Today on the Daily Standard Podcast, host Charlie Sykes discusses the Mueller investigation’s first year, the widespread misinterpretation by the media of President Trump’s remarks regarding sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, and MS-13 gang members, and cultural appropriation.

The Daily Standard podcast is sponsored by the Dollar Shave Club. Try their $5 starter box (a $15 value!) with free shipping by visiting

Subscribe to Daily Standard in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

There are 7 comments.

  1. Member

    “You can certainly understand why people speculate that… Vladimir Putin… does he have something on Trump.”

    Yes, I can understand it. People who don’t like Trump have active imaginations. Speculation has no business in a court of law – not even in front of a grand jury.

    Re: the meeting in Trump tower where Don Jr was enticed to meet once with a Russian to get information about Hillary’s emails
    How is it that a failed attempt to discover dirt on Hillary from a foreign source is considered bad – BUT actually compiling material from foreign sources (UK) alleging to be originally sourced by Russians, which was subsequently taken to the FBI by a US Senator and presented in front of the FISA court and otherwise used to justify spying on the Trump campaign during the election and eventually used to trigger the Special Counsel despite never being substantially corroborated… well that’s no big deal. Using the power of the US gov’t to meddle in the election … no big deal, right? Rumors, speculation and innuendo about Trump’s involvement with Russian meddling completely absent implicating evidence of a crime – THAT triggers an investigation that goes on for two years (one of which with a Special Counsel).

    Do you even hear how silly you sound?

    • #1
    • May 17, 2018 at 12:41 pm
    • Like
  2. Member

    “No evidence of collusion? … Unless you’ve been living under a rock, there’s tons of evidence, multiple signs that something was going on – from the contacts between the Russians and George Papadopoulos, the meeting in Trump tower that was arranged… because the Trump folks were told that they were going to get dirt on Hillary from the Russians.”

    Again, there is a ton of evidence that DOJ, FBI and the Hillary campaign did in actual fact collude with British intelligence (foreign spies – yikes!) to meddle in the election. But what of Papadopoulos? Yes, he met with Russians. Yes, he suggested meeting with Russians (including Putin) that never took place. But he actually set up meetings with Greek Defense Minister and the Egyptian head of state. These are not illegal and they did take place. This is the kind of thing foreign policy advisers do.

    If I were to tell you that I know people who are in the country illegally and then the following week I hire someone to build a fence, only a fool would think that the person I hired was in the country illegally because “hey, it could be true”. Juxtaposing two facts in your own mind does not constitute evidence that these facts are connected in the real world. One has to prove the connection. Two years and counting… no connection.

    The logical mistake here – the one that requires a leap into speculation – is the conflation of meetings Papdopoulos requested with Russians and the fact that he apparently repeated a rumor he was told that Russians had dirt on Hillary. There are dozens of legitimate reasons that the Trump campaign and Trump himself might want to have limited contact with high-level Russians (although no such contacts took place). Gathering dirt on Hillary that might have been gleaned from emails that might have been hacked because she definitely left her server open to attack is just one possibility that one might speculate about. And after two years of investigation, a rational person would like to see something – some smoking gun – suggesting that collusion took place. There is none.

    It is well past time to stop droning on about what might have happened. By this time the Watergate Special Prosecutor had indictments against Nixon aides. There was public testimony from John Dean about the coverup two weeks after the Special Prosecutor was appointed in May 1973.

    In May 2018… Nothing related to Trump or actions taken by his campaign during the campaign. Zilch.

    “Conservatives would have taken an attack upon our democracy by the Russians very seriously.”

    Really? I’m more worried about the various cyberattacks (stealing millions of confidential and classified records) than I am about a few thousand facebook posts and some old-fashioned post-election rabble rousing. What missing, of course, is any evidence whatsoever that Trump or even anyone in his campaign had anything to do with that. No, our democracy is in great shape, actually.

    • #2
    • May 17, 2018 at 1:11 pm
    • Like
  3. Member

    “Chorus of obstruction of the Russia investigation… What conservative principle is advanced by trying to delegitimize the FBI or someone like Bob Mueller. Wouldn’t it be a smarter thing to focus on these conservative principles and then let this investigation take its course – let’s find out what the facts are, let’s not leap to any judgment – why wouldn’t that be a smarter approach for conservative members of Congress and for the punditry?”

    The first conservative principle would be that a person is innocent until proven guilty, right? 

    There is no need to delegitimize the FBI when they have done such a bang-up job of doing so themselves. But are we to pretend not to notice? Several times in this podcast you gripe about people ignoring what you consider to be evidence – smoke, as you put it, evidence of fire. And yet you over-emphasize the wisp of smoke from Papadopoulos and ignore the billowing smoke of evidence of the FBI and DOJ meddling in the election to favor Hillary and hurt Trump.

    As for Mueller, it’s not so much that his investigation is illegitimate (now that he has gotten rid of the worst of the obvious pro-Hillary partisans that he initially hired), but that his case is weak despite a year of investigation (built on top of a year of truly illegitimate spying and investigation of the Trump campaign by the FBI) and he seems to be a prosecutor in search of a crime to pin on a chosen target.

    • #3
    • May 17, 2018 at 1:49 pm
    • Like
  4. Coolidge

    I still think that Trump and Co. are too stupid for this level of conspiracy or collusion. Much more likely they were the targets of some Russian kompromat and what excellent targets they make. I also agree that Mueller should be looking at what the Clintons and Mr. “tell Vlad I’ll be more flexible” were doing with the Russians and with the FBI. I still don’t understand how Lynch’s meeting on the tarmac was greeted with yawns by the media and is given literally no attention even today.

    • #4
    • May 17, 2018 at 2:59 pm
    • Like
  5. Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):
    I still don’t understand how Lynch’s meeting on the tarmac was greeted with yawns by the media and is given literally no attention even today.

    Wait until the IG report comes out. There are stories out today that it will refer prosecutions regarding illegal actions in the Hillary email investigation and coverup.

    • #5
    • May 17, 2018 at 3:48 pm
    • 1 like
  6. Member

    Regarding the “smoke” emanating (metaphorically) from the Trump Tower meeting which supposedly justified further snooping. A friend reminds that, “It turns out to have been a bait and switch where the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya was already working with Glenn Simpson’s firm Fusion GPS (which employed Steele on Clinton’s behalf) and met with Simpson right before and after the Trump Tower meeting.” IOW an intentional sting operation possibly led by Hillary client Fusion GPS which ultimately failed when the Trump campaign refused to pursue the bait.

    • #6
    • May 17, 2018 at 3:51 pm
    • Like
  7. Coolidge

    Reason to distrust:

    1. When it came out that Mueller’s team was only Democrats and Hillary supporters made no moves to address any sense of being politically motivated
    2.  Did not recuse when Comey became an issue, despite a friendship
    3. Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn and was part of the Mueller team. Once the texts and McCabe’s issues became prominent he needed to blow up the entire investigation as it was compromised and start from square 1 with a new team.
    4. Mueller has, as of now, shown no interest in investigating Comey leaks, Podesta Russia connections, any meddling on behalf of Democrats including FusionGPS. His investigation is Russian meddling in the 2016 election, not just Trump and Russia.
    5. Manafort investigation is a decade and a half prior to the Presidential run. Cohen’s involvement so far has been shown to be about Stormy Daniels. One is Russia but not 2016, the other is 2016 but not Russia.
    • #7
    • May 17, 2018 at 4:06 pm
    • 1 like