The Mueller Report: A Damning Indictment… of Something

 

As we wait more or less breathlessly for the release of the Mueller Report, the assumption appears to be growing that it will be, in the eloquent words of Secretary Clinton, a nothing-burger.

But it will not be a nothing-burger, even if it reports no evidence of collusion. Because we’ve spent more than two years obsessing over this, driven by a press that pronounced almost daily the beginning of the end for the Trump administration. If there was no there there, then someone has some explaining to do. Because many of us thought this was pretty obviously cooked up from the start, to hide either Clinton campaign embarrassment or, worse, Clinton/Obama collusion to undermine the 2016 Trump campaign.

The ladies and gentlemen of the press fancy themselves the guardians of democracy, the bulwark (ahem) against ignorance and tyranny. If it turns out, as I suspect it will, that they have wasted most of their time and energy and resources, and our attention, over the past many months on a trumped-up non-story, an improbable bit of misdirection foisted on us by a failed candidate with the assistance of a corrupt former administration, then they have made a mockery of the fourth estate. Democracy dies in darkness, sure. Or by being run over by the mainstream media clown car.

Published in Elections
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 53 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    They’re going to find out Trump wasn’t a prostitute for Putin, he was a nymphomaniac.

    We will all know soon enough, of course.

    I think they will report no evidence of collusion. And, if they do, that will make the past two years of ceaseless press hyperventilating nothing less than scandalous.

    I’ve always thought they were trying to pin him for the wrong crimes. It’s been a big waste.

    Exactly what crimes do you want to “pin” on Trump.

    That is what the (D)’s in Congress and the NY Attorney General are in the process of doing,  searching for crimes to “pin” on Trump.    If the prosecuting bodies had a crime to investigate, it should be known(ie: to the prosecutors), and they wouldn’t have to go searching for a crime to “pin” on anybody.

    What the (D)’s are doing is Soviet style politicization of the criminal justice system.

    • #31
  2. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    My guess is that in the immediate 48-72 hours after the report is released, if their is no evidence of Russian collusion whatever the worst allegation is against Trump will be spun as being just as bad as Russian collusion. The B- and C-level pols and talking heads will then demand a major investigation and possible impeachment hearings on whatever that happens to be, after which it will be dropped, once The Narrative is set in place that Trump still did something awful (it’s the same scenario that for many on the left mandates even in the blandest of times there must by a crisis at hand, in order to justify government intervention into solving that crisis).

    Probably. But if in fact there’s no evidence of collusion, we should make as much noise about that as possible: beat the drums and mock the press for its ceaseless hysteria.

    We should have been making noise about this since 2016. By we I mean all Republicans. The basic facts have been known for a long time now. False opposition research has was used as the basis for spying on a campaign and then investigating a president. That happened. The speculative part which should have been the subject of investigation is how that happened and at whose hand. Indeed Paul Ryan’s failures are legion. Mitchell at least is getting judges through confirmation.

    I always liked Paul Ryan but he really played this Trump era badly, both for the good of the Country/(R) Party and the good of his career.

    It will be interesting to see if Ryan is able to re-start his elective office career.  Time heals all wounds … maybe he saves the State of Wisconsin from this Ahrse Clown Tony Evers in 2022.

    • #32
  3. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    My guess is that in the immediate 48-72 hours after the report is released, if their is no evidence of Russian collusion whatever the worst allegation is against Trump will be spun as being just as bad as Russian collusion. The B- and C-level pols and talking heads will then demand a major investigation and possible impeachment hearings on whatever that happens to be, after which it will be dropped, once The Narrative is set in place that Trump still did something awful (it’s the same scenario that for many on the left mandates even in the blandest of times there must by a crisis at hand, in order to justify government intervention into solving that crisis).

    Probably. But if in fact there’s no evidence of collusion, we should make as much noise about that as possible: beat the drums and mock the press for its ceaseless hysteria.

    We should have been making noise about this since 2016. By we I mean all Republicans. The basic facts have been known for a long time now. False opposition research has was used as the basis for spying on a campaign and then investigating a president. That happened. The speculative part which should have been the subject of investigation is how that happened and at whose hand. Indeed Paul Ryan’s failures are legion. Mitchell at least is getting judges through confirmation.

    I always liked Paul Ryan but he really played this Trump era badly, both for the good of the Country/(R) Party and the good of his career.

    It will be interesting to see if Ryan is able to re-start his elective office career. Time heals all wounds … maybe he saves the State of Wisconsin from this Ahrse Clown Tony Evers in 2022.

    I’d rather see Walker resurrected than Ryan.

    • #33
  4. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    What the (D)’s are doing is Soviet style politicization of the criminal justice system.

    But Orange Man Bad! So it’s okay.

    • #34
  5. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    It will be interesting to see if Ryan is able to re-start his elective office career. Time heals all wounds … maybe he saves the State of Wisconsin from this Ahrse Clown Tony Evers in 2022.

    I’d rather see Walker resurrected than Ryan.

    The Dems stole that election, rather blatantly.

    • #35
  6. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    My guess is that in the immediate 48-72 hours after the report is released, if their is no evidence of Russian collusion whatever the worst allegation is against Trump will be spun as being just as bad as Russian collusion. The B- and C-level pols and talking heads will then demand a major investigation and possible impeachment hearings on whatever that happens to be, after which it will be dropped, once The Narrative is set in place that Trump still did something awful (it’s the same scenario that for many on the left mandates even in the blandest of times there must by a crisis at hand, in order to justify government intervention into solving that crisis).

    Probably. But if in fact there’s no evidence of collusion, we should make as much noise about that as possible: beat the drums and mock the press for its ceaseless hysteria.

    We should have been making noise about this since 2016. By we I mean all Republicans. The basic facts have been known for a long time now. False opposition research has was used as the basis for spying on a campaign and then investigating a president. That happened. The speculative part which should have been the subject of investigation is how that happened and at whose hand. Indeed Paul Ryan’s failures are legion. Mitchell at least is getting judges through confirmation.

    I always liked Paul Ryan but he really played this Trump era badly, both for the good of the Country/(R) Party and the good of his career.

    It will be interesting to see if Ryan is able to re-start his elective office career. Time heals all wounds … maybe he saves the State of Wisconsin from this Ahrse Clown Tony Evers in 2022.

    My last comment was too rash. I always liked Paul Ryan too. It’s just that the higher he went the less effective he was. Maybe instead of calling it the Peter Principle we should start calling it the Paul Principle.

    • #36
  7. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    My guess is that in the immediate 48-72 hours after the report is released, if their is no evidence of Russian collusion whatever the worst allegation is against Trump will be spun as being just as bad as Russian collusion. The B- and C-level pols and talking heads will then demand a major investigation and possible impeachment hearings on whatever that happens to be, after which it will be dropped, once The Narrative is set in place that Trump still did something awful (it’s the same scenario that for many on the left mandates even in the blandest of times there must by a crisis at hand, in order to justify government intervention into solving that crisis).

    Probably. But if in fact there’s no evidence of collusion, we should make as much noise about that as possible: beat the drums and mock the press for its ceaseless hysteria.

    The hackiest of the media hacks will simply pretend they never got anything wrong, and the Mueller investigation was all about whatever the strongest criticism is of Trump in the report. They’ll hyperventilate about that, demand hearings and/or impeachment and act as though this is what the investigation was building to all along, even if they have to move the goalposts out of the stadium, though the parking lot, and all the way to the other side of the access highway.

    There will be noise on Fox, talk radio and the Interwebs calling them out for their previous claims, but the networks and publications who made the claims themselves aren’t going to do any self-critiques of their failures. They’re just going to try to claim they were right for 2-3 days, then move on to the next scandal de jour they dream up with the help of Democrat outlets.

    • #37
  8. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    My guess is that in the immediate 48-72 hours after the report is released, if their is no evidence of Russian collusion whatever the worst allegation is against Trump will be spun as being just as bad as Russian collusion. The B- and C-level pols and talking heads will then demand a major investigation and possible impeachment hearings on whatever that happens to be, after which it will be dropped, once The Narrative is set in place that Trump still did something awful (it’s the same scenario that for many on the left mandates even in the blandest of times there must by a crisis at hand, in order to justify government intervention into solving that crisis).

    Probably. But if in fact there’s no evidence of collusion, we should make as much noise about that as possible: beat the drums and mock the press for its ceaseless hysteria.

    We should have been making noise about this since 2016. By we I mean all Republicans. The basic facts have been known for a long time now. False opposition research has was used as the basis for spying on a campaign and then investigating a president. That happened. The speculative part which should have been the subject of investigation is how that happened and at whose hand. Indeed Paul Ryan’s failures are legion. Mitchell at least is getting judges through confirmation.

    I always liked Paul Ryan but he really played this Trump era badly, both for the good of the Country/(R) Party and the good of his career.

    It will be interesting to see if Ryan is able to re-start his elective office career. Time heals all wounds … maybe he saves the State of Wisconsin from this Ahrse Clown Tony Evers in 2022.

    I’d rather see Walker resurrected than Ryan.

    Just trying to find a situation where Ryan would be a vast improvement and therefore more electable.

    • #38
  9. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    I think we all assume, correctly, that almost all of the anti-Trump voices will do their best to downplay a negative finding from Mueller. They’ll either spin it as inconclusive or, if even that isn’t possible, simply attempt to shift the narrative.

    In that case, I think the best strategy for those of us who support Trump will be to openly mock the media for running with this ridiculous story for so long, to suggest that the real collusion was with the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration — and that it wasn’t with Russia but rather within the DOJ, and to never stop throwing this back in their faces.

    That means writing and talking about it.

    (Of course, if Mueller does find compelling evidence, that’s an entirely different matter. But I doubt that will happen.)

    • #39
  10. unsk2 Member
    unsk2
    @

    Henry, I’m glad that you are coming around to the idea that Trump did not collude with Russians.

    However, the ramifications of this  Mueller Special Counsel are not a “nothing burger”.  From the Bruce Ohr and Lisa page testimonies it is now very clear that Rosenstein lied to Congress  about details of Trump Probe and that Loretta Lynch Justice Department suppressed the prosecution of Hillary Clinton. In addition there are other very problematic  issues   like that  Mueller and his Gestapo thugs severely  violated the rights of many Americans  in his pursuit of Trump and the really  big enchilada few are talking about – the  use of the NSA database  to wantonly spy on innocent American Citizens for political purposes.

    For those out to get CNN, there is the possible prosecution  that CNN conspired with the FBI/DOJ to leak multiple times – not just once – classified details of  the Trump intelligence Probe during the 2016 campaign.  It would be a tough charge to prove, but I think it is worth pursuing because the Public should know the truth.

    • #40
  11. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I think we all assume, correctly, that almost all of the anti-Trump voices will do their best to downplay a negative finding from Mueller. They’ll either spin it as inconclusive or, if even that isn’t possible, simply attempt to shift the narrative.

    In that case, I think the best strategy for those of us who support Trump will be to openly mock the media for running with this ridiculous story for so long, to suggest that the real collusion was with the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration — and that it wasn’t with Russia but rather within the DOJ, and to never stop throwing this back in their faces.

    That means writing and talking about it.

    (Of course, if Mueller does find compelling evidence, that’s an entirely different matter. But I doubt that will happen.)

    Of course I’m completely speculating in that I don’t know much more than the next guy, but if there were a prosecutable criminal conspiracy to alter the result of the 2016 election by conspiring with the Russian government by someone in the immediate Trump orbit it would have been Paul Manafort.  

    Mueller put the screws to Manafort and turned his partner Rick Gates and came up with crimes predating and unrelated to the 2016 election.  In addition it appears the (D)’s have “somehow become aware” the Mueller probe has nothing in the way of collusion and moved on to the snipe hunt search for any crime, anywhere, by any means necessary, knowing the Mueller collusion snipe hunt is coming to an end any month/quarter/year now … What’s the rush when all the unavailable locked up documents relevant to DOJ/FBI/IC malfeasance get released and your old DOJ/FBI/IC buddies finally start getting some serious screws put to them.

    • #41
  12. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    unsk2 (View Comment):
    Henry, I’m glad that you are coming around to the idea that Trump did not collude with Russians.

    I have always said that it seemed very unlikely that there was any collusion. I can’t imagine what might have made you think otherwise.

    I’m willing to wait for the report, of course. But it seems pretty obvious that this is something cooked up by the Democrats and the Clinton campaign, at the very least to save face, and at the worst to protect the Obama administration from legitimate charges of election tampering.


    For example, my thoughts two years ago:

    Obstruction and Collusion

     

    • #42
  13. unsk2 Member
    unsk2
    @

    Congressmen Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan gave AG Barr until tomorrow at 5 pm to respond to obvious conflict of interest charges against Mueller Probe #2 Andrew Weissman and others on the Mueller team  who were given the Steele Dossier in the fall of 2016. Such involvement by DOJ attorneys  in a Special Counsel Probe and who  at the same time could be potentially indicted for their conduct in the case as suspects is a clear violation of DOJ guidelines.

    Interestingly, Andrew Weissman just announced he is leaving the DOJ to teach at NYU.

    Could it mean that Barr will actually do something about the rampant legal abuse by Mueller and his Gestapo team?

    • #43
  14. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    unsk2 (View Comment):

    Congressmen Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan gave AG Barr until tomorrow at 5 pm to respond to obvious conflict of interest charges against Mueller Probe #2 Andrew Weissman and others on the Mueller team who were given the Steele Dossier in the fall of 2016. Such involvement by DOJ attorneys in a Special Counsel Probe and who at the same time could be potentially indicted for their conduct in the case as suspects is a clear violation of DOJ guidelines.

    Interestingly, Andrew Weissman just announced he is leaving the DOJ to teach at NYU.

    Could it mean that Barr will actually do something about the rampant legal abuse by Mueller and his Gestapo team?

    I hope so.

    • #44
  15. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):
    Exactly what crimes do you want to “pin” on Trump.

    For starters, there was an extremely detailed report in The New York Times before Trump’s inauguration concerning his decades long embezzlement and fraudulent looting of the Trump Foundation “charity.” It should have gone to trial in NY a long time ago.

    • #45
  16. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    My quotation function is on the fritz but I wanted to second those that hope Barr does investigate the pro-Clinton wrongdoing as well. If he would appoint Andy McCarthy of NRO to write a second report after Mueller leaves office I think that would go a long way to mollifying the Trump supporters that the Deep State can be put back in it’s place. 

    • #46
  17. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):
    Exactly what crimes do you want to “pin” on Trump.

    For starters, there was an extremely detailed report in The New York Times before Trump’s inauguration concerning his decades long embezzlement and fraudulent looting of the Trump Foundation “charity.” It should have gone to trial in NY a long time ago.

    Donald Trump has been a public figure for nearly 5 decades, the Trump Foundation has been in existence since 1988.

    So finally after Donald Trump becomes President, the journalist sleuths at the NYT,  and the prosecuting powers of NY state decide it’s time to take a deep dive into the Trump Foundation.  

    Better 40 years late than never I guess.

     

    • #47
  18. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Harvey Weinstein was a public figure for decades, Michael Jackson’s odd tastes were well known for decades. I don’t think either of them would be good Presidents either.

    • #48
  19. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Harvey Weinstein was a public figure for decades, Michael Jackson’s odd tastes were well known for decades. I don’t think either of them would be good Presidents either.

    Comparing the decades long behavior of two infamous sexual predators and allegations of financial malfeasance at a charitable foundation is a little hyperbolic.

    • #49
  20. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Harvey Weinstein was a public figure for decades, Michael Jackson’s odd tastes were well known for decades. I don’t think either of them would be good Presidents either.

    Comparing the decades long behavior of two infamous sexual predators and allegations of financial malfeasance at a charitable foundation is a little hyperbolic.

    OK, would Al Sharpton make a good Democrat President? His financial shenanigans have been public knowledge for decades too. He is a Reverend, so he does have more of a moral center than Trump has displayed to date.

    • #50
  21. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Harvey Weinstein was a public figure for decades, Michael Jackson’s odd tastes were well known for decades. I don’t think either of them would be good Presidents either.

    Comparing the decades long behavior of two infamous sexual predators and allegations of financial malfeasance at a charitable foundation is a little hyperbolic.

    OK, would Al Sharpton make a good Democrat President? His financial shenanigans have been public knowledge for decades too. He is a Reverend, so he does have more of a moral center than Trump has displayed to date.

    Al Sharpton got people killed with his incitement, but he’s been actively coddled and protected. Not so with either President Trump or Citizen Trump. If the embezzelment you’re referring to is along the lines of the painting story then I’m not impressed or convinced. 

    • #51
  22. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Harvey Weinstein was a public figure for decades, Michael Jackson’s odd tastes were well known for decades. I don’t think either of them would be good Presidents either.

    Comparing the decades long behavior of two infamous sexual predators and allegations of financial malfeasance at a charitable foundation is a little hyperbolic.

    OK, would Al Sharpton make a good Democrat President? His financial shenanigans have been public knowledge for decades too. He is a Reverend, so he does have more of a moral center than Trump has displayed to date.

    Now an infamous race baiting anti semite … a little better I suppose.

    How about 2016 Democratic candidate HRC and her personal piggy bank the Clinton Foundation … move along … nothing to see here NYT or NY State Attorney General ….

    Leave the Clinton family alone, they’re living their own personal hell:

    Image result for hillary and chelsea clinton

    • #52
  23. Pete EE Member
    Pete EE
    @PeteEE

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Sweezle (View Comment):

    … Yes, democrats and MSM will try and rewrite their narrative but I think they already spent too long with the collusion narrative.

    But who will hold them accountable? What consequences will they suffer?

    Yes, the MSM has been unethical but that isn’t against the law. Leaking the content of an investigation, however, is. Lying to the president is just as illegal is lying to the FBI. Lying under oath is too. I want the people on the investigation held to the same standards as Cohen and Manafort. I want the people who let it all happen removed from office.

    • #53
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.