the land of Slobovia.

    And we can all tell that it gets downright embarrassing when the wisdom and knowledge pulled out of a Podunkian cow turns out to be far more factual than whatever it is that's frequently pulled out of those pseudo-sophisticated Slobovian's asses!

  11. [11] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [10] And we can all tell that it gets downright embarrassing when the wisdom and knowledge pulled out of a Podunkian cow turns out to be far more factual than whatever it is..

    See? That's where it's wrong. You just described Bullshit. That's bullshit. You should learn to recognize it. Doesn't matter who gives it to you.

    And anyone who says this is over because Barr says it is, is smoking it.

  12. [12] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Glad you have recovered. Remember it takes a few days to fully regain strength after a bad bout of flu.

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    See, it's like this:

    * When you're the one claiming you have "nothing to do with Republicans" while at the same time being a registered Republican, you are undoubtedly the stupid one.

    * When you're the one claiming that "there is really no realistic viable way for a pres. to pay a foreign power to influence U.S. elections," even in light of our current national discourse, you are undoubtedly the stupid one.

    * When you're the one confirming in writing that you actually do pull your repetitive shit out of your "Podunkian cow" ass, it is you who is undoubtedly the stupid one.

    Nice of you to admit it, though, Stucki.

    - Point to Neal for recognizing BS when he reads it.
    - Point to me for getting Stucki to admit he was a girl.

    Mooooooooo cow. :)

  14. [14] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    “How galling it must be when the rural old men of the land of Podunkia turn out to be smarter and more perceptive than the urban stuffed shirts of the land of Slobovia“

    That’s a nice dichotomy you have there. So which one is our “billionaire”, skyscraper-dwelling, golfing, multiple divorcee New Yorker president?

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Is all this attention to cows the result of the star qualities of DevinNunesCow?

    I'm just trying to catch up on the memes I missed while udder the weather, as it were...

    Heh.

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:
  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:


    Facebook
    Twitter
    Flipboard
    Email
    Copy
    OPINION
    Mueller Madness: The media pundits who got it most wrong
    By Sohrab Ahmari March 25, 2019 | 8:24pm | Updated
    Special counsel Robert Mueller has definitively put to rest the collusion theory of President Trump’s election. That’s not a little embarrassing for the many journalists, talking heads, celebrities and instant experts who spent more than two years furiously speculating about Moscow “pee-pee” tapes, treasonous rendezvous and the president’s imminent arrest.

    The president’s haters no doubt wish to memory-hole collusion and move on to the next anti-Trump theory. But not so fast: We want to laurel the punditry “champion” — the one who peddled the most nonsensical nonsense, the wildest inanities, the weirdest theories and unsubstantiated stories.

    That’s where your brackets come in.

    Our contenders are divided into four groups (not unlike NCAA conferences): the print journalists, the cable TV talkers, the Twitterati and the network news reporters and “analysts.” And the brackets are seeded, with the most visible and influential figures contending against the lesser-known.
    https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    House committee chairs demand full Mueller report by April 2 deadline
    In a letter to Attorney General Barr, the Democratic lawmakers said his summary of the special counsel's report "is not sufficient for Congress."

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democratic-chairmen-call-barr-submit-mueller-report-congress-april-2-n987241

    I completely agree.. Release the full report, which is rumored to be 3 thousand pages long..

    Let Democrats tie themselves in knots re-doing the Mueller investigation over and over and over and over again..

    By the time Nov of 2020 comes around, the American people will be so sick and tired of these do nothing Democrats that Democrats won't be able to be elected county dogcatcher..

    So, release the report... Drag this out until the election...

    What a perfect way to put the final nail in the coffin that carries the diseased and putrid carcass of the Democrat Party...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    That’s a nice dichotomy you have there. So which one is our “billionaire”, skyscraper-dwelling, golfing, multiple divorcee New Yorker president?

    Funny how you didn't care about any of that that applied to Odumbo, eh??

    Oh, that's right... Odumbo has a -D after his name, so he gets a pass..

    Which simply proves you don't really care about any of that..

    All you want is a nice shiny bludgeon to beat the head of the POTUS that you don't like, due to bigotry and hate..

    Glad we have established the facts here..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    VIDEO: The Liberal Media’s Most Embarrassing Mueller Failures
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/curtis-houck/2019/03/25/video-liberal-medias-most-embarrassing-mueller-failures

    And what's hilarious is that ya'all think ya have even a SMIDGEN of credibility... :D

    That's so funny...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller Exposes Spy Chiefs
    Did our intel leaders have any evidence when they pushed the Russia collusion line?

    Now that special counsel Robert Mueller has found that no one in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, Democrats are busy moving the goal posts. But this is a distraction from the real reckoning that needs to come.

    The one we need is for all the intelligence officials—including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Central Intelligence Agency chief John Brennan, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—who pushed the Russia conspiracy theory. The special counsel has just made clear they did so with no real evidence.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-exposes-spy-chiefs-11553555713

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    “It wasn’t just Howard Dean, it was continuously on MSNBC, which––let me just say, should have their top hosts on primetime go before the cameras and hang their head in shame and apologize for lying to people for three straight years, exploiting their fears to great profit. These are people who were on the verge of losing their jobs. That whole network was about to collapse. This whole scam saved them. And not only did they constantly feed people for three straight years total disinformation, they did it on purpose, Tucker.”
    -Glenn Greenwald

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller report: Collusion by the news media, not Donald Trump, but don't expect apologies

    We may someday need a press we can trust. But I hope not, because we certainly don’t have one. The drummed up narrative of collusion has now imploded.

    The mountain has labored and brought forth a mouse. After two years of hype, special counsel Robert Mueller has reported to Attorney General William Barr that there was no “collusion,” as Donald Trump would put it, between Trump or the Trump presidential campaign and the Russians regarding the 2016 election.

    There will be no new indictments from Mueller beyond the few already issued, none of which charges a U.S. person with anything related to collusion. This is a big disappointment to the people in politics and the press who were openly hoping to see Trump, and his family, kicked out of the White House and thrown into jail.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/24/mueller-report-findings-collusion-news-media-donald-trump-column/3263167002/

    Just think, people.. Ya'all have TWO YEARS of these kinds of stories to look forward to..

    Won't it be grand and joyous!!!?? :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base.”
    -Matt Taibbi

    Although it's hard to imagine, the Leftist MSM's (and ya'all's incidentally) is LOWER than it was before this embarrassing debacle..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    PIERS MORGAN: The Russia collusion hoax was a disgraceful fake news witch-hunt that shames all of Trump’s deranged enemies in the media, the FBI and Hollywood and has probably ensured their worst nightmare - his re-election

    So it was all fake news…

    The entire two-year Russia collusion frenzy was based on an absolute falsehood that Donald Trump and his team had colluded with Russians to fix the 2016 election.

    It’s hard to imagine a worse thing to say about someone than that they betrayed their country, that they were traitors to their own people.

    Yet that was the charge levelled at Trump in an obsessively unrelenting campaign to bring him down as President.

    Today, he stands completely vindicated.

    The long-awaited report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller sensationally cleared Trump of any collusion.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6847671/PIERS-MORGAN-Mueller-report-shows-collusion-disgraceful-hoax.html

    Ya'all KNOW it's bad for liberals when ya'all have Piers Morgan capping on ya'all.... :D

    But he is spot on here..

    Democrats all up and down the line have just insured that President Trump will be re-elected in a landslide election..

    No matter WHAT Democrats say in the run up to Nov of 2020, NONE of it will have any credibility.. Not a SINGLE IOTA OR SMIDGEN of credibility...

    Congrats, Dumbocrats.. Ya'all just guaranteed a President Trump administration thru 2024...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    On Sunday, the Justice Department confirmed what the American people had known all along: the Donald J. Trump campaign did not collude with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. President Trump was completely exonerated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year investigation, which found no collusion and no evidence of obstruction of justice.

    This is great news for our country and bad news for the Democratic leadership who spent the past two years lying to Americans – only because they could not accept the results of the 2016 election. Their shameful obsession with the collusion narrative and blind hatred for President Trump meant millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted in search of a nonexistent crime.

    It all started with a phony, unverified dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The ensuing Special Counsel investigation cost over $25 million, or an average $50,230 per day. With at least 19 attorneys working on Mueller’s staff, it was a drain on resources, time, and manpower. But the White House cooperated from day one because truth was always on the president’s side.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/rnc-chairwoman-ronna-mcdaniel-mueller-report-vindicates-trump-and-american-voters

    Sore Luser'ism on a hitherto undreamt of scale..

    "Thanos could destroy life on a scale, heitherto undreamt of."
    "Did you seriously say hitherto undreamt of?"

    -AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Journalism Dies in Self-Importance

    As Ted Koppel has recognized, today’s media embrace the darkness of their own biases.

    I suppose it’s true that “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” as the Washington Post’s slogan says. But journalism may also die, by morphing into forms that can no longer be described as journalism. Journalism may come to mean a crooked scandal sheet, or high-minded propaganda. Sometimes squalor and self-righteousness are equally disreputable.

    The Post’s apothegm, somehow off-kilter, with its alliteration and self-importance, was a purposeful bit of branding, designed to claim high ground and to poke a thumb in President Trump’s eye every morning. Such partisan intent detracts from the slogan’s claim to universality. The self-serving implication—the notion that, against the Darkness, the Washington Post represents the Light—invites the reader to respond (as readers have always responded to the Chicago Tribune’s slogan, “The World’s Greatest Newspaper”) by muttering, “I’ll be the judge of that, pal.”

    The other day, Ted Koppel, a voice from the late-twentieth-century practice of journalism, spoke about what has become of his old business in the age of Trump. “We are not the reservoir of objectivity that I think we were,” Koppel said, in an understatement. The Left always cites Fox News in this regard. He singled out the Washington Post and the New York Times, saying that they have gone overboard in their bias, transforming themselves into anti-Trump advocates. “We are not talking about the Washington Post [or New York Times] of 50 years ago,” Koppel said. “We’re talking about organizations that . . . have decided, as organizations, that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States.”
    https://www.city-journal.org/media-bias

    It's ironic that, of all the news organizations, it's Fox News that comes out looking better than all the others...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Planet Vulcan

    Disproving Vulcan was actually critical to help proving Einstein’s own theories, and Levenson said that when he “solved” the mystery of Vulcan, Einstein couldn’t work for three days he was so excited.

    In the early 1900s Einstein presented his findings and, in Levenson’s words, “destroyed” Vulcan once and for all.

    Levenson says Vulcan served as a cautionary tale – what can happen when people want to believe.

    “People kept discovering Vulcan because the way they saw the world required Vulcan to be there,” he said. “It took Albert Einstein to provide the framework in which Vulcan became not only non-existent, but unnecessary.”
    http://www.realclearlife.com/history/vulcan-mania-revisited-discovering-planet-wasnt/

    Interesting corollary, eh?? :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has unleashed a roaring economy and that's really bad news for 2020 Democrats
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-has-unleashed-a-roaring-economy-and-thats-really-bad-news-for-2020-democrats

    Democrats are going to lose and lose big in 2020... :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victory lap and accolades: Trump has, perhaps, best day ever

    WASHINGTON (AP) — He kept up a fist-pumping victory lap over the end of the Mueller probe. Basked in gushy accolades from a foreign leader. Saw a former nemesis humiliated by the feds.

    To most of America, it was just another Monday. For President Donald Trump, it was, perhaps, his best day ever.

    Trump started his day firing off exuberant tweets over the end of the special counsel investigation , segued to a back-slapping meeting with the Israeli prime minister and held a celebratory photo-op with the Stanley Cup-winning Washington Capitals. To top it off, news broke along the way of the arrest of attorney Michael Avenatti , who rose to fame representing a porn actress who alleged she had sex with a married Trump, though Trump denied it.

    By any measure it was a good day for Trump. But the president’s hot streak was all the more noticeable given just how many tough days he has had. Since taking office, he’s been dogged by investigations and staff turnover. He has clashed repeatedly with Congress, governed over a deeply divided country and seen huge pushback against his presidency in the midterm elections.

    On Monday, though, everything was coming up Trump.
    https://www.apnews.com/732eb0035d994cc3b58f83bb0164200f

    Oh my what complete and utter humiliation for the Left Wingery...

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of people...

    :D

    A 20 month long victory lap culminating in a huge landslide win for President Trump in Nov of 2020...

    Life is, indeed, good... :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like MAGA is the word of the day...

    Michael Avanetti Got Arrested....

    The one-time Democrat hero goes down in flames!!!

    BBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP turns fury on Schiff over Russian collusion claims
    https://apnews.com/c3e03438a8034ca19bcd1d2fd273b1df

    When all is said and done..

    We come to find out that Schiff is full of shit, just like every other Trump/America hater....

    Who could have possibly predicted this!!???

    Oh wait.... :D

  33. [33] 
    John M wrote:

    [29] Michale

    "Democrats are going to lose and lose big in 2020... :D"

    Oh yeah? Seems to me I remember you kept saying that about 2018, and look how well that turned out for you!

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh yeah? Seems to me I remember you kept saying that about 2018, and look how well that turned out for you!

    It worked out quite well, as a matter of fact...

    Irregardless that was before Democrats totally and completely bit the big one with the Mueller report...

    However, in the interests of accuracy, I will add a caveat...

    If Democrats actually drop this incessant and futile agenda of nullifying a free, fair and legal election... If Democrats actually put forth viable and sincere legislation that puts the good of the country above all else....

    If Democrats do that, then my prediction will likely not come to pass..

    But you and I both know that Democrats won't do that...

    This current mega-loss will simply spur them on to more hysterical and more outlandish acts in their quest to destroy President Trump...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    IN other words, Democrats are the Lannisters of this country...

    And everyone knows a Lannister always pays their debts..

  36. [36] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Those who make stoopid predictions never have to admit they were wrong, because they can always say "Wait til tomorrow"!

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those who make stoopid predictions never have to admit they were wrong, because they can always say "Wait til tomorrow"!

    That is exactly why I make specific predictions that have a set time frame... And I always remain to take the heat if my predictions are factually inaccurate..

    I agree with you that the "Be patient Trump will go down" predictions are ludicrous and the sign of a weak mind with a weak argument..

    It seems that Democrats have only the latter type of prediction...

    Will Occasional Cortex be around in 12 years and take the heat if her predicted destruction of the planet DOESN'T come to pass??

    You and I both know the answer to THAT question... :D

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    Seriously, has anybody heard from Michale recently? Anybody?

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: As I said, I will be commenting on the results and the fallout from the Mueller investigation in due time (along with the rest of the political universe).

    You and "the rest of the political universe" might want to find a more simple way to explain the term "does not exonerate" that Bill Barr quoted from Mueller's report... something that even the MAGAts can understand... perhaps something smaller than a 4-syllable word. :)

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, has anybody heard from Michale recently? Anybody?

    TRANSLATION: "fingers in ears NYAAA NYAAA NYAAAA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!! I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!! NYAAA NYAAAA"

    "Did IQs just suddenly drop while I was away??"
    -Ripley, ALIENS

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    'EMPIRE' BOMBSHELL!
    SMOLLETT CHARGES DROPPED

    https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/03/26/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped/

    I predicted this EXACT thing would happen..

    Democrat scumbags protecting their own...

    Cops have GOT to be royally pissed off....

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "Did IQs just suddenly drop while I was away??"

    Yours apparently did. You don't seem to know the difference between "exonerated" and "not exonerated", for instance.

    'salright. You probably live in a place where higher IQ'a aren't necessary.

  43. [43] 
    Paula wrote:

    The main things we've learned from the Mueller report:

    1) Criminal POTUS doesn't want it released.
    2) Complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans don't want it released.

    Republicans will lie, cheat, steal, obstruct exactly as long and as far as they can get away with.

  44. [44] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula

    Actually, the only two "complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" here both want it released, so you girls have to give up on your "It ain't done yet, just wait for tomorrow" excuse for not admitting defeat.

    You, on the other hand, should hope it never gets released, so you can go on forever propagating the big lies.

  45. [45] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I think now is a good time to look to the lessons learned from the handling of the Iran-Contra affair....

    How he handled Iran-Contra is precisely the reason he was installed as attorney general.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yours apparently did. You don't seem to know the difference between "exonerated" and "not exonerated", for instance.

    Actually, I do know the difference..

    Apparently, you don't.

    President Trump was COMPLETELY exonerated on the collusion with Russians bullshit...

    It was with the Obstruction bullshit that there wasn't enough evidence to charge, which is as good as exoneration..

    Face reality sunshine.. You lost..

    Go lick your wounds and then you can start the whole bullshit over with new accusations..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, the only two "complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" here both want it released, so you girls have to give up on your "It ain't done yet, just wait for tomorrow" excuse for not admitting defeat.

    You, on the other hand, should hope it never gets released, so you can go on forever propagating the big lies.

    Exactly.. The worse thing for Democrats is that the full report gets released...

    The BEST thing for Republicans and the President is that the full report gets released..

    HOW is it that Democrats always maneuver themselves into such situations??

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was with the Obstruction bullshit that there wasn't enough evidence to charge, which is as good as exoneration..

    I am sure you are familiar with the concept..

    Insufficient evidence to charge was why Hillary Clinton was "exonerated"...

    Now, if you want to make the claim that Hillary Clinton is not innocent of the charges against her, by all means..

    Make that argument...

    You can't win, Balthy... I have facts on my side..

    And all you have is report that is devastating to Democrats and virtually ensures President Trump's re-election...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    The main things we've learned from the Mueller report:

    According to you, you don't KNOW ANYTHING from the Mueller report..

    Now you are saying what you have learned..

    You EVER get tired of talking out both sides of your ass???

    Or is that your penis talking??

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Insufficient evidence to charge was why Hillary Clinton was "exonerated"...

    Hillary wasn't charged because the 'evidence' was too slight. And Comey made a big deal out of presenting the case against her anyway. Will Barr do the same to Trump?

    I doubt it.

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    According to you, you don't KNOW ANYTHING from the Mueller report..

    We don't. Don't say you do.

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    INTERMISSION

    In between fits of laughing and rolling on the floor, I would just like to go on record here and congratulate Stucki for his acceptance and admission that he and another are:

    "complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans"

    Good form, Stucki. As for your fake quotes and your ever-present obsession with "the girls" and your utterly nonsensical notion that current events are actually indicative of anything whatsoever to do with some kind of "defeat" of anyone here on this board regardless of gender, I should think you could get out in front of that whole obvious neurosis with multiple and frequent visits to your local Podunk mental health professional before that delusion consumes what's left of your addled psyche.

    It was also a super nice touch for the board troll to quote Stucki's admission about "two complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" and chime in with his retort of:

    "Exactly.."

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary wasn't charged because the 'evidence' was too slight.

    A distinction without a difference.. A bullshit opinion without ANY supporting facts from someone completely bigoted in favor of Hillary.

    We don't.

    And yet, Paula claims she knows...

    Don't say you do.

    I do... If Barr had mischaracterized anything, then Mueller would have spoken up.. He has done it before..

    You just don't like what it says, so you pretend it doesn't say anything..

    And what will you do when the report is released and President Trump is STILL exonerated??

    Will you accuse Mueller of being the bad guy???

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Will you accuse Mueller of being the bad guy?

    Whoa, we're still a long way from there. First, we have to hear from him.

    You just don't like what it says, so you pretend it doesn't say anything..

    Don't know what it says. We'll see.

    And what will you do when the report is released and President Trump is STILL exonerated?

    Then I'll pin my hopes to the ballot box, and the SDNY. Mostly the ballot box.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whoa, we're still a long way from there. First, we have to hear from him.

    We have heard from him.. Thru his legally appointed representative..

    YOU just don't like what he said..

    What will you do when you read the actual report and it says the exact same thing??

    Don't know what it says. We'll see.

    Yes, we do. You just don't like what it says so you pretend you don't know..

    Then I'll pin my hopes to the ballot box, and the SDNY. Mostly the ballot box.

    Will you accept that President Trump is completely exonerated of collusion with Russia when you read the full report and that's what it says??

    I don't think you will.. You will always find some loophole to continue your Trump/America hate..

  56. [56] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Appears the local Retard here is too dumb to avoid the conflation of the the dual concepts of "quotation" and "acceptance".

    Now I should be having "fits of laughing and rolling on the floor", but unfortunately, my ability to differentiate 'funny' from 'pathetic' precludes that particular activity.

    But that's OK, 'cause I'm still laughing over her two-year insanity attack re "presidential collusion" being demolished by Mueller. At my age, there are limits to how much raucus laughter one can bear without gasping for breath.

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I don't think you will.. You will always find some loophole to continue your Trump/America hate..

    Do you see what you've done? There it is. You drank the kool-aid and think that Trump/America is a thing.

    America is a thing. I love America.

    Trump is something else. Maybe just another slob from Queens. Shouldn't in any case be president.

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Will you accept that President Trump is completely exonerated of collusion with Russia when you read the full report and that's what it says?

    No, because I'm not that dumb. Regardless of what the report says, I have eyes and ears, and have seen and heard enough. It happened, in plain sight. Really hard to make that go down the memory hole..

  59. [59] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Weigantians, especially the rational ones, REALLY need to catch the Glen Greenwald interview with Amy what's-her-name, the "Democracy Now" lady, on her recent daily show on PBS.

    Greenwald (and Amy also), are staunch members of the Dem/Lib end of the political spectrum. No WAY can you POSSIBLY claim that those two people are lying to you!

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Anyone actually interested in the facts regarding the Barr letter versus the nonstop repetition of bullshit that doesn't magically become facts no matter how many times you repeat them, here you go:

    Regarding "conspiracy" or "coordination," Bill Barr's letter states:

    The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. [ <----- CRS, take notes so you'll remember this ] The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Regarding obstruction of justice:

    The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

    That isn't the equivalent of being exonerated; it's the equivalent of Mueller setting forth the facts he found during his investigation yet making no conclusion either way.

    I believe many of us have had the discussion before that not being convicted or no finding of guilt isn't the equivalent of being found not guilty. Similar to the Manafort jury's determination of guilt on several charges yet no determination of guilt on several other charges. Guilty indeed means guilty, but "no determination of guilt" didn't mean "not guilty." The fact that Manafort eventually admitted guilt in every single charge is a big honking clue that "no determination of guilt" doesn't mean "not guilty." It means it's undetermined.

    I would wager SCO/Mueller left it open for Congress to decide whether or not obstruction of justice had occurred versus one man's opinion in the form of the Attorney General. Mueller doesn't equivocate. He made a decision based on the evidence he had that there was no case he was willing to prosecute regarding "conspiracy" or "coordination" with the "Russian government." He declined to make a decision on the question of obstruction. I would wager that is because he wanted to leave it to Congress, and I suspect we'll know the answer eventually directly from Mueller. If the President refused to be questioned under oath by Mueller, and the question of "obstruction" is largely a determination of "intent," how would Mueller or anyone be able to make a determination regarding "intent" when the person in question refused to be questioned? They can't. That's my opinion.

    I accept Mueller's findings whatever they turn out to be. Why wouldn't I? I've seen a jury take a set of facts and determine innocence and seen another jury take virtually the same set of facts and determine innocence. Why? Because a determination of guilt or innocence in a criminal case is predicated on a finding of "beyond a reasonable doubt," and that is the penultimate bar on the scale of justice... a very high hurdle. That's our legal system, ladies and gents; it ain't perfect, but it beats a huge swath of the legal systems on the rest of the planet Earth.

    Bill Barr wrote a memo wherein he explained that he made a decision regarding obstruction that Mueller left open. The smaller the jury, the more cut and dried the verdict. A jury of one person in the form of Bill Barr who had already made a decision regarding guilt or innocence? Why would anyone expect anything different the second time he made it?

    As far as impeachment on any grounds? Did anyone actually believe a Republican House would impeach any Republican? Of course not. Did anyone believe a Democratic House would impeach any Republican? Maybe. This "Republican"? There's a better case for "no" than there is for "yes," and Nancy Pelosi already made it. Regardless of impeachment, there isn't a single person I've found anywhere who believed any Senate would turn out the sitting POTUS... because it's happened exactly zero times in history. I love history; there's a lot to be learned by paying attention to it.

    Crime comes in many forms related to issues investigated by the SCO and the evidence uncovered in the exercise that aren't necessarily related to the very narrow purview of "conspiracy/coordination" with foreign nationals from Russia, and "spin-offs" and "speaking indictments" are what Mueller utilized over and over ad nauseam regarding his findings of crime... multiple spin-offs to DC, EDVA, and multiple etceteras... some of them sung to the tune of New York, New York. :)

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    56

    Appears the local Retard here is too dumb to avoid the conflation of the the dual concepts of "quotation" and "acceptance".

    For future reference, you might want to avoid referring to anyone else as a "retard" in the same sentence where you can't accomplish the simple task of typing double words and thereby end up resembling your own description. Also, can you please get more creative with your name calling? That particular choice of yours is dull and lackluster, showing limited flair and is so dated and last century. Trying thinking outside your tiny little box.

    I will say it's nice to see your acceptance of your self-anointed label, Stucki, however dull and uncreative it is, since it certainly wasn't me who identified myself and another poster as the only two "complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" here [who] both want it released.

    Now I should be having "fits of laughing and rolling on the floor", but unfortunately, my ability to differentiate 'funny' from 'pathetic' precludes that particular activity.

    See then, there's your problem. There's mercifully absolutely no need to concern yourself with differentiating between funny and pathetic since you are admittedly one of the only two "complicit ass-covering cowardly Republicans" here who are both.

    But that's OK, 'cause I'm still laughing over her two-year insanity attack re "presidential collusion" being demolished by Mueller.

    Wrong, Stucki. Explaining to you that statutes exist making it a crime to "get dirt"... your term... "from Ruskies"... your term... while you insisted over and over than doing so wouldn't even be a federal crime even if they did it isn't the same thing as insisting that Mueller would find evidence that fit within his mandate. When the Mueller report is released, we'll know more about how Mueller's mandate was defined by Rosenstein and the various assorted AG's who've made decisions regarding same and the conclusions he drew from the evidence he amassed. Simple legal term and discovery. Duh!

    At my age, there are limits to how much raucus laughter one can bear without gasping for breath.

    You meant "raucous" laughter, right? There's that demonstrable and uncanny resemblance to your own lackluster "ad hominems." Also, keep in mind (is that even possible) that the limited and inadequate oxygen going to your brain at your age is also an impediment to critical thinking skills and brain function. :)

  62. [62] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Speaking of "double words" . . . How about "I've seen a jury take a set of facts and determine innocence and seen another jury take the same set of facts and determine innocence." Wow, that's a radical outcome, right?

    Re: "CRS take notes . . ." Why would I need notes to remember the very thing I've been telling you for two yrs, and you've been disputing for those same two yrs, and now saying you agree with me and Barr???

    Re: "Did anyone actually believe . . ." Not anyone with common sense, but you definitely DID believe that getting dirt on Hillary from Russians would result in Trump's downfall and exit! You made that very plain many times.

    Re: "Trying thinking outside . . ." ??? How does one "Trying" thinking?

    Re: "It wasn't 'ME' who identified . . ." Literate people would write . . . It wasn't 'I' . .

    So, now that the nitpicking is over, maybe you can visit Amy's Glen Greenwald interview. I'm gonna LOVE to hear you declare how someone on your side is lying and/or mistaken telling you the same things I've been telling you for two yrs.

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS

    Speaking of "double words" . . . How about "I've seen a jury take a set of facts and determine innocence and seen another jury take the same set of facts and determine innocence." Wow, that's a radical outcome, right?

    Wrong again, Stucki! I'm explaining that most juries given virtually the same set of facts and the same jury charge will come to the same conclusion based on the scales of justice that the prosecution is required to clear. Your inability to understand an explanation of the high bar of "preponderance of the evidence" versus the penultimate bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the fact that most juries will come to the same conclusion given virtually the same set of facts is duly noted. That is exactly why prosecutors in high profile cases won't reach a determination of "conspiracy" or "coordination" unless they know it will meet that penultimate bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Thank you again for that demonstration of your inability to grasp legal concepts, although it was absolutely unnecessary for you to pile onto the evidence you've already presented that made it a slam dunk case.

    Re: "CRS take notes . . ." Why would I need notes to remember the very thing I've been telling you for two yrs, and you've been disputing for those same two yrs, and now saying you agree with me and Barr???

    Wrong. I never said I agreed with you, and I sure as hell NEVER said I agreed with Barr. You've been insisting it's not illegal... how many times do I have to go over the same stuff... and I've been quoting the statutes proving it was illegal. Whether or not the evidence cleared the bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or fit within the description of "conspiracy" that was the SCO's mandate was the open question.

    Re: "Did anyone actually believe . . ." Not anyone with common sense, but you definitely DID believe that getting dirt on Hillary from Russians would result in Trump's downfall and exit! You made that very plain many times.

    Wrong again! You claimed ad nauseam it wasn't illegal to "get dirt" from "Ruskies" while I quoted the law that proved otherwise. We never once discussed whether Mueller would find evidence that he would prosecute that met the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's still illegal to attempt to "get dirt from Ruskies" as defined by statute, and it's still illegal for a campaign to accept a "thing of value" or to take money from foreign nationals. You and I never discussed whether or not Mueller would find evidence that he would prosecute "beyond a reasonable doubt," but we did discuss that there is a Department of Justice directive that sitting presidents are not indicted. Me and Balthasar discussed multiple times that Trump wasn't "going down" for a damn thing unless and until he leaves office and still has a pulse when he exits.

    The law is nuanced, Stucki, and no one on these boards would accuse any self-admitted Republican of being able to understand legal nuance... or any kind of nuance, for that matter... least of all me, especially where you and your demonstrable limited abilities are concerned.

    Re: "Trying thinking outside . . ." ??? How does one "Trying" thinking?

    It's obvious that you never do, even if you had the equipment to attempt the trying. :)

    Glenn Greenwald? Please see his history with Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks. You know WikiLeaks, right? The cutout used by Russia to distribute hacked documents that were stolen from Americans? You should note that although Mueller has apparently cleared the Trump campaign from "conspiracy" or "coordination" with the "Russian government," unless his report says otherwise, that parsed language as written might or might not include the Russian cutout known as WikiLeaks. Who knows until we see Mueller's report? :)

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS

    So, now that the nitpicking is over, maybe you can visit Amy's Glen Greenwald interview. I'm gonna LOVE to hear you declare how someone on your side is lying and/or mistaken telling you the same things I've been telling you for two yrs.

    While it is correct to say that I'm not a fan of the current POTUS, I don't exactly have a "side." That's something we actually do have in common... go figure.

    But I'm not a Democrat... never have been and never will be. :)

  65. [65] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Am I just in the throes of a cough syrup hallucination, or is Michale back?

    :-)

    -CW

  66. [66] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops . . . Not quite through with the nitpicking after all!

    "ME and Balthazar discussed . . .???

    Your literacy level is dropping as fast as Trumps guilt for 'collusion". Don't they teach English in Slobovia???

  67. [67] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    66

    Oops...Not quite through with the nitpicking after all!

    Oh, I see a capital after an ellipse and a sentence fragment. You're trying to outdo me, right?

    "ME and Balthazar discussed...???

    Oh, I see another sentence fragment and three question marks following an ellipse. Why? Why would anyone put three question marks after an ellipse? Is your brain so oxygen deprived that you can only see the one in the middle? If so, it is silly to assume the rest of us can't see all three of them.

    Your literacy level is dropping as fast as Trumps guilt for 'collusion". Don't they teach English in Slobovia???

    How would I know? I don't live on Earth 2 where "conservatives" reside. Go find a MAGAt your own age in a red hat and ask him. Who in hell is "Trumps"? Did you mean "Trump's"? If you did, then you forgot to show possessive. Oh, wait. I found it stuck over there by the word "collusion" where you should have used quotes on both sides instead of that hot mess you typed. Also, when you do use quotes around a word at the end of a sentence, the period goes inside the quote, not on the outside like you always screw up in every single post you've ever made. Lastly, you're killing everyone with those triple question marks; the rest of us can see the other two!

    You do not want to get into a grammar and/or punctuation fight with me, old man. You'll get your bony ass kicked right up between your shoulders and teetering on the brink of your oxygen deprived cranium... every time! :)

  69. [69] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    https://www.businessinsider.com/barr-mueller-report-white-house-executive-privilege-2019-3

    Can anyone say Iran-Contra? I wonder if the pardons will come just before the release?

  70. [70] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Actually, I'm surprised that anybody who would ever write "ME . . .discussed . . ." is so much into nitpicking, but have it your own way! I'm willing.

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    70

    Actually, I'm surprised that anybody who would ever write "ME . . .discussed . . ." is so much into nitpicking, but have it your own way! I'm willing.

    That's because I wasn't writing, Stucki; I was actually "talking" that particular post into my voice recognition software... and I happen to generally not give two shits what anybody thinks about my speaking habits.

    Just rest assured in the knowledge that you'll never beat me in a game of "grammar teasing" with your atrocious posting habits; I can assure you that. ;)

  72. [72] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Fine, I also certainly don't "give two shits", nor even a single shit for that matter, whether your speech is laden with crude and grammatically incorrect phrases, but when it appears on CW's blog, it also kinda reflects on your written language, which turns your nitpicking proclivity into sort of a "people who live in glass houses . . " situation of vulnerability, right?

    What's the problem, hasn't anybody ever invented 'Gramcheck', the bad grammar users' equivalent of 'Spellcheck'???

    P.S. You never shoulda told me the triple question marks bug you - now you're in bad trouble.

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    You are so funny, Stucki.

    The triple question marks don't bug me at all... just lets us all know that you're seeing multiples like a drunk man does because the amount of oxygen getting into the deep reaches of your brain is sorely deficient.

    Now, isn't it past your bedtime? *waves hand* Go. ;)

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [60]:

    BAM! Kickass post!

    goode trickle [69]:

    When the president refuses to participate in an investigation, and the investigation focused on events that occurred prior to Trump taking office (the Russian assistance part of the investigation, not the obstruction of justice), how can they claim privilege?

  75. [75] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Russ-

    To most of us who would not think of having to cover anything up we would not be thinking to claim privilege.

    The GOP on the other hand is pulling all of the same tricks they used in Iran-Contra on this one and Barr was a major player in that scam.

    Barr held then as he does now that the president is imbued with nearly imperial powers that preclude us mere citizens from knowing, let alone holding accountable a president for violations of the law.

    I predict that the privilege claimed will be in areas meant to sculpt the released report to bolster the current exoneration narrative and hide the most damming evidence against the administration thus forcing the dems to sue for more release. this will allow the GOP to continue it's gaslight operation and will run out the clock on impeachment as by the time the real report gets released it will be time to vote at which point the GOP will transition it's messaging to much ado about nothing.

Comments for this article are closed.