Mueller: This Should Not Be The End

 

Mueller has concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. After two years of concerted attacks by a biased press and a corrupt bureaucracy, the collusion fantasy has been laid to rest.

Now let’s talk about collusion.

In 2016, and for the first time in U.S. history, a sitting administration used the power of federal law enforcement to spy on the opposition party during a presidential election. It justified that spying by citing a fraudulent document (the Steele Dossier), paid for by its own party’s candidate, as the basis for the warrant. The spying was overseen by fiercely partisan officials in the Department of Justice openly contemptuous of the opposition candidate. Other administration officials tried hundreds of times, without explanation or plausible justification, to gain access to confidential information collected during the spying.

If the administration’s party’s candidate had won the election, it seems certain that none of this would ever have come to light, an administration and Department of Justice shot through with corruption would have welcomed its successor, and its misconduct would have been buried forever.

That didn’t happen. Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

Published in Politics
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 115 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Only fools will keep harping on obstruction.

    Let’s see what the Mueller report says.

    LOL

    I agree with Charlie Sykes on this:

    “The decision not to charge Trump with obstruction was made not by Mueller, but by Trump’s appointees: Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Mueller’s report lays out the arguments on both sides, but ‘ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.’

    “Mueller apparently felt strongly enough about this point that he said, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’ [Emphasis added]”

    See https://thebulwark.com/no-collusion-no-exoneration/

    Did he mention that it doesn’t exonerate you, either? Nor does it exonerate John McCain.

    Sad about McCain.  Started life a real war hero, went out a traitor.

    • #31
  2. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    Moderator Note:

    personal attack

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I agree with Charlie Sykes on this:

    “The decision not to charge Trump with obstruction was made not by Mueller, but by Trump’s appointees: Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Mueller’s report lays out the arguments on both sides, but ‘ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.’

    “Mueller apparently felt strongly enough about this point that he said, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’ [Emphasis added]”

    See https://thebulwark.com/no-collusion-no-exoneration/

    A total non sequitur.  It’s a shame so many are fooled by it.

    Gary, in your entire life you’ve never been exonerated of rape, murder, arson, and rape.

    As Andy McCarthy pointed out, Mueller didn’t “feel strongly” about the point.  Rather, Mueller cowardly (and bureaucratically) punted the issue to the Attorney General:

    Prosecutors never “exonerate” people. It is for others to say whether a person has been exonerated. All prosecutors can say is whether there is enough evidence to charge or there is not. If there is not, then you don’t file charges, period. To cite the obvious example, you didn’t hear Mueller say, “I am exonerating President Trump on the collusion claims.” He simply found insufficient evidence to establish a crime under the governing legal standards, so he declined to file charges and left it to the commentariat to sort out what it all means.

    On obstruction, however, Mueller declined to apply the law to the facts. That was the only job he was hired to do. Whether he thinks the Justice Department’s decision not to charge the president is an exoneration or something less is no more relevant than what you or I think about it.

    What a waste.

    I think you’re smarter than you’re letting on. [redacted].

    • #32
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Moderator Note:

    personal attack

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I agree with Charlie Sykes on this:

    “The decision not to charge Trump with obstruction was made not by Mueller, but by Trump’s appointees: Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Mueller’s report lays out the arguments on both sides, but ‘ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.’

    “Mueller apparently felt strongly enough about this point that he said, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’ [Emphasis added]”

    See https://thebulwark.com/no-collusion-no-exoneration/

    A total non sequitur. It’s a shame so many are fooled by it.

    Gary, in your entire life you’ve never been exonerated of rape, murder, arson, and rape.

    As Andy McCarthy pointed out, Mueller didn’t “feel strongly” about the point. Rather, Mueller cowardly (and bureaucratically) punted the issue to the Attorney General:

    Prosecutors never “exonerate” people. It is for others to say whether a person has been exonerated. All prosecutors can say is whether there is enough evidence to charge or there is not. If there is not, then you don’t file charges, period. To cite the obvious example, you didn’t hear Mueller say, “I am exonerating President Trump on the collusion claims.” He simply found insufficient evidence to establish a crime under the governing legal standards, so he declined to file charges and left it to the commentariat to sort out what it all means.

    On obstruction, however, Mueller declined to apply the law to the facts. That was the only job he was hired to do. Whether he thinks the Justice Department’s decision not to charge the president is an exoneration or something less is no more relevant than what you or I think about it.

    What a waste.

    I think you’re smarter than you’re letting on. What a waste.

    I would think a lawyer would know how this works. [redacted].

    • #33
  4. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this.  Anyone here remember Iran-Contra?  How long did that drag out?  To go back further, how about the Church hearings of the 70s?  Those, while exposing some very questionable and unethical doings of the CIA and other intelligence operations, also served to hamstring and gut even the legitimate and ethical intelligence operations of the time.  Iran-Contra stretched all the way through the GHW Bush administration, and would have spilled over into the Clinton administration had it not been for some last-minute pardons as Bush was on his way out the door.  

    W. Bush could have done a lot of continued muck-raking of the Clinton administration and doubtless would have dredged up acres of the stuff, but Bush left well enough alone.  If Trump now starts to dig too deeply into the Obama morass, not only will we still find ourselves re-litigating the Obama years ad-nauseam, but we’ll be stuck looking backwards – this will not serve the country well at all.  Moreover, it would establish clear precedent for any future Dem president (be it in 2021 or 2025) to attempt to do likewise for the Trump years.  In short, all presidents will be horribly constrained by the threat of retaliation in retrospect, and by the political need to immediately prosecute their forebears.  Imagine Mueller writ-large for eternity, every time there is a shift in the party in power.  Congress already obsesses over these things and does massive damage to itself and to the US.  Should mimic our medieval forebears in unearthing heretics and dead kings so as to try them and hang them post-mortem?

    • #34
  5. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this. Anyone here remember Iran-Contra? How long did that drag out? To go back further, how about the Church hearings of the 70s? Those, while exposing some very questionable and unethical doings of the CIA and other intelligence operations, also served to hamstring and gut even the legitimate and ethical intelligence operations of the time.

    I don’t see how we have a choice.  The entire US intelligence community along with the Department of Justice, including the FBI, at the highest levels conspired illegally to spy on American citizens, including a major party candidate for President, entirely for political purposes.  That illegal effort literally – and quickly – evolved into the organizing of an attempted coup d’etat.

    As for the “legitimate and ethical operations” of the intelligence community, we can take comfort from the fact that their spectacular incompetence – as personified by Obama administration Top Men John Brennan and James Clapper – means that little harm will be done.

    • #35
  6. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this.

    Well, as long as there is no price to pay for it, the corruption will just keep expanding.  Your sentiment that if we just leave Hillary alone the next Democrat administration will follow suit and not try to prosecute the previous administration is beautiful in sentiment and completely unsupported by history. 

    We just watched a two year investigation of the Republican president based upon no factual evidence.  So our response should be to ignore the reams of evidence against Democrats, Hillary, the deep state, etc, so we can claim we took the high road? Or in hopes that we will set an example that they will follow? 

    If we are going to save the idea of Justice in this country, the guilty must face a reckoning.

    • #36
  7. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    I don’t see how we have a choice. The entire US intelligence community along with the Department of Justice, including the FBI, at the highest levels conspired illegally to spy on American citizens, including a major party candidate for President, entirely for political purposes. That illegal effort literally – and quickly – evolved into the organizing of an attempted coup d’etat.

     

    By the time the Mueller report came out, most of America was bloody sick and tired of the entire affair.  How long would an open-ended investigation of Hillary or Obama drag on?  Would it conclude by 2020?  Doubtful.  Moreover, it would very likely act as a drag anchor on Trump during the election, and be seen by many of the middle-ground voters as him trying to refight the last election.  It would be a waste of effort, and (should Trump lose, due to the drag effects of such an investigation) would be dead and buried immediately upon the next swearing in.  It would gain nothing.

    • #37
  8. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    PHenry (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this.

    Well, as long as there is no price to pay for it, the corruption will just keep expanding. Your sentiment that if we just leave Hillary alone the next Democrat administration will follow suit and not try to prosecute the previous administration is beautiful in sentiment and completely unsupported by history.

    We just watched a two year investigation of the Republican president based upon no factual evidence. So our response should be to ignore the reams of evidence against Democrats, Hillary, the deep state, etc, so we can claim we took the high road? Or in hopes that we will set an example that they will follow?

    If we are going to save the idea of Justice in this country, the guilty must face a reckoning.

    You assume that they would face a reckoning by such an investigation.  Based on all prior such investigations (Watergate, Church, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Starr, the endless Bush show trials, Mueller), if any were to come out of it, at best they would nail a few middle-tier hacks offered up as sacrificial lambs.  

    • #38
  9. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    I don’t see how we have a choice. The entire US intelligence community along with the Department of Justice, including the FBI, at the highest levels conspired illegally to spy on American citizens, including a major party candidate for President, entirely for political purposes. That illegal effort literally – and quickly – evolved into the organizing of an attempted coup d’etat.

    By the time the Mueller report came out, most of America was bloody sick and tired of the entire affair. How long would an open-ended investigation of Hillary or Obama drag on? Would it conclude by 2020? Doubtful. Moreover, it would very likely act as a drag anchor on Trump during the election, and be seen by many of the middle-ground voters as him trying to refight the last election. It would be a waste of effort, and (should Trump lose, due to the drag effects of such an investigation) would be dead and buried immediately upon the next swearing in. It would gain nothing.

    Did you miss the part about how the entire US intelligence community along with the Department of Justice, including the FBI, at the highest levels conspired illegally to spy on American citizens, including a major party candidate for President, entirely for political purposes. That illegal effort literally – and quickly – evolved into the organizing of an attempted coup d’etat?

    I think that the magnitude of this – undoubtedly the greatest scandal in American history – is so vast that “most of America” cannot comprehend it.  It’s like trying to imagine infinity.   It defies description, it defies understanding.

    A freaking coup d’etat.  By cabinet officials.  Inconceivable!

    • #39
  10. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    I don’t see how we have a choice. The entire US intelligence community along with the Department of Justice, including the FBI, at the highest levels conspired illegally to spy on American citizens, including a major party candidate for President, entirely for political purposes. That illegal effort literally – and quickly – evolved into the organizing of an attempted coup d’etat.

    By the time the Mueller report came out, most of America was bloody sick and tired of the entire affair. How long would an open-ended investigation of Hillary or Obama drag on? Would it conclude by 2020? Doubtful. Moreover, it would very likely act as a drag anchor on Trump during the election, and be seen by many of the middle-ground voters as him trying to refight the last election. It would be a waste of effort, and (should Trump lose, due to the drag effects of such an investigation) would be dead and buried immediately upon the next swearing in. It would gain nothing.

    Did you miss the part about how the entire US intelligence community along with the Department of Justice, including the FBI, at the highest levels conspired illegally to spy on American citizens, including a major party candidate for President, entirely for political purposes. That illegal effort literally – and quickly – evolved into the organizing of an attempted coup d’etat?

    I think that the magnitude of this – undoubtedly the greatest scandal in American history – is so vast that “most of America” cannot comprehend it. It’s like trying to imagine infinity. It defies description, it defies understanding.

    A freaking coup d’etat. By cabinet officials. Inconceivable!

    Putting your text in bold does not change the political calculations.  

    Can you prove any of this?  In a court of law?  Or the court of public opinion?  What do you think you would get out of such an investigation?  More Obstruction of Justice charges?  A few party hacks jailed to protect their bosses?  

    If the corruption is indeed so pervasive and deep, is it likely that enough people would turn evidence over such that Hillary, Obama, or anyone else significant would be touched?

    • #40
  11. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this. Anyone here remember Iran-Contra? How long did that drag out? To go back further, how about the Church hearings of the 70s? Those, while exposing some very questionable and unethical doings of the CIA and other intelligence operations, also served to hamstring and gut even the legitimate and ethical intelligence operations of the time. Iran-Contra stretched all the way through the GHW Bush administration, and would have spilled over into the Clinton administration had it not been for some last-minute pardons as Bush was on his way out the door.

    W. Bush could have done a lot of continued muck-raking of the Clinton administration and doubtless would have dredged up acres of the stuff, but Bush left well enough alone. If Trump now starts to dig too deeply into the Obama morass, not only will we still find ourselves re-litigating the Obama years ad-nauseam, but we’ll be stuck looking backwards – this will not serve the country well at all. Moreover, it would establish clear precedent for any future Dem president (be it in 2021 or 2025) to attempt to do likewise for the Trump years. In short, all presidents will be horribly constrained by the threat of retaliation in retrospect, and by the political need to immediately prosecute their forebears. Imagine Mueller writ-large for eternity, every time there is a shift in the party in power. Congress already obsesses over these things and does massive damage to itself and to the US. Should mimic our medieval forebears in unearthing heretics and dead kings so as to try them and hang them post-mortem?

    Mueller is already writ large and slated for all eternity. I don’t know that the answer is to hurt them back until everyone tires of the pain, but we seem to be taking most of the pain most of the time.

    This may be the new normal and as my mom pointed out to me, maybe our betters should be under constant investigation from the moment they take office (Congress especially).

    • #41
  12. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    TBA (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this. Anyone here remember Iran-Contra? How long did that drag out? To go back further, how about the Church hearings of the 70s? Those, while exposing some very questionable and unethical doings of the CIA and other intelligence operations, also served to hamstring and gut even the legitimate and ethical intelligence operations of the time. Iran-Contra stretched all the way through the GHW Bush administration, and would have spilled over into the Clinton administration had it not been for some last-minute pardons as Bush was on his way out the door.

    W. Bush could have done a lot of continued muck-raking of the Clinton administration and doubtless would have dredged up acres of the stuff, but Bush left well enough alone. If Trump now starts to dig too deeply into the Obama morass, not only will we still find ourselves re-litigating the Obama years ad-nauseam, but we’ll be stuck looking backwards – this will not serve the country well at all. Moreover, it would establish clear precedent for any future Dem president (be it in 2021 or 2025) to attempt to do likewise for the Trump years. In short, all presidents will be horribly constrained by the threat of retaliation in retrospect, and by the political need to immediately prosecute their forebears. Imagine Mueller writ-large for eternity, every time there is a shift in the party in power. Congress already obsesses over these things and does massive damage to itself and to the US. Should mimic our medieval forebears in unearthing heretics and dead kings so as to try them and hang them post-mortem?

    Mueller is already writ large and slated for all eternity. I don’t know that the answer is to hurt them back until everyone tires of the pain, but we seem to be taking most of the pain most of the time.

    This may be the new normal and as mom pointed out to me, maybe our betters should be under constant investigation from the moment they take office (Congress especially).

    That suggests an interesting exercise: Successful election to Congress is taken as automatic guilt of treason, with immediate death by hanging following the swearing in.

    • #42
  13. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this. Anyone here remember Iran-Contra? How long did that drag out? To go back further, how about the Church hearings of the 70s? Those, while exposing some very questionable and unethical doings of the CIA and other intelligence operations, also served to hamstring and gut even the legitimate and ethical intelligence operations of the time. Iran-Contra stretched all the way through the GHW Bush administration, and would have spilled over into the Clinton administration had it not been for some last-minute pardons as Bush was on his way out the door.

    W. Bush could have done a lot of continued muck-raking of the Clinton administration and doubtless would have dredged up acres of the stuff, but Bush left well enough alone. If Trump now starts to dig too deeply into the Obama morass, not only will we still find ourselves re-litigating the Obama years ad-nauseam, but we’ll be stuck looking backwards – this will not serve the country well at all. Moreover, it would establish clear precedent for any future Dem president (be it in 2021 or 2025) to attempt to do likewise for the Trump years. In short, all presidents will be horribly constrained by the threat of retaliation in retrospect, and by the political need to immediately prosecute their forebears. Imagine Mueller writ-large for eternity, every time there is a shift in the party in power. Congress already obsesses over these things and does massive damage to itself and to the US. Should mimic our medieval forebears in unearthing heretics and dead kings so as to try them and hang them post-mortem?

    Mueller is already writ large and slated for all eternity. I don’t know that the answer is to hurt them back until everyone tires of the pain, but we seem to be taking most of the pain most of the time.

    This may be the new normal and as mom pointed out to me, maybe our betters should be under constant investigation from the moment they take office (Congress especially).

    That suggests an interesting exercise: Successful election to Congress is taken as automatic guilt of treason, with immediate death by hanging following the swearing in.

    Sure, but we could offer a stay of execution until they start passing laws we don’t like. 

    • #43
  14. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    TBA (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this. Anyone here remember Iran-Contra? How long did that drag out? To go back further, how about the Church hearings of the 70s? Those, while exposing some very questionable and unethical doings of the CIA and other intelligence operations, also served to hamstring and gut even the legitimate and ethical intelligence operations of the time. Iran-Contra stretched all the way through the GHW Bush administration, and would have spilled over into the Clinton administration had it not been for some last-minute pardons as Bush was on his way out the door.

    W. Bush could have done a lot of continued muck-raking of the Clinton administration and doubtless would have dredged up acres of the stuff, but Bush left well enough alone. If Trump now starts to dig too deeply into the Obama morass, not only will we still find ourselves re-litigating the Obama years ad-nauseam, but we’ll be stuck looking backwards – this will not serve the country well at all. Moreover, it would establish clear precedent for any future Dem president (be it in 2021 or 2025) to attempt to do likewise for the Trump years. In short, all presidents will be horribly constrained by the threat of retaliation in retrospect, and by the political need to immediately prosecute their forebears. Imagine Mueller writ-large for eternity, every time there is a shift in the party in power. Congress already obsesses over these things and does massive damage to itself and to the US. Should mimic our medieval forebears in unearthing heretics and dead kings so as to try them and hang them post-mortem?

    Mueller is already writ large and slated for all eternity. I don’t know that the answer is to hurt them back until everyone tires of the pain, but we seem to be taking most of the pain most of the time.

    This may be the new normal and as mom pointed out to me, maybe our betters should be under constant investigation from the moment they take office (Congress especially).

    That suggests an interesting exercise: Successful election to Congress is taken as automatic guilt of treason, with immediate death by hanging following the swearing in.

    Sure, but we could offer a stay of execution until they start passing laws we don’t like.

    So, emphasis on the word “immediate” then?

    • #44
  15. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Can you prove any of this? In a court of law?

    Heck yes.  So can you:

    • McCabe’s book admits an actual attempted coup d’etat.
    • IG Horowitz has testified – under oath – that of the seven memos James Comey wrote about his private meetings with Trump, four (4) of them contained classified information.  James Comey has testified – under oath – that he leaked four (4) of those seven memos to his friend at Columbia University, intending that they subsequently be leaked to the New York Times, and they were leaked to the New York Times.  As a matter of simple logic, at least one of those four memos contains classified information.  Leaking classified information is a felony – just ask David Petraeus.

     You know all this, right?

    • #45
  16. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Can you prove any of this? In a court of law?

    Heck yes. So can you:

    • McCabe’s book admits an actual attempted coup d’etat.
    • IG Horowitz has testified – under oath – that of the seven memos James Comey wrote about his private meetings with Trump, four (4) of them contained classified information. James Comey has testified – under oath – that he leaked four (4) of those seven memos to his friend at Columbia University, intending that they subsequently be leaked to the New York Times, and they were leaked to the New York Times. As a matter of simple logic, at least one of those four memos contains classified information. Leaking classified information is a felony – just ask David Petraeus.

    You know all this, right?

    Any of this lead to any indictments so far?  One would think, if Trump really were interested in pursuing this, that Comey or McCabe would have been charged by now.

    • #46
  17. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Can you prove any of this? In a court of law?

    Heck yes. So can you:

    • McCabe’s book admits an actual attempted coup d’etat.
    • IG Horowitz has testified – under oath – that of the seven memos James Comey wrote about his private meetings with Trump, four (4) of them contained classified information. James Comey has testified – under oath – that he leaked four (4) of those seven memos to his friend at Columbia University, intending that they subsequently be leaked to the New York Times, and they were leaked to the New York Times. As a matter of simple logic, at least one of those four memos contains classified information. Leaking classified information is a felony – just ask David Petraeus.

    You know all this, right?

    Any of this lead to any indictments so far? One would think, if Trump really were interested in pursuing this, that Comey or McCabe would have been charged by now.

    I think the point is something along the lines of we need to change the historical Republican complacency (and complicity) regarding corruption, and apply the principle of equal justice to our political betters, given that we’ve been living through illegal activity conducted by the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the entire US intelligence committee that even included an admitted attempted coup d’etat.

    You know that’s the point, right?  It can’t be that you’re actually interested in condoning such activity, can it?

    • #47
  18. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    but by Trump’s appointees: Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

    Rosenstein clearly pre-dates Trump, so we should all immediately dismiss any argument based on the counterfactual. 

    • #48
  19. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    How long would an open-ended investigation of Hillary or Obama drag on? Would it conclude by 2020? Doubtful. Moreover, it would very likely act as a drag anchor on Trump during the election, and be seen by many of the middle-ground voters as him trying to refight the last election.

    It took about 3 years for the Rosenbergs to go from arrest to Execution.  The FISA system is broken and needs fixing.  The “unmasking” system is broken and needs fixing.  Those things get fixed after an investigation, not by “moving on”.

    • #49
  20. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    Did you miss the part about how the entire US intelligence community along with the Department of Justice, including the FBI, at the highest levels conspired illegally to spy on American citizens, including a major party candidate for President, entirely for political purposes. That illegal effort literally – and quickly – evolved into the organizing of an attempted coup d’etat?

    I think that the magnitude of this – undoubtedly the greatest scandal in American history – is so vast that “most of America” cannot comprehend it. It’s like trying to imagine infinity. It defies description, it defies understanding.

    A freaking coup d’etat. By cabinet officials. Inconceivable!

    Nailed it.  I can’t believe that some “so-called conservatives” are pleased with this whole failed coup thing (DavidF, JonahG, Bull****ers,…).  I claim that nobody is a conservative, if they are not outraged by government tyranny.   If these people are confused, they should read the Bill of Rights and the usurpations in the Declaration of Independence.  The USA was literally founded to overcome government tyranny.  If you don’t hate tyranny, then you are unAmerican. 

    • #50
  21. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Henry Racette: Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    Which is why this is not and can not be “the end.” (As you make clear in your post title.)

    I hope that anyone who promulgated or believed in this farce is deeply ashamed and embarrassed. On the other hand, I can’t control what emotions other people feel. But the schadenfreude is strong in me. The struggle is real. 🤣

    • #51
  22. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Can you prove any of this? In a court of law?

    Heck yes. So can you:

    • McCabe’s book admits an actual attempted coup d’etat.
    • IG Horowitz has testified – under oath – that of the seven memos James Comey wrote about his private meetings with Trump, four (4) of them contained classified information. James Comey has testified – under oath – that he leaked four (4) of those seven memos to his friend at Columbia University, intending that they subsequently be leaked to the New York Times, and they were leaked to the New York Times. As a matter of simple logic, at least one of those four memos contains classified information. Leaking classified information is a felony – just ask David Petraeus.

    You know all this, right?

    Any of this lead to any indictments so far? One would think, if Trump really were interested in pursuing this, that Comey or McCabe would have been charged by now.

    I think the point is something along the lines of we need to change the historical Republican complacency (and complicity) regarding corruption, and apply the principle of equal justice to our political betters, given that we’ve been living through illegal activity conducted by the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the entire US intelligence committee that even included an admitted attempted coup d’etat.

    You know that’s the point, right? It can’t be that you’re actually interested in condoning such activity, can it?

    It’s politics.  It’s not going anywhere.  And continuing to prolong it at this point would be politically a dead end.  

    • #52
  23. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    DonG (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    How long would an open-ended investigation of Hillary or Obama drag on? Would it conclude by 2020? Doubtful. Moreover, it would very likely act as a drag anchor on Trump during the election, and be seen by many of the middle-ground voters as him trying to refight the last election.

    It took about 3 years for the Rosenbergs to go from arrest to Execution. The FISA system is broken and needs fixing. The “unmasking” system is broken and needs fixing. Those things get fixed after an investigation, not by “moving on”.

    We’ve had, what, nearly 50 years of special prosecutors trying to “fix” things?  Anything ever fixed by them?

    Comparing any of this to the Rosenbergs is a stretch.  They were caught in the act, were not politically connected, there were far fewer people involved, the people involved were likewise known, and the FBI had them dead to rights.  It still took 3 years, as you say.

    Any investigation of the prior administration would take far longer than a mere 3 years, would involve vast numbers of people, would waste millions of dollars, would be politically opposed by half the country, and would go nowhere.  Better use of time would be on actually pushing for attainable policy things rather than digging through the past on a long-shot attempt at prosecuting people now out of power.  What, other than a feeling of moral satisfaction, would be gained?

    • #53
  24. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    One other thought on this issue.

    To win an election, you have to balance two key actions:

    1. Convince voters to vote for you.
    2. Convince voters to vote against your opponent.

    Which of these would any further investigations aid? 

    Certainly not the former.  It would be playing to people already inclined to vote for Trump, but he doesn’t need to convince any of those, they’re in his camp already.  He’s got a tough (but by no means insurmountable) job already in that regard.  The middle-of-the-road voters are not going to be swayed by more investigations, they want what they always want: economic security, social security (in both the entitlement sense, and in the sense that the country is not going to go through a social revolution), confidence that the country is in decent hands, and a belief that the country will improve under Trump.

    This leaves the latter, and in that regard any further investigations will likewise do nothing.  Trump won’t be running against Hillary or Obama.  Either the Dems are going to go full bonkers crazy and nominate a far lefty (and thus claim that they are running against what think is the traitorous centrism of Hillary and Obama), or they’ll come to their senses and nominate a not too crazy governor to try to sell the voters on the notion that the crazy wing is not calling the shots.  If they go for the latter, such a candidate will likewise steer well clear of Hillary and any taint of her corruption or her utter contempt for the middle voters.  In either case, attacking Hillary by way of investigations would be attacking a flank the Dems aren’t going to bother to defend, committing the very scarce resources of time and voter and media attention to what will be painted as a witch hunt (even if Hillary really is a witch) against the political past.

    What would be gained?  Even if you got a few successful prosecutions out of it all, you wouldn’t get anyone in power.  You wouldn’t clean the bureaucratic stables as much as you’d hope, and you would guarantee that the vast federal bureaucracy would close ranks against you.  

    • #54
  25. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Now the lingering corruption of the Obama era must be exposed and removed.

    I would caution strongly against this. Anyone here remember Iran-Contra? How long did that drag out? To go back further, how about the Church hearings of the 70s? Those, while exposing some very questionable and unethical doings of the CIA and other intelligence operations, also served to hamstring and gut even the legitimate and ethical intelligence operations of the time. Iran-Contra stretched all the way through the GHW Bush administration, and would have spilled over into the Clinton administration had it not been for some last-minute pardons as Bush was on his way out the door.

    W. Bush could have done a lot of continued muck-raking of the Clinton administration and doubtless would have dredged up acres of the stuff, but Bush left well enough alone. If Trump now starts to dig too deeply into the Obama morass, not only will we still find ourselves re-litigating the Obama years ad-nauseam, but we’ll be stuck looking backwards – this will not serve the country well at all. Moreover, it would establish clear precedent for any future Dem president (be it in 2021 or 2025) to attempt to do likewise for the Trump years. In short, all presidents will be horribly constrained by the threat of retaliation in retrospect, and by the political need to immediately prosecute their forebears. Imagine Mueller writ-large for eternity, every time there is a shift in the party in power. Congress already obsesses over these things and does massive damage to itself and to the US. Should mimic our medieval forebears in unearthing heretics and dead kings so as to try them and hang them post-mortem?

    Once upon a time, for a very long time, I agreed with this.  I still do, maybe, but will not make or support this argument myself. Instead I want to force the Democrats into making this argument in self-defense, and making it in such a way that it will stick.

    • #55
  26. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Which of these would any further investigations aid? 

    Your logic here reminds me of the Jussie Smollett case.  They dropped charges, despite clear evidence, because, after all, what would be gained by prosecuting a gay black actor? 

    If we are going to ignore crime because it might not help the party’s election effort, we care no more for justice than the Democrats.  There is much more at stake here than just what helps the next election! 

    Are you really just A OK with the administration in power using the powers of the FBI, FISA, and the justice department to cover for their own party and spy on the opposition party?  Because if the result is ‘just forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown’ then it will become SOP. 

    • #56
  27. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    PHenry (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Which of these would any further investigations aid?

    Your logic here reminds me of the Jussie Smollett case. They dropped charges, despite clear evidence, because, after all, what would be gained by prosecuting a gay black actor?

    If we are going to ignore crime because it might not help the party’s election effort, we care no more for justice than the Democrats. There is much more at stake here than just what helps the next election!

    Are you really just A OK with the administration in power using the powers of the FBI, FISA, and the justice department to cover for their own party and spy on the opposition party? Because if the result is ‘just forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown’ then it will become SOP.

    It’s been SOP for a long time, else the Clinton administration would have seen a number of theirs from the highest levels jailed. 

    The comparison with Smollett is tenuous.  Smollett was actually charged, this means a case was made, and a case was made because there was enough evidence to build one up.  The dropping of charges, and especially the sealing of the case files, are both highly highly suspect.  2 years of Mueller looking into all this and you’d think that if there was enough concrete evidence to make a case, he might have done so, or that evidence would be brought to light now.  We’ve not seen that.

    And if no case is made, then what does that tell you?  It tells you that Trump himself either has been told by his AG that there’s not enough there to go on, or else Trump himself has decided not to pursue it.  And that’s an interesting thought to consider. 

    Maybe Trump himself is the one letting it drop.

    • #57
  28. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Maybe Trump himself is the one letting it drop.

    Stay tuned, I doubt very much he is letting it drop. 

    At bare minimum, Hillary’s illegal server,  30,000 emails deleted after a subpoena, as well as the FISA application based on an unverified dossier and the unmasking of American citizens all must be answered for.  These are not wispy accusations based on unverified oppo research, these are documented and verified facts that demonstrate clear crimes. 

    We all know not a single one of us ‘little’ people, nor any Republican office holder would be given a pass on that kind of thing.  It’s time justice be equal. 

    • #58
  29. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    PHenry (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):
    Maybe Trump himself is the one letting it drop.

    Stay tuned, I doubt very much he is letting it drop.

    At bare minimum, Hillary’s illegal server, 30,000 emails deleted after a subpoena, as well as the FISA application based on an unverified dossier and the unmasking of American citizens all must be answered for. These are not wispy accusations based on unverified oppo research, these are documented and verified facts that demonstrate clear crimes.

    We all know not a single one of us ‘little’ people, nor any Republican office holder would be given a pass on that kind of thing. It’s time justice be equal.

    The most important aspect of pursuing this is that unless Democrats and their allies know they will have to go through the same pain as those on the other side a permanent imbalance in the system will be created.  Even if indictments do not occur the psychic stress and financial cost will help serve as a deterrent.

    This is how both parties agreed not to renew the Independent Counsel law.  In its first years it became almost exclusively a tool with which Democrats could torture Republicans.  It was only with Ken Starr that it became apparent both could play this game.

    And personally I’d like to get some answers as to how this all happened.  I can draw a lot of inferences from what we now know but I’d like to know if I’m correct and there are still many things I don’t understand.  Some specifics:

    1.  How could Hillary, in response to a document request, waltz into the government and announce “here are what I’ve decided are the relevant documents, and I’ve destroyed the rest” and not face criminal charges?  I’ve dealt with the government in criminal investigations and know if my clients did that the Feds would file charges immediately.
    2. Did DOJ really effectively direct the FBI not to file of charges against Hillary?
    3. When, how, and why did the FBI and apparently others begin the investigation of the Trump campaign?  Crossfire Hurricane officially began in July 2016 but we already know from other actions that someone was trying to entrap the Trump campaign earlier in 2016.  Who?

    Those are just for starters.

    • #59
  30. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Afternoon Skipsul,

    You asked ‘what would be gained”, a measure of deterrence.  The admin state thrives because there is no accountability, it is near impossible to fire anyone, the only way any bit of public outrage occurs, comes from negative publicity, think the GSA Las Vegas photo, or the publicity around the VA.  The exposure of the corruption of the FBI, DOJ, and State, and the FISA court may never lead to a “have you no shame” moment with Morrow, but  publicly presenting the venality and arrogance will leave a lasting mark (well maybe two weeks, anyway).  The longer the exposure the longer the mark will last, and by going through this exercise, it will be shown that the admin state is not invulnerable, and that the “Boy Scouts” are really thugs in suits.  This maybe the beginning of a new tool that a conservative executive may develop to control the admin state.

    On the flip side, if we let this go, because, can’t we just get along, no political advantage, then we have just said that the cost of an attempted coup is nothing.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.