Tag: collusion

Join Jim and Greg as they dissect the importance of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager admitting under oath that Hillary was fine with the campaign disseminating unproven allegations about Trump and Alfa Bank to the media. And after breathless collusion coverage for years, the media seem very uninterested in this revelation. They also cringe as residents in at least 14 states are being told to expect blackouts because supply cannot keep up with demand – while dozens of coal-fired power plants are being taken offline with no good plan to pick up the energy production load. And they react to the Biden administration correcting President Biden on his own policies again – this time over we would respond militarily to defend Taiwan.


Member Post


Conservative television and radio host Mark Levin called this letter one of the greatest political scandals of our time. On Monday, many Americans were outraged by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memorandum in which he called on the FBI to mobilize against parents who were concerned about what their children were being taught in public schools. […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Collusion Writ Large


If you had any doubt that big tech has been colluding with the federal government, the feds have confirmed their attack on the first amendment without any apologies.

US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has jumped into the fray of overplaying government power by publicly calling for all media outlets to edit out or refuse to publish what he calls “misinformation”; this term is a substitute for “information we don’t like or don’t agree with.” His behavior is an attack on the Constitution, an insult to our citizenry, and a demonstration that the federal government will use any tactics, legal or illegal, to achieve its agenda. He issued a 22-page document trying to justify his actions. It said, in part:

Misinformation tends to spread quickly on these platforms for several reasons. First, misinformation is often framed in a sensational and emotional manner that can connect viscerally, distort memory, align with cognitive biases, and heighten psychological responses such as anxiety. People can feel a sense of urgency to react to and share emotionally charged misinformation with others, enabling it to spread quickly and go “viral.” In recent years, the rapidly changing information environment has made it easier for misinformation to spread at unprecedented speed and scale.

Massive IRS Breach or Leak against “The .001 Percent”


Propublica, a leftist media organ, has just published an article on the wealthiest Americans, based on what they acknowledge to be illegal disclosure of taxpayers’ information. They will almost certainly not be prosecuted by the leftist DOJ careerists, once again backed by leftist political appointees. The leftist White House media mouthpieces are good with the felonies and already framing this as the rich not paying their fair share.

We see the set-up for Propublica’s June 8th publication in the June 7, 2021 White House press briefing:

Member Post


As @brianwatt posted a bit ago, Senator Lindsey Graham released this letter today from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe regarding Crossfire Hurricane. Assuming I am understanding it correctly, this appears to be more or less what happened: FBI/CIA [to Obama/Biden]: “Clinton is fabricating a Trump-Russia collusion scandal, Russia knows about it and fabricated this […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

On the Ages of Politicians


The current crop of Democratic challengers tend to be pretty old people. Somehow they’ve even managed to beat Donald Trump in that regard, even though he’s no spring chicken himself. There’s a reason for that, but we’re not starting there. We’re starting back in the old Soviet Union, and not even as a Bernie Sanders joke. Let’s go down a quick list, shall we, of the various Soviets post Lenin.

  • Joseph Stalin: Born 1878, died 1953, 75 years old*. 28 years in office.
  • Nikita Khrushchev: Born 1894, died 1971, 77 years old. 11 years in office.
  • Leonid Brezhnev: Born 1906, died 1982, 76 years old. 18 years in office.
  • Yuri Andropov: Born 1914, died 1984, 70 years old. 2 years in office.
  • Konstantin Chernenko: Born 1911, died 1985, 74 years old. 1 year in office.
  • Gorbachev: Born 1931, still alive according to Wikipedia.

After ol’ Joe kicked the bucket (Thanks @amyschley!) you get a series of four commies with similar birth years (17 years difference between Khrushchev and Andropov). They collectively ran the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1985, a period of 32 years. Lenin and Stalin were born in the 1870s, these guys were born about 30 years after that**, then Gorbachev and Yeltsin were born in the 1930s. These Soviet leaders were all selected from the same age cohort until they got so decrepit that they were dying off after a few months in office.

A Reminder: Google lies


DuckDuckGo over GoogleRemember the side-by-side search engine results in the 2016 election? Google has not changed, and if anything, they have gone from thumbs to whole hands all over the balance of search results. Here are the results for a phrase that might produce factual results unhelpful to Google and their fellow Democrats:

“Democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump” *

Google gives us this ordered list:

A Question for Historians: Robert Mueller’s Incapacity


To say that Robert S. Mueller III did not distinguish himself in his Congressional testimony Wednesday would be an understatement. His answers were halting, when not evasive, and he repeatedly had to ask that a question be repeated. Long before his appearance before the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, there had been rumors that he was senile.

His testimony today suggests two possibilities: that he really is senile, or that he is pretending to be so in order to avoid having to explain his conduct as Special Prosecutor. If the latter is true, it had to do with his reluctance to discuss his decision to hire a host of hyper-partisan Democrats, such as Andrew Weissman, to do the footwork on the case and with his failure to investigate the origins of the Fusion GPS report and to consider the possibility that the Russians made clever use of the Clinton campaign.

I am, however, inclined to suppose that the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is senile and that he was already suffering from dementia when he was named Special Prosecutor. This would explain a great deal. If, in effect, the hyper-partisan Andrew Weissman was in charge, it would explain why, though by then they knew that he was innocent, the Special Prosecutor and his team did not exonerate Donald Trump of collusion with the Russians prior to the 2018 midterms. It would also explain the absence of any curiosity concerning Christopher Steele and the Fusion GPS report. And, of course, it would explain all the malarkey about obstruction of justice.

The Unraveling of the Russian Collusion Hoax


Am I the only one who senses something downright Maoist in Mueller’s innovative “not exonerated” standard? Can one be indicted for non-exoneration? Whatever happened to guilty/not guilty? Or prosecutable/not prosecutable?

I guess that’s what Joe Biden would dismiss as “white man’s jurisprudence.” “Too binary,” as the kids would say.

I can hear Mueller’s defenders read directly from his hagiography: “But he’s a Republican!” Spare me. At the highest echelons of Washington’s political class, the difference between Republican and Democrat is about as meaningful as the Yankees’ pinstripes and road grays: the entire dugout is still on the same team. (That is to say: lawyers.) Mueller’s well-practiced mien of excruciating probity notwithstanding, his impeach-signaling to Democrats is about as subtle as when my tax guy kicks me in the shin beneath the table when I go on too long in answering questions from the IRS.

Member Post


The Democrat-Deep State-Media Cover-Up that Protected the Russiagate Narrative — Revisiting the Awan Cybersecurity Scandal with Luke Rosiak Luke Rosiak is an investigative reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation where he broke arguably one of the biggest scandals in the history of the federal government — one the media refused to cover and the […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Collusion and Obstruction: Two Different Kinds of Crime


If the President had been found guilty of Russian collusion — that is, of participating in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians to undermine our election — then it would have indicated that he was a particular kind of villain. It takes a particular kind of villain to knowingly work with our enemies to subvert the democratic process. That represents a treasonous betrayal of our country.

On the other hand, being oafish and ignorant of the nuances of executive authority in the context of a legal investigation, while it may arguably appear to meet the legal definition for a charge of obstruction of justice, need not suggest that the President is a villain. Rather, it may simply indicate that he is an amateur on matters of law and politics, and that he is accustomed to speaking his mind without considering the unique legal implications of doing so while being the head of federal law enforcement.

Mueller Did the Right Thing


It seems that “13 hardened Democrats” or “angry Democrats” did not deliver a politically-motivated, illegitimate hit job after all. Based on what we know so far, the special counsel’s office reported that it did not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. This is a fabulous vindication of the integrity of the system.

No one is noticing that. Instead, the Trump team is gorging on schadenfreude, and the anti-Trump team is choking on bile.

It’s fair to say that those who spent hour upon cable TV hour lovingly anticipating that President Trump would be frog-marched from the White House in handcuffs after the delivery of this report have egg on their faces. It isn’t clear which hurts more, the disappointment about being wrong or the worry about drooping ratings.

The Bul****: You’ve Gotta Pivot Like There’s Nobody Watching


Lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees: It seems to me likely Mueller will find there was collusion between Trump associates and Putin operatives; that Trump knew about it; and that Trump sought to cover it up and obstruct its investigation. What then? Good question. — Bill Kristol, August 9, 2018

Good question, indeed. The complementary question, of course, is: what if Mueller doesn’t find that there was collusion between Trump associates and Putin operatives? What then?

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.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad to see the Mueller report conclude that neither Donald Trump not anyone else in his campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 elections. They also get a kick out of Trump critics frantically moving the goalposts to claim the new attorney general is doing Trump’s bidding or that the real action is in Congress or with the federal prosecutors in New York. And they shake their heads at the overall performance of the mainstream media in covering this story since the last presidential campaign.

The Bulwark: Walking it Back, Just a Little?


Our mutual friend @garyrobbins has called my attention to a change at The Bulwark, one that I think is positive, so I thought I’d give a little bit of credit where a little bit of credit is due. The Bulwark has changed its mission statement. Previously, its “About Us” page described its mission as follows:

Our mission will be to say [that the president of the United States is a serial liar, a narcissist and a bully, a con man who mocks the disabled and women, a man with no fixed principles who has the vocabulary of an emotionally insecure nine-year-old] out loud and encourage others to do so as well.

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.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome reports that Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans and Democrats agree that there is no direct evident showing a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.  They also shudder for GOP Senate prospects in 2020 as astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, announces he will run against Arizona Sen. Martha McSally next year.  And Jim sounds off on the insincere apologies offered by the likes of Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Is it Just Me?


When it comes to the still extant Russian collusion narrative, the left and the Legacy Media (I know, I know) claim as their most solid evidence the meeting between Don Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya (hereafter known as the lawyer, because I’m not spelling that again). I say that not only is the meeting not evidence of collusion, but that it is actually far more effective as evidence against collusion.

Stay with me here, because I’m pretty sure this makes sense…