mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
 
washington maelstrom
After Mueller, Trump Critics Worry: Maybe There’s No Scandal
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    “Trump’s outrageous and indefensible conduct around the Russia investigation—” There you go again. Why do you find it necessary to include such garbage in an otherwise well-reasoned post? What exactly is is the conduct that has you foaming at the mouth? Seems to me that it’s the (unproven) allegations that are outrageous and indefensible. https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/05/18/this-is-a-coup-against-our-right-to-govern-ourselves-n2328059

    • Pete

      The punk who wrote this posting is an anti-Trumper. all he can do is foam at the mouth because he’s MAD as in unhinged.

      • Dan Kearns

        That doesn’t seem to be accurate to what Mr. Willick had written in the past. He’s not been part of the fanatical brigade at all and has usually stayed on the sober side. I think most anti-Trumpers don’t like his analysis usually.

        • Andrew Allison

          Not so. In the run up to the election and since Willick has, as many of us have commented, consistently inserted snide anti-Trump commentary into his posts.

          • Dan Kearns

            I must be so used to those kind of snide comments now that his must have passed me by earlier? They have become endemic so many places as to seem almost pro forma! I would still think that Mr. Willick is more sober than most places– do you agree?

          • Andrew Allison

            I’ll agree that he’s not quite as blatant as the WaPo (a very high bar), but it’s really disappointing to see this garbage on my favorite blog.

          • Dan Kearns

            I guess I let things get defined down too far. 😉 thanks for the reminder.

          • leoj

            We have disagreed in the past, as I think you are occasionally too sensitive of any criticism. I do agree with you about this post.

          • Andrew Allison

            I’d like to think (perhaps delusionally) that I only despise ill-founded criticism. As a naturalised old fart enjoying the manifest benefits of single-payer insurance (aka Medicare), almost eight decades of observing the human comedy, and utter disgust with the political establishment, I’d like to think that I’m a little above average on the objectivity scale (and that my up-votes reflect this). But of course, I’m biased [grin]

          • ——————————

            And did you read Marusic’s Trump hit piece in the Features section a few days ago?
            The snideness starts with the title!

            As AA commented below “disappointing to see this garbage on my favorite blog”….

          • Dan Kearns

            I don’t even read the ones like that where the title announces that it’s a hit piece that’s not interested in analytical thinking. It’s a great shortcut in trying to keep the signal/static ratio high. 🙂

          • Andrew Allison

            That’s certainly an option (one which I exercise when the source is NYT, WaPoo, et al.). But I sort of hope, perhaps forlornly, that if we demonstrate to the kiddy-winks how stupidly unfounded their posts are, there might be a chance of reform. However, I’m getting really tired of pointing out that it’s PRESIDENT Trump they’re belittling.

          • D4x

            Yet, now linked at RCPolitics. Was wondering about the new commenters.

            I am so looking forward to seeing FLOTUS again, in photos. Since Brigitte Macron’s inauguration suit echoed Melania, the Daily Mail is again covering her fashion.
            I understand why her SS nickname is Muse.

          • ——————————

            That’s what I figured.
            Ill bet we hit 150 comments on this one…again. So much scrolling to find the islands of sanity…yawn…..

          • ——————————

            I thought we’d hit 150 comments, but I see it is up to 228 now…and still counting.

            A record since I’ve been on TAI….

          • D4x

            Too many voices here. Not enough voices like this:
            http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/what-melania-wore-why-the-first-ladys-saudi-style-is-a-big-deal

            Can’t believe NOLA is removing the statute of Robert E. Lee.
            America is NOT normal.

      • Andrew Allison

        Sadly, TDS appears to have infected much of the staff.

      • horatio

        He is also an over educated pedant who confuses elegant academic diction with good argumentation. He should try again after he’s shaved a few more times. I wonder what he could cite as achievements that would even register on the scale of PT’s.

    • Gary Hemminger

      Because Trump is being outrageous. I wish he would just shut the hell up. The guy does not know when to keep his mouth shut. Let the investigation conclude, and if it concludes with him being found innocent, then he can crow all he wants. Instead he rubs everyones face in it. If he can’t stop and shut his stupid mouth occasionally, then you can count on the idiot Democrats gaining more politically over time. When will the guy learn to shut his trap?

      • Andrew Allison

        Actually, it’s Willick who’s being outrageous.

      • Hanzo

        You’re a fucking idiot. Why should he want the investigation to go forward when there is absolutely ZERO evidence to even support starting an investigation? You have evidence? If so, you’d be the first. Eat shit.

      • K. E.

        So is he supposed to just be a simpering fool that says nothing while lies are printed and said about him? NO WAY. Republicans have been doormats for too long. I’m tired of it.

        • If we wanted that we coulda had JEB.

          • sikologik

            JEB!

            ftfy.

        • Justwaitinforchange

          Can’t agree – Trump should focus on policy, period. He won the presidency and needs to stop whining so he can keep winning. While Comey needed to go, and go now, it was handled terribly. This is 100% of Trumps problems. He can’t take valid criticism and is so easy to rile up. I don’t believe they will find anything of import from the investigation. Let Trump get tax reform done and when the economy grows, only the left will bitch and m,moan.

          • Terenc Blakely

            It doesn’t matter what Trump does or how he does it, his actions will always be portrayed in the most negative light possible even including out and out lies. My rule of thumb regarding Trump ‘revelations’ is to wait a week or so and if they haven’t disappeared or been walked back by then, I’ll assume there might be an element of truth buried in a giant pile of bs. This is the state of our media these days.

      • underwearbomber

        I did not support Trump and voted against him in the primaries–just because of his temperament, outrageous behavior and lack of any clear governing principles. I tried to convince other Republicans not to support him.
        But he won the nomination and then the election fair and square.
        He is now the President.
        This is the man the American people elected precisely to rub the Democrats and media’s face in it.
        That’s why they hate him.
        But I say this is the street fighter you wanted, he is who he is, now let him fight these sob’s anyway he knows how.
        i will support him, and there are tens of millions like me.

      • Miek D.

        What Trump understands, and many on the right do not, is that it is impossible for a Republican to act in a manner that will generate a reasonable response from Democrats and the MSM. The people that keep saying he should stop his tweeting and saying things that cause the Democrats and MSM to criticize his very being are like abused housewives trying to appease their drunk husbands on a Friday night, hoping that if they dote on them and say nice things, their husbands will not fly into a rage and beat them senseless.

        • CptNerd

          Like the photo of the little girl at a Tea Party rally, her sign said “it doesn’t matter what this sign says, you’ll call it racist anyway”, Trump is saying whatever he wants to say, knowing the effect it will have, and counting on it. Like I said on another site, Trump isn’t intellectual but he’s not stupid, and he’s not “playing 4D chess”, he’s playing “fizzbin” and doing it well.

    • D4x

      Terrific column by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall. Only thing missing is noting the “progressives” really want to burn POTUS Trump, deemed a heretic by the ProgressiveStarChamber, at the stake, live on CNN.

      • MyWord245

        Forget about progressives and MSM. Easy to pick on them. What IF Mueller reports back that there was an open collusion between Trump Campaign and the Russians. Would you then support Trump’s departure? This question is posed to check if there is a red-line for you and Andrew (both of whom I respect).

        • D4x

          Those ‘progressives’ have done far too much harm to me, since 2008, to ever forget. I was going to move to another country if HRC had won. As to your hypothetical? Unlikely, but, I am A-OK with President Pence. I would greatly miss POTUS Trump, and FLOTUS Melania.

          • sweetmusic

            I am NOT okay with Pence. In Indiana he backed down under pressure. He lacks Trump’s backbone.

          • D4x

            It was a hypothetical question meant to intimidate, albeit with respect.

            I would prefer Sec Tillerson to Pence, but no one has POTUS Trump’s backbone, to throw the PC back at them.

            Trump is a Viking, who, like Ulysses S. Grant, fights.

            Still, a fiscal conservative from Indiana beats anyone labeled D.

          • Boritz

            I tend to believe that Pence would become a Jeb or a Kasich if he took office under these circumstances. Hope I’m wrong and hope I don’t have to find out.

          • D4x

            My impression of Pence is more like Huckabee, definitely not like any Bush. You won’t have to find out until at least 2019, except the ‘resistance’ is already flinging their scorched earth garbage on Pence.

        • Andrew Allison

          Thank you. And yes, there’s a red line, namely evidence of an impeachable offense. But, of course, there can’t be an impeachable offense prior to his swearing in. When comes to campaign dirty tricks, there are unproven allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and clearly illegal (and impeachable, were he still in office) Obama administration surveillance; and clear evidence that the Clinton campaign engaged in dirty tricks. In other words, it rather looks as though Trump won the election because Hillary was such an appalling candidate and incompetent campaigner, and not because of the seemingly endless litany of excuses. More to the point, it is inconceivable that the Administration would appoint a manifestly impartial special prosecutor if there were anything to hide. Not sure whether I’ve addressed your concerns, feel free to follow up.

          • rheddles

            Disagree with you here. Impeachment is political, not legal, in the sense that the Judiciary is not at all involved. High crimes and misdemeanors means whatever the House wants it to mean and it is not limited to time in office. At the present rate, in 2019 we will find out what the then House considers to be HC&M. And that will be a result of the 2018 election debate and results. Basically, that election will be a confidence vote on Trump. If it reaches them, the Senate Republicans will then get to decide whether they would prefer to have a Trump-Pence or Pence-Haley ticket in 2020. It’s all political.

          • Andrew Allison

            Agreed, but, as I wrote, you do have to actually be in office to be impeached.

          • rheddles

            Are you suggesting he’ll resign?

          • Andrew Allison

            Very unlikely, especially since there appear to be no evidence to support the allegations.

          • david russell

            More to the point, the allegations even if true do not constitute crimes and all the special counsel can investigate are actual crimes.

          • Andrew Allison

            I agree. Can we agree that the President is not impeachable on the basis of actions prior to being sworn in (which was my comment).

          • david russell

            I agree. I’m not a lawyer nor a member of Congress. Impeachment seems a political determination in fact, whereas actual laws have to be broken of a special counsel to be able to investigate.

          • Andrew Allison

            Glad to learn that you are neither [grin] Any grandstanding a-hole, er, reprehensative, er, MoC (but I repeat myself) can propose Articles of Impeachment but a majority of the House and super-majority of the Senate have to conclude that there was an actual crime committed post-inauguration. It’s now the job of the special counsel to determine whether a crime was committed and if so, when. Even Dershowitz doesn’t think there was.

          • PierrePendre

            His alleged collusion with the Russians occurred before he took office and Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller implies this would be impeachable if proved. If Mueller were to indict him for other illegal but unknown acts committed before Trump took office, they might also be considered impeachable if they were likely to have impacted his election prospects. Obviously it would be difficult to impeach him for something the voters knew about before November 8. The grounds for impeachment are so elastic and the Democrats so insane that they’d probably try to impeach him for anything they think they could persuade some Republicans to go along with. This permanent state of hysteria will backfire on the Dems sooner or later. Laurence Tribe wants to put Trump and Jeff Sessions on trial for treason. And he’s supposed to be a constitutional lawyer at Harvard.

          • Andrew Allison

            TDS-induced hysteria knows no bounds. However, aside from the fact that a majority in the house and two-thirds vote in the Senate is probably not achievable, only two federal officials have ever been convicted for acts prior to assuming office and both had government positions at the time the acts were committed (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf), in other words, the offences were impeachable when committed. This plus the fact that administration would not have appointed a special prosecutor if there were anything to prosecute mean that the hysterics are pushing on a string. I my opinion they are also only talking to each other — everybody else is simply rolling their eyes at their craziness..

          • david russell

            Appointment of a special counsel derails impeachment talk until his investigation is complete, and as none of the allegations against Trump are actual crimes, the will be no charges brought against Trump, or anyone in his group except possibly Flynn.

          • Kelley

            There is no collusion with the Trump campaign or otherwise. This was nonsense Hillary brought up to divert attention away from her embarrassing emails when she was getting wind that the voters actually were giving Mr. Trump more than a glance. The Clintons are a poison. They were the ones who cheated, stole and lied all the way through the campaign and if nothing else, perhaps Mueller can investigate their ties to the Russian government. Lynch met with lying bill on the tarmac….. scum, all of them. The thing I am more concerned about at this point is the deep state that seems to be orchestrating this take down and the destruction of democracy. Future generations are doomed if we don’t stop this divisive nonsense. President Trump was elected fair and square and he should be allowed to enact the policies that we voted him in office for. The sad state of affairs is that the deep state is not allowing this—and who elected them????

          • Denis Ables

            What about the following hypothetical case: Suppose, after election that it was discovered your president was not actually eligible to take that office? (Certainly the political party which proposed this candidate should have done a better job of vetting … but also the press (which supposedly protects us against such political machinations).

          • Andrew Allison

            He meets the eligibility requirements (https://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html). The Constitution leaves it to the voters to determine suitability, and they did. The US press, unhappily, has given up any pretense of objectivity; it was, and is up to its eyeballs in (anti-Trump) political machinations.

          • Denis Ables

            My goodness ! WHO is “He” ? I was responding to a query with a hypothetical example.

            If you’re referring to Obama, his mother was, after all, a US citizen. However, for a short duration around the time of his birth, congress was meddling with the eligibility requirement by not permitting citizenship for very young mothers. If he was born in Kenya, there may have been a legal issue, but who can take that short-term meddling by congress seriously? Foreigners (pregnant moms) fly into our country just to obtain US citizenship for their newborns, but the citizenship of a young US mom abroad is ignored?

            Just as an aside, however, there appears to be valid reasoning that Obama was born in Kenya. Two of his Kenya relatives (initially) claimed publicly to have been present at his birth there. “Birth-ers” ? In any event, Obama, back in the day, apparently thought that being born elsewhere was marketable so apparently had his CV published by a Mass. PR group (which later admitted publishing it, but claimed the place of birth was a “typo”.

          • jp

            yes but you don’t have to have committed the offense you are being impeached for while you were in office

          • Andrew Allison

            Of course you do! If you’re not in office the offence in not impeachable.

          • jp

            maybe there has been confusion on one of our parts here. you have to be in office to be impeached yes. i quite agree. but you can be impeached while you are in office for offenses you committed while you were not in office

          • Andrew Allison

            I repeat, you can only be impeached for offenses committed while holding office. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/impeach

          • sweetmusic

            The essential point here is that the attack by the left is against democracy itself. Trump was elected fair and square. The leftwing media and Nevertrumpers have a problem with that. Their animus is against us, the voters who put him in office. They would substitute their own faulty judgment for that of the people. That would justify a response which would put our republic in jeopardy. The left is playing with fire.

          • Boritz

            From where we’ve gone now it’s possible to imagine a future in which a Democrat held House and Senate will preemptively impeach any elected Republican president in January on the basis that being outside their party is an impeachable offense for the presidency. Once upon a time I would qualify a statement like this by saying I don’t want to give them any ideas but I’m confident that I’m not.

          • david russell

            The appointment of special counsel completely derails impeachment….. politically.

          • rocketdan

            Boritz – Just saw your post suggesting the Democrats would preemptively impeach any Republican in January just because the election obviously must not have been fair. This reminds me of the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker in WI and suggest we are already there. Walker is one of the most civil men in politics but he was subject to a recall, received many death threats to himself and his family, had Democrat legislators leave the state rather than do their jobs, and had a multi-year John Doe investigation of any conservative who had the audacity to donate to Walker’s campaign with a gag order to prevent them from defending themselves leading up to Walker’s re-election campaign. Trump will see variants of all of these behaviors as they are part of the playbook for the left.

          • David Ball

            The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides during the impeachment of the President! Read Article One Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

          • Andrew Allison

            As noted elsewhere, there has to be a crime and it has to have been committed while in office. What’s going is political theater, nothing more. Even Dershowitz, certainly no fan of the President thinks so, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/g00/video/2017/05/20/dershowitz_calls_special_counsel_mueller_good_news_for_trump_hes_going_to_find_no_crime.html?i10c.referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fg00%2F%3Fi10c.referrer%3D

          • jp

            there does not have to be a crime the term used in the constitution “high crimes and misdemeanors” was a term of art borrowed from british law similar to arts and useful sciences used in the patent and copyright clause. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Unbecoming conduct alone would likely be enough to impeach him from a perspective of deciding whether he CAN be impeached. note i feel he could shoot someone in broad daylight and he would not be impeached and no significant number of republican congressman would even consider it. but he absolutely can be impeached without any possibility of an actual crime. as far as it being used regarding events that happened before he took office we can look again at the system where the term originated and we see that it was used against a king’s prosecutor who improperly used his authority before it was properly his. so there is no requirement that an impeachable offense happen after he took office. it would be completely ridiculous for them ever to actually impeach someone for something that happened before he took office there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about doing so

          • jp

            high crimes and misdemeanors is a term of art borrowed from british law and there was ample precedent clarifying the term in british law before our constitution. it did not solely or mainly refer to criminal offenses and was very often associated with maladministration.

          • Jim Emmons

            Evidence? Such as?

          • Andrew Allison

            I think you misread my comment. There is, of course, no evidence of an impeachable offence.

        • charliehorse

          I’m convinced that there will be nothing to charge anyone with….and especially more so if what hybred foundation for this to continue rises to anything like Fast and Furious…the tarmac rendezvous of Bill and Loretta…..Susan rice and her fairy tales…..secret server and the endless stuff that could be written about Clinton lies and grifter history…….onandonandonandonandon….shall we compare? This is a witch hunt…don’t you think?

          • Miek D.

            And now there is a murdered DNC staffer with numerous DNC related emails in his sent box that were sent to Wikileaks. Did he really die in a botched robbery attempt?

          • DiogenesDespairs

            Rudy Giuliani for FBI Director!

          • david russell

            Too much baggage.

          • sweetmusic

            The real problem is Washington itself–including the GOP. Where were the Republicans all during Obama’s tenure? Nary a peep out of them. We’ve needed a third party long ago. Both parties are responsive only to the kingmakers and the media, not the people.

          • charliehorse

            While the desire for a party that will take the actions that the Republicans or the Progressives don’t take promotes that desire for the third party.

            What you end up with are just different problems, the most serious is the never ending winner that achieves that status with less that 51% of the vote…a perpetual minority winner.

        • sweetmusic

          The “collusion” story is absurd on the surface. We don’t even know if it was Russia that hacked the DNC, let alone that Trump was involved with Russia. We already know that no voting machines were hacked. No election was ever stolen. So what’s the big deal. Why accuse Trump of causing a media nervous breakdown? Obama was responsible for much more than this–Benghazi, ransom payments to Iran, Obamacare lies–and the media yawned.

          • charliehorse

            The only purpose for the investigations…..to have an investigation.

            That’s all that this is about.

          • david russell

            But the optics have shifted in favor of Trump. All talk of old scandals and new scandals will be deflected with: “The special counsel will get to the bottom of this, so let’s let him do his job.” And his job is conducted in secrecy. Trump is now off the hook.

          • MyWord245

            Sorry for 12-hr delay in responding; I was out of pocket. A lot of discussion transpired since my original question to D4X. I have no doubt that Russians are behind the DNC hack — Podesta falling for a simple phishing email made them get away without leaving trace. I don’t believe however that secrets spilled from the DNC hack affected the outcome; Trump won fair and square. So what’s the big deal? IF there is evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated the election strategy with Russians, in my book that is as bad as ransom payments to Iran.

        • Sergey

          “Collusion” is not a legal term, and it is impossible to define it legally. The most probable find will be that Russian hackers helped to uncover and expose some TRUE dirt on Hillary, and Trump campaign used this to topple her. It is not either illegal nor immoral, and voters should be grateful them for this exposure of truth: it strengthen, not undermining US democracy.

        • Jim Emmons

          If that were the case, there would be few that did not want him held accountable. As it is, there is nothing but accusations based on desire to bring Pres. Trump down for having the nerve to beat them in an election.

      • david russell

        But they won’t be able to now with the special counsel appointed. He’ll keep his investigations secret and as no actual crimes have been committed in any of the allegations against Trump, he’s completely off the hook.

        • D4x

          Stopping the Russia! hysteria in Congress WILL help… but the cultureWar against the Trump family will continue their rhetorical burning at the stake. David Remnick The New Yorker and Graydon Carter Vanity Fair are the high priests of the ‘resistance’, despite Anna Wintour’s ceasefire on FLOTUS.

          The Dems in Congress may stop crying impeachment, but the ‘resistance’ is fuelled by Conde Nast’s NeverNormalizeTrumps.

          And then there is the War Against Jared and Ivanka, from the Bannonites.

          Exiting this thread.

    • Boritz

      Here is a good explanation, in general, of the why.

      http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/

  • Unelected Leader

    America is going downhill fast. Looks so much like a banana republic. There are at least two different legal and penal codes in America. One for Hillary Clinton, and one for the rest of us (apparently it includes Trump). Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies and is let off. I’m definitely going to use it, the Hillary Clinton defense, I broke the law but I didn’t intend to! good. Case closed. Where is the door? Does anyone believe that’s how it will go down for me?

    • Gary Hemminger

      Don’t disagree with a lot of what you are saying. but definitely disagree with the “America is going downhill fast.” In the old days people didn’t see how the sausage of politics was made. Now they do. I saw how the sausage was made, but I still ate it and liked it. You should do the same. Go out and smell the flowers buddy. Your negativism is only hurting yourself.

      • Unelected Leader

        If this type of garbage was the only garbage that America had to deal with I’d be optimistic. Sadly, it’s not. So few people in America have even a rudimentary understanding of economics. They are experts at complaining and wondering why their jobs are outsourced and wages are depressed. Some of them are experts at regurgitating lies and propaganda pumped out by MNCs.

        There are tens of millions of Americans right now who believe Russia is some huge threat to US elections because they believe, without evidence, that Russians expose corruption within the DNC. Think about that! Americans have more than $3 trillion in debt between student loans, auto loans, credit cards, and that totals more than the size of the Russian economy. And they’re worried about Russians exposing corruption in the US. That used to be called a service. Priorities are so screwed up in the country it’s unbelievable.

        • And they have less than $200 in ready cash. Since that is an average, a great many have $0. Really, they mostly are in deficit. As above, so below.

    • Joe Eagar

      Last year I overheard a former Navy prosecutor complaining he’d personally sent people to jail for doing *less* then Hillary did. It was a telling conversation, and I think pointed to two problems in American governance: too many things are criminal acts that should not be, but only if the wrong people do them.

      What we need to do is de-escalate a bit, loosen up the laws but also apply them more evenly. What pained this man wasn’t just that Clinton walked free of charges other people go to jail for, but also that some of the things he’d personally convicted people off just weren’t really crimes, and didn’t warrant serving time in jail.

      • Angel Martin

        “Last year I overheard a former Navy prosecutor complaining he’d personally sent people to jail for doing *less* then Hillary did. It was a telling conversation, and I think pointed to two problems in American governance: too many things are criminal acts that should not be, but only if the wrong people do them.”

        this has been deliberate. Criminalize everything and then let “prosecutorial discretion” work in favour of the swamp creatures.

        Where are the legal consequences for Clinton, not only for mishandling classified info but also for not complying with official record keeping law ?

        Where was the legal consequences for “gunwalker”? US law enforcement people actually died due to those guns

        Where are the legal consequences for Lois Lerner and the IRS, first for political targetting, then for deliberate destruction of evidence?

        Where are the legal consequences for Bengazi? US personnel died there too.

        Why does Scooter Libby get prison time even when he didn’t leak Plame’s id? But the CIA station chief in Kabul is outed by the Obama Whitehouse and nothing happens ?

    • Obama clearly and publicly obstructed justice in the Clinton probe as he went on TV and said she was not guilty! Does Mueller have authority to go after him? Clearly he does. Let’s get Lynch and Obama under oath and depose them, Starr-style. And remember, perjury counts!

    • Miek D.

      Three penal codes; one for Hillary, where felonies are not prosecuted, one for us where the law is generally administered fairly and one for Trump, where faceless enemies throw unsubstantiated allegations which are intended to be the final verdict and an impeachable offense.

  • Gary Hemminger

    I was watching Tucker Carlson last night and one of his guests was making this exact claim. Yes maybe Trump didn’t break any laws, but he is still bad and must be impeached. Good luck with that. Either he broke laws and should go, or he didn’t. It is as simple as that. Anything else is just hype.

  • Pete

    Another brainless anti-Trump tirade.

    • Andrew Allison

      Would that it were brainless. It’s calculated.

      • Albert8184

        Indeed.

      • “Would that it were brainless?” I felt it might be within 10% of having enough brains, certainly not too much. Rather it was all his ghettocon simpering and fussy indignation that made it into a stereotypical mush worth only some cheap laughs. The phony lifestyle of fake conservatives in Habsburg D.C. is a dispensable auto-satirizing spectacle in that way

        • Hanzo

          …. and yet your bitch lost to him and his ilk. Tee hee. Life is funny that way.

  • seattleoutcast

    Obama was the center of many scandals and never gave in to his opposition. Also, Obama’s scandals were far more valid than this one on Trump. I think the republicans caving is a sign that they hate Trump as much as the dems.

    • Andrew Allison

      I beg to differ. First, it was Trump, not the Republicans, who appointed the special prosecutor. More importantly, it was a brilliant strategic move snatching from the Dims the opportunity to claim that they had done it, and demonstrating to anybody with half a brain that there’s nothing there — hence the goal-post moving to which Willick refers.

      • Albert8184

        Yes indeed. But now watch Trump’s special prosecutor not do a THING to get to the bottom of the wiretapping issue. Sure Democrats…. let’s look at the EVIDENCE of collusion with the Russians! What would that be? Hmmmmmmm? Oh nevermind.

      • seattleoutcast

        That’s a great point. Since we know there is nothing there, Trump was right to do it. My only worry is that they’ll latch on to some other idiotic issue as soon as this one is settled.

        • Andrew Allison

          As the post points out, they’re already doing so. The real issue is whether anybody is paying attention. It’s my suspicion that the”resistance” is talking to itself and the “deplorables” who elected President Trump are not buying the BS.

          • An IC is a self-contained prosecutorial operation. He can go nearly anywhere and apply functionally unlimited resources. I think it is time to depose Obama on the standards previously applied to politically dicey investigations. Lynch and Holder too, of course.

          • Padric

            I wish I could find it now but there was an article that just came out yesterday which backs up that premise. A reporter went out and talked to people who had voted for Trump and they all said the same thing: They’ve tuned the media and the Dems out and don’t believe a word they say.

            That’s the problem when you cover a candidate the way they covered Trump and when the political opposition turns to rioting in the streets the day after the election. When you start the volume on shrill, there’s no place up to go and it all becomes white noise and easily tuned out.

          • JustData

            Is this the one you are thinking about: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-trump-heartland-sentiment/?cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics -How Trump’s Rust Belt Voters Have Changed Since the Election

            They rate Trump from a low of 7.5 to a couple of perfect 10s.
            .
            Trump created 9,000 mining jobs in April. Those good jobs matter not only to each miner’s family but also to small businesses in those communities and also to the tax base in those communities.
            There were more full time jobs and fewer part time jobs created in April. That’s big to people who are underemployed, and to their families and communities as well.
            .
            You can lie to people about credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, and complex health insurance legislation for awhile; you can’t lie to them about whether or not they have good jobs and their wages keep pace with inflation. Obama proved that you can’t lie to Americans about their own economy; no one bought into the economic lies about jobs and wages.
            Attacking Trump wasn’t enough to win in 2016 and attacking President Trump won’t be enough in 2018 (by a rather large margin). Climate change only beats out pipeline/mining jobs on the coasts and with the elite.

          • Padric

            No, I actually did find it. It’s this one here:

            https://apnews.com/780cc65e99354b00877c870acf2cdaf0

          • JustData

            Thanks. I hadn’t seen that one.

    • Albert8184

      Caving in? Uh… don’t give them that much credit.. for being merely stupid. It’s kind of like how hard they worked to repeal Obamacare the past 8 years. Or how much they do NOTHING at all to support the voters’ who trust them.

  • Isaiah6020

    Democrats never wanted a special prosecutor. They wanted somebody who will slander Trump. Now that they got what they “wanted” they are beginning to realize the dangers of going full Puzy Hat on Trump/Russia collusion story. Never go full Puzy Hat.

    • Albert8184

      Bingo! You nailed it. This whole thing is a dog and pony show. The biggest DANGER (that Trump seems to be unconcerned with exploiting) is the DANGER that the subject of “illegal wiretapping activity” will come up in the discussion of the evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. Buuuutttttttt….. since there was no (cough cough) wiretapping during the campaign… and the uh…. NYT just made that story up last year….. and Obama would never do anything illegal…..(crickets chirping). Yeah… really the biggest danger is that the wiretapping issue is just going to fade away in this whole Orwellian scenario. “We don’t want to talk about the evidence! He just DID IT!”

    • Wayne Lusvardi

      What may happen is that Comey is put on the witness stand and even if he cops the Fifth there will be a gathering of evidence that may implicate Comey as the main leaker; as well as widening the net of offenses to Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified information. So what goes around may come around.

      • Comey has been the Clinton’s pivot man for a quarter century (at least). He buried Whitewater, Sandy Berger, Marc Rich and perhaps incidentally, Martha Stewart. He seems to have an Obama-like barrier laid across his professional history.

        • sikologik

          …but will that barrier last, now that the Clintons are out in the cold, the Obamas are gone, and Comey has proven himself to be both corrupted and corruptible (whereas a year ago, he was widely considered, like Mueller is now, above reproach)?

    • thelegos

      They definitely want someone who would be likely to selectively leak damaging information (regardless if it was related to illegal activity) about Trump and associates. Mueller, by reputation, is not likely to do that. But we’ll see how it plays out, and how much control he can maintain over his underlings.

      • Neal

        Correct. Pelosi has already laid the ground work to not accept a nothing found conclusion.
        Pelosi – “The most important question is this: What is the independence of this commission? What is the discretion it will be allowed to have? And what is the attitude of the deputy attorney general in that regard right from the start?” she added.

        “I’m concerned. I’m concerned.”

        • Fred

          Apparently, that has become the Democrat’s go-to line. I saw an interview this morning with a Dem congressman from California who said “Only incompetent collusion is detectable. If it’s competent you can’t detect it.” Classical conspiracy theorizing. The lack of evidence of the conspiracy only proves the cover-up is working. Tinfoil hats are clearly not just a right wing fashion accessory.

        • JustData

          It won’t help them with anyone not already a rabid Dem.
          These days, Americans are not experiencing broadly prosperous times across the country. Maslow’s Hierarchy trumps Pavlovian drooling partisan dogs during times like these.

    • Boritz

      The powers-that-be were able to pressure John Roberts into perverting two rulings. Let’s see what they can do with Mueller.

      • JustData

        Was it pressure? Or blackmail?
        Mueller didn’t just start a lifetime appointment to the USSC. His career is over and he doesn’t want a job in the halls of power. Hopefully we’ll get the truth; if not we’ll get a short course in what a guy with a towering reputation is winning to sully that reputation for at his age.

  • FluffyFooFoo

    Sanity at last.

  • ——————————

    “His firing of Comey to attempt to quash the inquiry”…I guess he is already guilty according to Jason….

    I like Trumps conduct. Actually he needs to turn it up several notches, AFAIC….

    • As Dershowitz and others inquire, what crime are we referring to? I haven’t heard one yet.

  • Trip

    Marshall said, “The simple point is that the most important ‘bad acts’ may well not be crimes.”. Awesome. He just discovered that obstruction of justice has a bar that the suspect acted corruptly in impeding an investigation beyond a reasonable doubt.

    As both Marshall and Frum exemplify, they have glommed onto an alleged crime, without evidence, and are now looking for somebody to tie it to. It’s more than a hate Trump matter. They did this the day after the election when they became active members of “the resistance”. They won’t admit it of course, but that much is evident. This surely causes anxiety for everybody that jumped into the same life boat with the hope that a special counsel will come along and save them from themselves.

  • Hanzo

    If you want to publish a hit piece on Trump just be upfront about it. This bullshit “article” has plenty of hyperbole and fakenews in it. What a disappointment.

  • Albert8184

    Look… Obama and the Democrats cleared this up during the campaign season. There is no such thing as election fraud. That was all just a GOP ploy to divide and conquer. There is no evidence of election fraud, according to the smartest and most honest people in the world. Therefore….. there is no fraud… in the election. Otherwise, they would have uncovered it during the campaign… when they were wiretapping Trump’s private server. They didn’t find anything bad on Hillary did they???? See! It’s all good!

  • K. E.

    I agree with the Dem parts of this commentary, but where is any proof that Trump was trying to squash anything? He has been saying for months he wants a full investigation. Nothing has happened. Where are we today? We have found out ZIP about any collusion, and many questions remain unanswered such as, who unmasked Flynn and why? Who leaked his name to the press? What ‘evidence’ was taken to the FISA court to listen in on Flynn, Page and other Trump associates/outliers?

    The firing of Comey was well-deserved, everyone expected it, Democrats cried out for it…and now it’s ‘sleazy’?

  • Albert8184

    Ask yourself why the Dems aren’t telling us what all this Trump/Russia evidence is, or where it comes from… but any evidence is provided by the people who now deny how such evidence was obtained! Wiretapping!

    Spring-Summer 2016: FBI investigates Russian interference in the election. Officials express interest in Trump’s private server connected to a Russian bank looking for financial or other ties. Hillary Clinton supporters angry at “law enforcement lack of concern over Trump’s involvement” push for urgent inquiry. No evidence has yet been found, but this still fuels the on-going Trump haters’ conspiracy theories about a “Trump/Russia connection”… evoking memories of an earlier prominent Democrat, Sen Joe McCarthy.

    June 2016: The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor Trump and several advisers. The request is denied.

    October 2016: The Obama administration submits second FISA request, focused on the Trump Tower server suspected of links to Russian banks. This request is approved. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, National Review reports. The Obama administration is now monitoring Trump’s presidential campaign using federal intelligence services.

    January 2017: The New York Times reports the Obama administration “expanded the power of the NSA to share intercepted personal communications with 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked. The New York Times reports that several agencies — the FBI, CIA, NSA and Treasury are monitoring associates of Trump.

    February 2017: Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation between Trump’s NSA pick Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not on the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia. The NY Times claims extensive Russian contacts and cites “four current and former American officials” reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian officials. Questions about illegal intelligence leaks begin to be raised.

    March 2017: Washington Post reports AG Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador. The New York Times reports the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to the Trump campaign as officials spread intelligence around to other government agencies and the media as well. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes revealed the intelligence community collected information on members of President Trump’s transition team which was “widely disseminated” in intelligence reports. Lastly: critics of Nunes laughably and shamelessly claim he “could be leaking classified information” by discussing the intelligence reports publicly.

    Oh really? WHAT INTELLIGENCE REPORTS? The one that FBI Director Comey denied exists? AND! FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to Congress about fruitless investigations of possible links between associates of President Donald Trump and Russian officials enrages Democrats who blame him for Clinton’s defeat in Nov 2016.

    • Makaden

      Well done, sir.

  • Anthony

    “…By contrast, what happened in plain sight – cheering rather than condemning a Russian attack on American democracy – will be treated as a non-issue, because it was not criminal, merely anti-democratic and disloyal.” (David Frum)

    • Angel Martin

      Does David Frum still think Trump should resign because Trump told the Russians about the laptop ban ?

      • Anthony

        Write him at the Atlantic; you’ll find space for comments.

        • Angel Martin

          I know Frum still thinks Trump should resign, but now that the indignant outrage over the laptop ban “leak” has evaporated, there will be some new rationale… like Comey being “obstructed”… until people watch Comey’s May 3 testimony

          https://youtu.be/Jd-BfTMPeFE

          • Anthony

            That’s a discussion for the Atlantic readers or David Frum.

          • Angel Martin

            So why did you quote him in the first place ?

          • Anthony

            If you don’t understand purpose of quote, then perhaps Canada’s parliament and governing apparatus (where I believe you’re in residence) may require revisiting.

          • Angel Martin

            I used to live part time in Ottawa and walk over to Parliament Hill quite often – not that it made me any more enlightened.

            But I have retired to Victoria now.

    • Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth … I Corinthians 13:6.

      What was being cheered, was the exposure of the truth to the light of day, despite the efforts of two-legged cockroaches to keep it in the dark.

  • This Mueller article is a real “drooler”– in your lengthy resume-refreshing audition for some kind of coffee-fetching job at the IC’s lux new office, you forgot to mention your distinguished career at Heritage Foundation Summer Camp, and your receipt of the special commendation in the Ex-Im Bank essay contest. Beltway dork conservatives’ motto: “Always Be Kissing Up”

    • Hanzo

      Beltway beta-progs motto: “Suck Obamas Ass”. I’m sure you lead the way.

  • LCDR

    Seems as if the author is suffering from extreme Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  • Yoda

    I for one will welcome President Mike Pence and his moderate stance on all the left’s key issues.

    • Hanzo

      I think you should hold your breath.

  • HenryC

    There was never any need for collusion. Putin disliked Clinton for her arranging financial support for his opponents in the last Russian elections. Finding information damaging to her was released without regard to Trump, just to weaken her. Putin, like everyone else, thought she would win and he wanted her in a weakened position.

  • Unqualified?

    So we have another article with another author repeating newspaper reports using anonymous sources (some even third person-looking at you NY Times) as if they are factually true…And people wonder why Fake News is thrown around so much…Because it is true. The NY Times, Washington Post and CNN have become tabloid with their reporting..Might as well read the National Inquirer for your news updates..

    • FriendlyGoat

      Hurry on down to the grocery store. The Enquirer is on the stand waiting for you. Do let us know what you read there, okay?

      • Hanzo

        It’s the same shit that’s on CNN, NY Slimes, WaPo, etc., you asshole.

        • FriendlyGoat

          You would only know that if you’re a reader of the Enquirer. That would also explain your ignorance and your attitude. Congratulations on drawing a downvote, a flag and block in our first conversation.

      • Unqualified?

        I would Goat man but what’s the difference….Both use anonymous sources and some even use third person anonymous sources; the NY Times wins that one…How’s the grass these days?

        • FriendlyGoat

          The difference is the audiences. My real goats send their best wishes.

          • Unqualified?

            Correct…that is why news sites use anonymous sources because they know their readers are on the Left…You did notice that, correct?

          • FriendlyGoat

            It’s not a matter of “Left”. Have you ever stood behind the people in the grocery store who actually buy the Enquirer? Do you have any idea who buys it? Who it is directed to?

  • Ben Neviss

    It seems liberals never tire of looking ridiculous. “We know Trump did something wrong,” they insist. “Maybe not illegal, and there’s no evidence we can show you, but WE JUST KNOW THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING!”

    Like Maxine “Clueless” Waters yesterday admitting there’s no evidence, but she still wants to impeach. DUHHHHH!

  • Historybuff

    No worry here, Mr. Willick.

    trump’s biggest damage is not coming from his potential for “trump – initiated russian collusion”… trump biggest damage is simply from publicly demonstrating his inability to handle basic government administration. Indeed, imagine fool trump in a REAL crises…

    Trump most likely did not seek russian help for his election. But it is clear that for some reason… he was the favorite candidate of the russians… and they sought to help him get elected. And given trump’s selection of stone… manefort… flynn… this shows a major FAILURE in trump’s judgemental abilities.
    HB

    • Max Flasher

      The problem is though that for all Trump’s flaws he’s still infinitely better than anything on the hate whitey left.

    • John Brook

      It is not clear that Russia wanted Trump to win. Russia wants Russia to win. Any weak president will do, and Hillary would have been weaker than Trump, like her feckless boss.

      • Historybuff

        Nonsense.

        Russia’s resources were focused on making hillery look bad, leaving a better comparative image for trump. Remember… monefort… stone… flynn… tillerson…
        HB

        • Makaden

          True, but that requires you to make an assumption that the Russians BELIEVED Trump could win. It’s been argued elsewhere in the comments on this site that simply weakening HRC, on her way to an electoral victory, would accomplish what they wanted: revenge for backing anti-Putin forces by HRC, and simply weakening an enemy by embroiling the to-be Commander in Chief in controversy from day one.

          • Historybuff

            No argument here on that. I still believe that 1.) There was Russian interference, 2.) that it was aimed at hillery, 3.) trump personally did not initiate any efforts to seek russian ‘help’, and 4.) possibly trump’s ‘staff’ did initiate efforts to accept ‘benefit’ from russia’s effort to hit hillery.

            There is no question that trump historically has had more involvement with the russians than he has admitted to, but that is not necessarily ‘bad’. in a free country.
            HB

      • reasonablerepublican

        Remind me who weakened the GOP platform concerning Russia. Hillary or Trump. Is one weaker than the other…..we’ll never know.

        But I do know there are currently two weak parties concerning Russia. The Democrats and that other one, you know the Republicans.

        The Party of Reagan is currently an embarrassment–the Democrats always were.

    • reasonablerepublican

      http://theweek.com/speedreads/699538/russian-bank-directly-linked-putin-helped-finance-trump-hotel

      There is always going to be scandals. The media hasn’t even hyped this one up yet…..they will.

      • Historybuff

        Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

        As a private citizen, trump is free to engage in these things… but as a Public Executive, ‘president’ at that, trump should divulge these histories of involvement so as to clearly show he is playing a legal, fair game.

        There is pretty strong showing that trump is using his ‘power’ as ‘president’ to personally gain for himself and his family. Over time, he can’t hide this activity… and an active press will get the research done, and the information reported.

        That is why trump calls the press… the ‘Enemy’. The ‘press’ will hold trump accountable for his shady-to-criminal activities.
        HB

  • J K Brown

    Most interesting is that now the leaks could be of interest to the special investigator. He’ll have a reason to run down the leakers as material witnesses. Only the leakers will have felony prosecutions to worry about. And since there is specific legal issues involved now, not talking to investigators is a 5th amendment matter.

  • Max Flasher

    I’ve recently been reading a book called “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa” by ILana Mercer. An excellent book. She also has some very good YouTube videos.

    I agree with those who say that what happened here is simply that the left traded class for race. Instead of groups like rich landowners being labeled as the source of evil in the world, as happened in Mao’s China, our leftists cast white people as the devil. You don’t have to read much from leftist sites to realize that they consider white people evil. They also consider themselves evil but feel they’re much better than average whites because they at least are willing to endlessly wallow in white guilt and to dedicate their lives to fighting whites who aren’t interested in such a pastime. The left is insane.

    I recommend reading ILana Mercer’s book and watching her videos, reading up on Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China and encouraging others to never vote for the leftist democrats.

    • Unqualified?

      Correct…Why else do you think guns sales were the highest during Obama’s Administration..People aren’t stupid so a little preparation goes a long way..

  • Empathy Quotient Zero

    Correct, democucks are moving the goal posts about ten miles south., straight into subjectivity.

    “we don’t know what they did, but we know it was something, and even if it wasn’t illegal, it was still immoral…after all, he wasn’t supposed to win but he did, and could not possibly have done so without cheating..”

    That is essentially the argument, nevermind that it totally ignores all 3 of Aristotle’s laws of logic. Par for the course when it comes to democucks.

  • John Brook

    “Any wrongdoing related to the Trump campaign . . .should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
    Of course, just like Hillary’s email, the Seth Rich murder, Huma’s sending classified mail to her husband, Obama’s interfering by claiming that Clinton intended no wrong . . . yup, yup, prosecute to the fullest extent of the lay.

    Trouble is, the Dems want it prosecuted to the fullest extent of the media’s imagination.

  • Snikkerz

    The Democrats may get a whole lot more than they were asking for. I seem to remember a video that shows two goons that bragged about hiring thugs to start fights at Trump rallies. And then blame the violence on Trump. If this investigation even gets close to looking at the dirty and illegal activities of the DNC, they may need to open a RICO investigation to bring this group to justice.

    • At the least, if they keep this going, the Dems will be surprised when they get More Trump … or More Than Trump.

      Millions across this nation now have seen that they CAN push back against the herd-think of the urban feedlots. Don’t count on them to remain passive as the critters in the feedlots attempt to re-impose themselves as before, intellectual honesty be damned.

  • Max Flasher

    Just consider how damning the evidence against Hillary is:

    The facts known about actions taken by Hillary Clinton while secretary of state surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting government business show that she violated 10 federal statutes. Several are national-security-related felonies, just three of which include: 1. disclosure of classified information (22 documents were Top Secret), 2. unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents, and 3. destruction of evidence (erasure of the hard drive and deletion of some 30,000 emails by Secretary Clinton) after a government investigation had commenced (Benghazi hearings began Oct. 10, 2012).

    The most plausible explanation for Hillary Clinton’s circumventing longstanding federal rules on secure communication — and for her insistence on implementing a private email server — was simply to conceal a conflict of interest in continuing a role in the Clinton Foundation while also serving as secretary of state. It is instructive that Secretary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, was simultaneously on payrolls of both the State Department and the Teneo Group, an influence-peddling consulting operation founded by a Clinton confidant. Additionally, a private email server would protect disclosure of fund-raising activities for Hillary Clinton’s anticipated run for president.

    I posted this same above information recently and got this interesting response below to it. None of this though has made a bit of difference to leftists.

    Absolutely. On “giving access to unauthorized persons (several) to the server” alone you should procecute her and win. HRC was conducting all (all) of her business on private servers managed by Platte River Networks inc (omg). A mom and pops small tech shop in bumf*ck nowhere.
    This whole collective madness we went through last summer will end.
    The Secretary of State of the US of A had all her private communications with every foreign Intel agencies and foreign Governments in the world managed by Platte River Networks inc.
    Read that sentence 2 or 3 times and let it sink in for a while.
    Nobody took the time to let this sentence sink in for a while. Too much noise and BS.
    She is fried to a crisp. Enough.

    • john

      Do read and understand the simple two statutes governing Hillary’s email investigation. Intent and not providing the federal archive with copies of the appropriate documents. That is all. Think about that.

      • Jim__L

        Actually… yes he would probably be prosecuted. He would at the very least lose his security clearance and never be trusted with classified information again.

        Hillary doesn’t have any need-to-know at this point, so her tickets have probably been withdrawn. So there’s that I guess. =)

      • Kierkeg22

        What? Was this hypothetical man allowed to transport an unencrypted laptop in a car? If not, he’d be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. HRC was never allowed to maintain a private server (one that, oh so conveniently, allowed her to circumnavigate the Freedom of Information Act). Get the difference? Sadly, I think you do, but will never admit it.

    • Angel Martin

      The only better piece of evidence on this whole mess is – the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine their computers that were supposedly hacked by the Russians. And the FBI / Comey claims it is nation security and a threat to democracy but they didn’t get a warrant.

    • Makaden

      I want to add an additional consideration. I have intelligence friends. One of the theories as to why there was a server in the first place is that the private server, which had numerous classified documents on it, was a repository for pay-to-play information. Such an unsecured server could be hacked with ease, like leaving a picnic basket with a lid shut on a picnic table for the bears to come and open.

      You donate to my foundation and I leave this little piece of information you might like to know about in this (wink) “hidden location.”

  • JohnnyClams

    If Mueller doesn’t find any conspiracy in the Trump campaign (“collusion” is meaningless) then this is a witch hunt. And he won’t. But he must make this decision soon–not four years from now but less than one year from now, or even six or three months from now.

    • Angel Martin

      The only conspiracy Mueller is going to find is a conspiracy to bring down Trump by sore loser liberals.

      • JohnnyClams

        That should be the real object of the investigation. If the pretext of an investigation turns out to be a frame, then that becomes the crime, and it boomerangs on its perps. But the perps in this czase, as in Comey’s, are their buddies in the Deep State.

  • john

    Much much more likely is Mueller will find a many layered conspiracy on Trump and his staff’s behalf. There must be a reason that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is proclaiming this to be a criminal investigation.

    • KhadijahMuhammad

      There can be a criminal investigation that never touches Trump, however.

  • Noel Carrascal

    The following is a gossip line: “his firing of Comey to attempt to quash the inquiry, along with the subsequent allegations that he demanded Comey’s loyalty early on and leaned on him to drop the investigation of Mike Flynn”. All that is speculation. Opinion wrongly written as if it was fact. how about firing Comey for not doing enough to recommend charges on Hillary Clinton’s home server, do something about humma Abedin forwarding classified e-mails to her pedophile hubby to print, investigating the Clinton foundation or investigate the death of a DNC staffer suspected of leaking e-mails. This Russian fabrication is meant as a smoke screen to distract public attention from more serious crimes from which there is material, not circumstantial, evidence. By 2018, no one is going to believe the democrats who constantly cry Woolf, and some may even vote against them for that.

  • Cosmosis

    I love how the dems suddenly think maybe there isn’t an actual crime per se but just a sort of labyrinthian form of collusion and “wink and nod” cooperation. They must have come up with that because it reminds them of their own behavior like the Journo-List media coordination or the endlessly interlocking “foundations” funded by a handful of rich lefties like Soros, The Acorn/Occupy/BLM revolving door, Astro-turfed “spontaneous” marches, literal and figurative intermarriage between dem pols and MSM media, etc. etc. etc. I hope this article is prescient and that the left has over-played its hand and is now aware of it. How long before the early returns suggest that the independent counsel is coming up dry before they start disparaging Mueller?

  • underwearbomber

    The article is generally correct–the loony left will be disappointed to find no criminal acts or “collusion” whatever exactly that means.
    Of course, they will keep on crying wolf anyway and Trump will use them effectively as a foil in 2018 and 2020.

    The problem with special prosecutors though is their power is unchecked and open-ended. They never just stop when they find nothing in their original field of investigation. To do that would be to admit failure and the pointlessness of the whole exercise. So instead they expand the investigation’s purview and targets and it goes on and on indefinitely –until they eventually find something someone somewhere did no matter how remotely connected to Trump that they can claim as a prize.

    It won’t bring down the President but it can drain the energy and support for his policies–which is of course the real purpose of the leftists and their media propaganda organs.

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    No.. their isn’t any scandal. But just because those folks are now realizing there is no scandal, I deeply home that does not mean the trouble they caused is going to go away for them, personally. We need to get them on record with a felony offense of some sort.

  • Mikey Likey

    I think the Democrats have a fantastic opportunity. Vote for me, I’ll vote for impeachment. Yup, that’s the ticket. I wonder what state elections will revolve around?
    .
    Now, if the strategy is to get me to watch less cable news, that’s working. I’m down to an hour a day. But, that could change fast.
    .
    Especially, if there is another memo, that hasn’t been seen, but, is verified to exist. Those memos are probably kept with President Lon Jockey’s birth certificate.

  • The dog has caught the car.

    • petegross

      Yep! That’s about it.

  • Larry Earl Zingo Reaves

    Sounds like most Democrats are afraid that Trump and his administration took plays from the Hillary and Bill Clinton / Barack Obama playbook. Those that have watched and cheered as their leaders played in the gray areas for years must now sit back and wonder if the same thing is being done by their opponents. In reality, I doubt this is happening, but it’s sure fun to watch the liberals get all bent out of shape over things they’ve winked at for a long, long time.

  • KhadijahMuhammad

    The Dems are starting to realize what the nature of this issue really is: that the behavior of Trump and his cohorts may have been somewhat immoral……..they may not be illegal.

    Not everything that is “wrong” is against the law.

    And if you can’t convince Trump’s supporters that what happened was SO “wrong” that it merits the loss of their support, he stays.

    • Eric377

      Don’t kid yourself that they are only starting to realize that their treatment of the Russia issue entailed this risk. Party leaders have understood this from the outset, but pulling back on the effort was not feasible in the face of the massive anger many of their key activists are feeling now. It has been a risk worth running, but maybe now is the time to look for the dismount. This is their possible ace in the hole as much as it is for Republicans because they can also pull back on the daily outrage and see what there really is.

    • And if his opponents keep refusing to acknowledge the wrongdoing on their own side, the support for Trump will remain strong or perhaps grow stronger.

    • wreckinball

      By most appearances the perceived “wrong” was Hillary losing. And since then we have had a myriad of pathetic attempts to basically just disrupt.
      Please tell me how the “Russians” could have significantly influenced the election. All we have so far is that Wikileaks published Hillary/DNC emails showing actual collusion.
      So is that it? Well then the investigation should have been over months ago. But its actually a witch hunt and they haven’y foiund one yet. keep hunting!

  • realheadline

    It’s really pretty simple — the Dims will end up looking like the idiots they are.

  • BigInMemphis

    It doesn’t even seem as though there was anything immoral either. The Hillary/DNC emails were released and there was nothing Trump et.al. could have done to stop it if they had wanted to. Trump is a business guy, not an Orwellian character like Obama. Trump is no mastermind of electoral deceit. He can barely control what comes out of his mouth.

    The truth to all of this is that the Democrats know Trump’s economic plan (fix Obamacare, remove Dodd/Frank and Tax reform) will light our economy up like we haven’t seen since 2005/2006. This will utterly crush the Democrats and their enablers in the media and it will solidify Obama’s place as one of the worst. It’s all about the money.

  • WillieB4

    Hopefully the investigation will broaden to include investigation of the known crimes; the unmasking & leaks.

  • Cjones1

    Russia is not the only country or group that seeks a desirable election outcome. Wikileaks is not the only publisher of classified information as the NYT and WP have demonstrated. Information relating to DNC aide Seth Rich’s releasing of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, his outing & murder, and the confiscation of his computer & cell phone smell of a cover up by the Obama administration, Mr. Comey, and several heads of intelligence, designed to support a McCarthyesque “Russians are coming” narrative of campaign interference.
    Both campaigns need to be examined for contacts with the Russians and others. Any previous “pay to play” activities from people associated with both campaigns should be exposed…the Democrats should worry!

  • Dee Win

    Perhaps the CRIMES of the criminal leakers will be exposed, and barry’s posse will be implicated in spying on the candidate of the opposing party.

  • Mark Hamilton

    When will Comey come forward and state on the record whether Trump asked him to quash the Flynn investigation? It seems to me it’s literally the least he should do for his country’s sake. That he has not done so, in my view, does not say anything good about him.

    • thelegos

      He would have to explain his apparent perjury:
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/18/flashback_may_3_fbi_director_comey_says_he_was_never_pressured_to_stop_any_investigation_would_be_a_big_deal.html
      And his failure to disclose a (possible) crime (obstruction) committed in his presence, which itself could be a crime.

      He may have such explanations – that he was building a case for obstruction and couldn’t tip his hand. Or he did report it but that information is not public yet. That he hasn’t made a statement yet could mean that he is conferring with lawyers before acting.
      __
      Alternatively, these could be all rumors that he will refuse to corroborate, but he’s in no hurry to do that because nobody wants to go out of the way to help out the person that fired them.

      • Mark Hamilton

        I don’t expect him to want to help Trump do anything. But allowing rumors and innuendo to circulate while the country tears itself apart seems like a strange way for any patriot and career public servant to behave.

  • PittsburghTiger

    Nobody has explained how Russia stopped Granny from campaigning in states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania & Ohio, where she thought she had it locked up tight.

    • Jim__L

      Russia made so much beautiful money be available in California maybe, so she couldn’t resist spending so much time here?

  • Lucius Uri

    Anyone who leans right and still thinks that Trump is qualified is either being intellectually dishonest or totally ignorant of the real issues. He may not have committed a crime per se, but he’s is a bumbling fool. Anyone with any common sense can see he’s the problem, not the solution.

    • No, he is a solution, for at least one reason: he is able to play the role of Al Czervik in Caddyshack, and expose the utter worthlessness of his “respected” opponents, just as Al did with Judge Smails in that movie.

      For too long, we have put our Ruling Class on pedestals they neither are capable nor deserving of standing upon. To use another movie metaphor … by acting the way they are, the Ruling Class is choosing the form of their Destructor: not just Trump, but millions of us who are tired of living under the Blue Social Model and saw last November that we CAN push back on it.

  • petegross

    So what if the investigation by Mueller extends beyond the 2018 voting and there are no findings yet made public? What does the voting public assume? Do they think there’s nothing to find? Or do they think Mueller is following many lucrative leads? Or does the entire thing start to lose its interest to the public as other issues arise?

    Everything I read by experts on these type of investigations makes me think this may be a very long term project. And may just peter out for lack of any findings. If so, who does this benefit and who does it hurt?

  • charliehorse

    Where was all this “patriotic concern” over “Fast and Furious” and Attorney General Holder’s involvement and his being held in Contempt of Congress, …….where over the Criminal Clinton’s creating of the “secret server” to dodge accountability and the subsequent leaking of national secrets and then the sale (for profit to the Clinton foundation) of strategic resources….and Loretta Lynch meeting Bill, and Rice lying on TV 5 times………onanndonandonandonandon………Hypocrits All…and liers.

  • tom f

    “But this is simply not as big of a scandal as they would like it to be.”

    I guess it depends on the meaning of big. If Manafort is proven as money launder, if Flynn is proven to be influencing US policy based on consulting payments, if Stone is proven to have been given a “heads up” about the Russian hacking, if Trump is proven to have had shady deals with Russian banks before becoming president, then yes there will be a big scandal because these will show at best that Trump is incompetent and at worst God knows what.

    • Compared to the demonstrated incompetence of Progressive governance, and how it has put our nation on the brink of an intergenerational decline, any incompetence on the part of Trump is insignificant … and those who voted for him, know it.

      • tom f

        I think you got that backwards. It is Republican governance that put this nation on the brink of an intergenerational decline. So blind by their ideological “trickle down” and no regulation theories, they have killed the working man while promising them Nirvana. And no those who voted for Trump don’t understand that they voted for a guy who is carrying on that tradition.

        • I’ve built a 34-year engineering career on opportunities resulting from supply-side economics and free trade. I know of what I speak.

          The reason many “working men” appear to be left out, is because supply-side economics and free trade work for those who take the initiative to build upon the opportunities they create … not for those who have been led by Progressives to believe that they can work the same job the same way in the same place for a lifetime while “experts” and “leaders” build a prosperous future FOR them.

          Such as these left money on the table for others to pick up … hence “income inequality”. And worse yet, their support for Progressive governance has diminished the opportunities they have to get ahead. And still worse, believing the above fallacy has left them comfortably numb to the peril of dependence upon others, who can simply close up shop and walk away.

          It is Progressives, that have misled millions about their individual responsibility – and capabilities – to exercise their initiative and insight, for which there is no substitute, to thrive in the modern economy.

          As for regulation, Progressives are “expert-worshipers” who ignore how proximate insight to an individual-specific problem is more reliable as a source for solutions, than credentials, positions held, presentation skills, and popular respect. It is the hubris, to the point of delusions of omniscience, that Progressives possess that have led to regulatory cures that are worse than the disease they were supposed to treat … for y’all don’t have the good sense to perceive that you might NOT know the answer, yet you consistently seek to impose your best guesses with the coercive force of law.

          Case in point … the housing, finance, and energy policies that came together to crash the economy in 2007-2008 all stem from Progressive thinking … from the lawfare surrounding the Community Re-Investment Act that opened the door to subprime lending, to the restrictions on energy development in the name of the Climate Change Cult that resulted in price spikes that were the straw that broke the backs of many homeowners.

          The reason Trump was elected, was because people are fed up with that hubris and the damage it does.

          • tom f

            You’re case in point – The CRA actually requires the use of sound underwriting procedures in the issuance of loans. It’s in the law twice. All the CRA did was prohibit red lining (arbitrary refusal to write loans based on location) and the requirement to report on deposits received and loans made by geographic area. What led to the subprime crisis was the fact that there were no regulations governing sub prime loans as there were for standard mortgages. There were also no regulations for the derivatives, especially the credit derivatives which were sold without the necessary capital to back them up. The straw that broke the backs of many homeowners was the fact that they were given loans by banks that the banks knew the homeowner would not be able to pay when the interest rates changed – they were told that the rising housing prices would allow them to build the equity necessary for a standard mortgage before the interest rates were changed (it didn’t happen).

            As for supply side economics usually implemented via tax cuts. Well if you look at history, the average GDP growth under Reagan’s tax cuts was no better than the average growth under Carter. The average GDP growth under Bush’s tax cuts was worse than that under Clinton.

            Finally, maybe you should identify some (how about a half dozen) regulations that do not safeguard society in the manner they were supposed to.

          • The banks were already using sound underwriting procedures … but activists like one Barack H. Obama leveraged the CRA to compel them to relax those standards as “proof” they weren’t discriminating. The CRA was open to this perversion, which did not safeguard society.

            And then, when the Bush Administration sounded the alarm around 2003 … Democrats like Dodd (“friend of Angelo”) and Frank said “What, me worry?” and did nothing to stop the crisis until it became one they couldn’t waste.

            Speaking of Dodd-Frank … it appears that the net effect of that body of law has been to entrench the TBTF banks at the expense of smaller ones that would add to the resiliency of the system … I’d wager that’s because the burden of proving compliance is harder for smaller institutions than it is for the TBTF’s . How “convenient” for them.

            I’ll give you a couple of other regulatory categories that didn’t work as advertised:

            > The regulations stemming from the PPACA (aka Obamacare), which gave people insurance-in-name-only with the combination of high premiums and high deductibles and coverages many did not need, with no guarantee that their insurer wouldn’t flee the exchanges.

            > The regulations forced upon energy producers … particularly coal companies and coal users … in the name of the Climate Change Cult and their Chicken Little hysteria. Is it no wonder that coal country – a traditionally Democrat area – went so heavily for Trump?

            Again, all the result of Progressive hubris, thinking they were such Smart Pepole™ that they could solve people’s problems FOR them from the top down.

            As for supply side economics usually implemented via tax cuts. Well if you look at history, the average GDP growth under Reagan’s tax cuts was no better than the average growth under Carter. The average GDP growth under Bush’s tax cuts was worse than that under Clinton.

            How much of that Carter-era growth was a result of inflation … aka stagflation? Remember “malaise”? I thank God that I didn’t have to graduate from college and get a real job until Reaganomics had taken root.

            As for Bush’s cuts – they did spur the economy enough to have us heading towards a balanced budget, until the Progressive chickens of housing/finance/energy policies came home to roost.

            The straw that broke the backs of many homeowners was the fact that they were given loans by banks that the banks knew the homeowner would not be able to pay when the interest rates changed – they were told that the rising housing prices would allow them to build the equity necessary for a standard mortgage before the interest rates were changed (it didn’t happen).

            A lot of these homeowners could have coped, were it not for the energy-price spikes of 2007-2008 that were the fruit of Climate Change Cultism … especially here in the Northeast, where heating oil prices hit homeowners hard.

            And why did the banks give those loans out? Because the precedent of relaxing standards had been set, by activists in the name of “social justice” leveraging laws vulnerable to being used as weapons in lawfare.

          • tom f

            Ritchie, you do a great job spewing Republican talking points, but let’s look at the facts –

            Most of the changes to the CRA came under Republican controlled congresses.

            The Republicans had every opportunity to address the scandals at Fannie and Freddie in 2005/2006. They passed a reform bill out of the House, then out of the Senate committees. The Republican Senate majority leader then buried it. So much for Bush’s alarm.

            I’m not a big fan of Dodd Frank. I believe that Glass-Steagall should have been resurrected. However, I look at the Republican’s three efforts to deregulate the banking industry and see failure. The first to deregulate the S&L’s resulted in the bankruptcy (which cost the US taxpayers hundreds of billions) of the S&L industry so that now there are no S&L’s. The second, Graham Leach Bliley, and the third, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, nearly put the country into bankruptcy. So yes, even though I don’t think Dodd Frank was the best, I’ll take it over Graham Leach Bliley any day.

            When I talk about GDP growth I use “constant dollar” statistics to factor out inflation for the reason you mention. And by the way, runaway inflation continued well into the Reagan administration.

            Health insurers price their product as any other company – cost of the product (health claims) + administration expenses + profit = sales price (premiums). There are only a few ways to reduce the premium prices (since you brag about your business acumen you probably know this already) –

            Negotiate better rates from health care providers (usually resulting in more restrictive networks).
            Pay less per claim (higher co-pays, higher deductibles).
            Cover fewer illnesses (mental health, addiction, pregnancy, emergency rooms, etc)
            Cover fewer people (pre existing conditions).

            ACA took away the ability of the insurers to do the last two and part of the pay less per claim. The AHCA will restore them. Personally, I don’t think that restoring those restrictions is a benefit to the populace.

            As for the Bush tax cuts, they took us away from a balanced budget back into deficit territory. While the annual deficit was decreasing, the annual addition to the debt was increasing. It’s only the beltway folks that consider the deficit to be something other than the amount you have to borrow to pay the bills.

            No Ritchie, it was not gas/oil prices that cost people their homes, it was the doubling and tripling of payments due to the rate adjustments on their subprime variable rate loans. And it was not government that relaxed lending standards, it was the banks. Until the early 2000’s banks held their mortgages. Once they started securitizing their mortgages, they had no impetus to make sound loans because they were off loading the risk in the form of mortgage bonds. I realize you guys like to blame someone else for your mistakes, but facts are facts, history is history.

          • And the WHOLE story, is the whole history.

            No Ritchie, it was not gas/oil prices that cost people their homes, it was the doubling and tripling of payments due to the rate adjustments on their subprime variable rate loans.

            Energy-price spikes, driven by Climate Change Cult faith-based policies, added to the burden … at least some who defaulted would have been able to avoid default, were it not for those additional costs that were incurred to support a cult belief.

            And it was not government that relaxed lending standards, it was the banks. Until the early 2000’s banks held their mortgages. Once they started securitizing their mortgages, they had no impetus to make sound loans because they were off loading the risk in the form of mortgage bonds.

            And what initially drove the change, was the lawfare of activists like one Barack H. Obama, back before he came along in time for a crisis not to waste. And it is no wonder they started securitizing mortgages, because the activists didn’t care one whit about the risks the banks were taking by holding sub-prime debt … and there was no guarantee they wouldn’t extend the lawfare to other groups, as well.

            Greed wasn’t the only factor … when you socialize the rules, expect people to try to socialize the losses.

            And here is one other contributing factor … the idea pushed by BOTH parties that “home ownership is a right”, that you should exercise even if your finances can’t support it.

            Mixing finance and “social justice” was toxic, in many ways.

            Now, riddle me this … if the Bush tax cuts pushed us away from budget balance, why did the deficit drop in the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 … right after those cuts were implemented, and before the recession?

            As for your GDP numbers, I stand corrected … though just as the Clinton Administration benefited from the economic climate created under Reagan, it took Reagan’s policies a little while to overcome the inflation of the 1970’s.

            But in general, I think that there is more to the economic picture than the macro-level picture you keep painting by the numbers to support your (fundamentally-flawed) Progressive socio-economic paradigm. I remember the malaise under Carter … and the optimism under Reagan, that extended until the burst of the tech bubble. I built a career on the opportunities Reaganomics created, that IMO would not have been there had we sucked more and more out of the economy to support the Progressive belief system.

            It comes down to this: which of the groups below is more likely to solve the socio-economic problems we face?

            > A small intellectual elite, attempting to solve them from the top down, while everyone else waits for them.

            > 300 million people utilizing their common sense and initiative, to solve the problems that most affect them AND their neighbors, in ways that are less likely to be counterproductive to meeting that objective.

          • tom f

            Last response Ritchie. Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency when the banks started making risky loans because the repeal of Glass Steagall, and the CFMA eliminated any over sight. It was the Republicans controlling Congress and the Presidency that refused to regulate Fannie and Freddie. But wait, your right, the Democrats who had no power in Washington forced them to do these things. And Obama was so well known and so powerful in the early 2000’s that he forced the banks to lend to every one. What Clinton benefited from was the commercialization of the internet, which occurred years after Reagan left office. And Ritchie how is it reasonable to look at 3 years of declining deficits (but not debt generated) while ignoring years of increasing deficits (and debt) and the destruction of the economy. That’s the riddle Ritchie. And I agree with you Ritchie that 300 million people given the opportunity to succeed will solve the socio economic problems better that the elites, but Reagonomic, Bush tax cuts, and now the current idiot in the White House gear their solutions to those elites. The benefits of the Republican policies are the wealthy and powerful. And there is no trickle down.

  • amr

    The word “alleged” is missing in this and most reports from the media, even FNC. Murderers and rapists get better treatment from the media.

  • Iain MacAllester

    It seems Democrats have conjuered up yet another version of Justice.

    After the only Justice (our laws) and “Social Justice”, we apparently now have Political Justice.

  • Nnsckt

    Oh and we can launder or applaud the arguably criminal activities of Hillary Clinton?

    • George Dixon

      “The International Business Times reported that, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton cleared arms deals with 20 foreign countries (worth $165 billion) who also donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.”

  • bashg

    Blabber on and on. “Since the summer before the election, Trump’s critics have been
    suggesting or sometimes stating outright that Russia is involved with a
    criminal conspiracy that reaches to the highest levels of Trump’s inner
    circle.”

    It’s called “projection”. It’s what the Dems/Libs/Progs do. Whatever nefarious deeds they did do, are doing, will be doing or want to be doing, they project upon the reps/conservatives as a whole or, in this case, Trump. Here, they are prosecuting Trump for Clinton’s crimes.

    • Demerise

      Exactly right.

  • wreckinball

    Colluding to defeat your political opponent is called campaigning. Some if it may be very sleazy like CNN colluding with the DNC to give Hillary debate questions. Or the WaPo/NYT colluding with the DNC to publish their talking points. Unethical but not illegal.

    So out of all the influential folks Trump could have picked to collude with he picked Putin, the oh so respected foreign leader whose support would influence so many votes and Russia Today. Yes, brilliant!

    I know the when I want to influence USA folks the best thing to do is use Russians to do it.

    This is ridiculous. Talking with Russians, doing business with Russian, even lobbying the Russians as supporters is not illegal. Remember the Obama European campaign. Was that collusion?

    Trump is right. Total and laughable witch hunt. These prosecutors chase until they catch something. Last time it was Scooter Libby. Waste of time and money.

    • George Dixon

      Podesta was Hillary’s campaign director… Podesta is screaming ‘Russia owns Trump’… can Podesta say ‘deflection?
      -=-=-=-

      “Podesta Was Board Member Of Firm Linked To Russian Investors …
      dailycaller.com
      Mar 21, 2017 – Further, he failed to disclose 75,000 common shares of Joule stock he…”
      -=-=-

      (Joule??
      Oh… That Joule:
      “Joule Unlimited Technologies — financed in part by a Russian firm — originally … Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin. ..”)
      =-=-=

      “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
      http://www.nytimes.com/…/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russi...
      The New York Times
      Apr 23, 2015 – Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover … millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary …”

  • Indydog

    “Trump’s outrageous and indefensible conduct around the Russia investigation—” I am not as kind as the poster before me, this made the piece a hack that looks like someone training for the NYTs or perhaps the WP. Perhaps the writer can get a position at politico, the worlds foremost training ground for hacks! If, if you are so upset with illegal behavior what about all the leaker’s, you do realize they have taken all faith in the American Intel community and thrown it out the window. Nothing but a bunch of perjuring low lives, how can we be subjected to the POS Clapper droning on when we know he can’t tell the truth to save his a$$.

  • George Dixon

    Hillary/Democrats are desperate for the Russia thing to gain traction…
    Otherwise she would have to face her own responsibility in losing her 2nd presidential election.
    Perhaps Obama was also owned by the Russians?

    “Caught on open mike, Obama told Medvedev to let Putin know that he would be more flexible after the election.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com……
    The Washington Post
    Mar 26, 2012 – Caught on open mike, Obama tells Medvedev he needs ‘space’ on missile defense.
    SEOUL — In their joint statement to reporters here, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke carefully about continuing discussions on the sensitive issues of European missile defense. Obama told Medvedev to let Putin know that he would be more flexible after the election.”

    Or, perhaps Hillary simply sucked as a candidate both times she lost?

  • TNCBG

    It has been established that a DNC staffer sent thousands of emails to Wikileaks. Assange said all along that Russia was not the source of the DNC emails. The staffer is now deceased and will not be talking about his involvement. So if those damaging emails were not the result of Russian hacking, what exactly did the Russians do? How would the Trump campaign benefit from Russian hacking, and why would the Russians want Trump elected instead of Hillary? Trump campaigned as pro oil and natural gas drilling, while Hillary wanted to double down on Obama’s job killing climate change initiatives. Russia’s economy is dependent on oil and gas revenue, so why would they want more global competition from the U.S.? Hillary would have been a much better candidate from an economic perspective and virtually every other perspective. She would not have favored more military spending, and she had already offered Russia a “reset” as Secretary of State.

    In reality, the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, etc have been hacking and spying for years. We do the same to them regardless who is in office. Short of surrendering our sovereignty to Russia, what exactly could Trump do to repay Russia for their alleged assistance in defeating Hillary? Perhaps I am just short on imagination, but I really can’t see the benefits of a Trump / Russia unholy alliance. There is far more evidence of collusion between Hillary and Russia, but the Clinton Foundation and its ties to Russian money is of no interest to the media. With all of the spying, leaking, unmasking,etc, where is the evidence of Trump / Russia collusion? Allegations are a dime a dozen, but where is the hard evidence after months of investigation? The Democrats and their media accomplices are blowing a lot of smoke, but Mueller probably isn’t interested in playing such games. Trump and the Republicans need to grind forward and govern while Mueller does his job. This witch hunt is a distraction designed to prevent progress prior to the 2018 election. Don’t fall for it!

    • wreckinball

      Yes the now “debunked” according to the media Seth Rich case. Well lets see, shot in the back and not robbed yet the police contend its a robbery. And the case is now declared “cold”. What is on his computer. The “debunking” seems to be based on the family’s response, I mean really not relevant. Also, the third party testimony of the private detective who now seems to be running scared. Don’t blame him folks end up dead and the police appear to be in on it.

    • wreckinball

      Also, Assange has claimed all along that he received the emails form an insider not the diabolical Putin. He is a slime ball but there really is no reason for him to lie about that. There is the motive.

      • Jim__L

        Could Assange have been paid to lie about that?

        People were paid to tell the lie that J Edgar Hoover was a transvestite, after all, and that’s what started that.

  • Iam Hudsdent

    “the special inquiry into the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia…: The “special inquiry is about Russian meddling, not specifically Trump. Right from the start, a misleading assertion.

    • wreckinball

      Of course they meddled. We don’t need an investigation. Everyone meddles and the US is the king of meddling
      If it was not directed at Trump we wouldn’t need a independent counsel.
      Waste of time and money and basically a with hunt.

      • Makaden

        Working assumption at all times: our enemies are trying to meddle in our elections.

        • Jim__L

          So, counterintelligence activities (in the form of oppo research) on the part of partisan news outlets seeking to derail foreign agents meddling in our elections, may be an interesting direction this could go. =)

          Credibility would be an issue, as would due process. Hmm.

  • wreckinball

    See crimes have motives. That is how we solve them. So apparently the motive was to win the election and Trump criminally colluded with the Russian government to influence the election in his favor. Not all collusion is criminal. Most campaigning is collusion.
    This is so laughable. So what “criminal” collusion do the witch hunters postulate. All we have now is the evidence that Hillary’s and ye DNC emails were obtained by Wikileaks.
    Ok witch hunters give me something here because this is a huge nothing burger of partisan politics so far

  • Dick Peabody

    NO ONE, not even an unimpeachable source as Maxine Waters, says they have seen/heard of any evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. This was a bone thrown to the rabid dogs of the Left, the media, the demonrats, and NeverTrumpers like McCain. In the end it may identify who the criminal leakers are (yeah, you Susan Rice & Sally Yates) or if it was Seth Rich and not the Russians who gave John Podesta’s emails to Wikileaks. It may also shut down these criminal leakers because they now know there is a cop lurking nearby. It will almost certainly give Trump and the cowardly Congressional GOP some breathing room in which to pursue the Trump agenda……if they are willing to come out from under their desks.

  • Colt

    President Trump was 100% correct when he called this a “witch hunt”. He will prevail and the idiots who are out to get him will find some other bull crap stunt(s) to pull.

  • CommonSenseIsNotPC

    OK, what do we KNOW about collusion with the Russians prior to the Presidential election:

    Presidential candidate: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”
    Russian political figure: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”
    Presidential candidate: “After my election I have more flexibility.”
    Russian political figure: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

    Caught speaking into an open mic, conclusive proof of the collusion between the candidate who would be president and the Russians. Only, it wasn’t Trump who let this slip. If he had, he would be impeached in a heartbeat!

    Oh, who the heck was the presidential candidate who made this slip – and went on to win the presidency???
    Thinking…Thinking…Thinking…

    Trump is absolutely right that D.C. is a swamp and the swamp rats are out to destroy him. Trump wants to return the power to the people instead of the special interests who have lined the pockets of EVERY swamp creature in our nations capital. And for that, all the swamp creatures are absolutely gleeful to engage in a palace coup – even swamp creatures who claim allegiance to the same party as President Trump.

  • DesertDawg

    Too funny. Both Marshall and Frum ask, what if Trump’s crimes aren’t really crimes?
    Here’s a simple answer… THEN THEY AREN’T CRIMES!

  • Duties

    The Russian conspiracy was never more than a way to explain away Hillary’s loss, but more importantly, stiff arm all of those that were buying access and influence with the presumed president. Except a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. American voters had had enough of Obama’s lawless leftist agenda and didn’t want eight more years of it, especially led by a despicable (how about deplorable?) president like Hillary Clinton. The problem was, there were to be no refunds for Hillary’s bundlers. So what do you do? Cook up a conspiracy. Comey. Well he’s fired. Deplorable white people, working class and college educated. Well, they’re gone as a constituency. How about Russia? Yeah, that’s sounds good. Problem is, there will be no ‘there there’. What will the Left do then?

  • DesertDawg

    The best justice we could expect in this whole ordeal would be for several Obama/Clinton operatives to be sentenced to prison for illegal surveillance, illegal unmasking of US citizens, and illegal leaking of information.

    Sadly, no one in D.C. would have to guts to go after the big fish: Obama and Clinton.

    • SuckMyWake

      Somebody really needs to answer for the Iran payment, Seal Team 6, Benghazi, Seth Rich and the Uranium sale to Russia. There is plenty of smoke there, and to date no satisfactory answers.

  • PierrePendre

    Marshall missed the option that Russia meddled with the election without the involvement of either Trump or his campaign. I wonder why that was, Josh? Also, will Mueller’s investigation include the activities of Seth Rich who seems to have been murdered for no reason at all, which is rare, by two assailants, which is also rare. It’s inconceivable that the campaigns didn’t plant moles in each other’s operations.

  • HenryC

    I don’t see any reason for Trump to have participated. Everyone including Putin thought Clinton was going to win. He wanted a weaken President so he released the hackers. It is not as if the information released was false either. Maybe we should be thanking Putin for his help informing the American public of the truth.

  • mauloa

    The rabid media and nefarious Fifth Column might want to read up on the story of Esther in the good book. I’m not Jewish, however, the Old Testament weaves many stories of power, greed, control with the endings usually are fatal. The Liberals just might want to be careful of what they wish for. There are at least 50% of the voters who will be like a mother bear over her cubs – AND I’m not so sure there won’t be many additions to the angry outpouring – who previously were bench sitters. This will not play out like anyone might think.

  • markterribile

    Of course they are moving the goalposts. That’s what they do. But you’re moving them, too. The real scandal of James Comey is that Trump kept him on for so long. Whatever Comey’s motives, and whatever pressure he worked under, he was tainted from election day on.

    It would be sweet if the trail led back to the Clintons, and to the Obama administration.

  • Marv Sammons

    Fake, Fake news

  • Augustus1984

    It is more important that to have a legitimate, credible investigation no matter what effect it has on Trump’s political or legal fortunes. If Trump violated the law there should be legal consequences. If he didn’t violate the law but failed to uphold his constitutional responsibilities, then there should be political consequences (like impeachment). Or if neither of these is the case then we’ll just have to tolerate this president as we have those before him, defeating him for reelection or not.

    • Chris706

      If Democrats violated the law there should be legal consequences. If they didn’t violate the law but failed to uphold their constitutional responsibilities, then there should be political consequences.

      This is the most likely outcome of this investigation.

      • Augustus1984

        That is so irrational and crazy that it is genuinely creepy. Gotta block you for that. Sorry Creep…

        • Chris706

          Hilarious.

  • mike077

    Just think, all this over SOMETHING COMPLETELY MADE UP! The Democrats and the #nevertrumpers have to rationalize to themselves why their side lost a winnable election: Enter the wildest conspiracy theory they could make up. It is the devil’s lie, literally in this case. It has the potential to corrupt REAL relations with Russia, cost lives, and even start a war, but these people are so blinded by their hate that they don’t see it.

  • vaccinia

    If anything, what will be found will likely incriminate the Former Prog Obaminator administration….so have at it!

  • Karen

    This only reflects the Dems and establishment Republican’s unwillingness to accept the results of November 8th. Nothing more. They had a stated plan to impeach last April. If it wasn’t the Russia nonsense, it would be something else. Obama’s group were surveilling him during the campaign to pick up any dirt they could. It tells you how squeaky clean he is.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/17/trump-impeachment-talk-started-before-he-was-even-nominated/

  • Jester40

    If Trump was not expected to win, why do we assume that only the Trump campaign was involved in Russian “collusion”? It was John Poedesta that made many millions working for the Russians before he went back to work for the Obama administration and ultimately, the Clinton campaign. His brother, of course was working for the Russians all the time. If you were the Russians, would you “collude” with the supposed future winners of the election or the campaign that overwhelmingly was supposed to lose? Any fair inquiry into Russian “influence” and “collusion” naturally has to take in personnel from both campaigns. Surely the NSA and CIA have tapes that can be examined for any Russian contacts with the Clinton campaign. The Clintons have a history of being bought and if you were the Russians, whom would you have “colluded” with knowing who was the favorite to win? After all, after the election Pedestal was upset with the Russian “influence” but got past it and immediately went back to working for the Russians. What kind of person does that, knowing how much money and power he had riding on Clinton winning?

  • John Drake

    This article is designed to keep these idiotic conspiracy theories going even after an investigation reveals no evidence of wrongdoing. Ben Stein wrote a good article the other day characterizing this nonsense as a witch hunt; but since witches don’t exist, except in fantasy, the hunt is pointless but nonetheless will never end.

  • Freeordie

    The investigation has been going on since last year and Dir Comey stated there is no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians.

  • david russell

    Trump is completely off the hook. Nothing rurmored/leaked to date constitutes a crime (excepting Flynn) and as the Special Counsel can only investigate crimes, no one will be charged (except maybe Flynn). But all along the way any moaning about obstruction or collusion or leaking classified docs can be dismissed with, “Well the special counsel will look into that and if there’s anything to it, we’ll find out in due time.” Two years from now, it won’t matter and anyway only what Flynn has done rises to a potential crime.

    Of course this only applies to Trump. Democrats and leakers and unmaskers had better run for the hills because there’s a very good chance Muller will be looking into these matters as well.

  • I’ve been trying to follow the underlying thread of this so-called collusion between Trump and Russia to tilt the election in his favor and I’ll be damned if I cannot point to anything that Russia might have done, with Trump’s help, to change the outcome of the election. This has become a witches brew of half-assed allegations, innuendos, media manufactured transgressions and amateurish investigations going off in all directions that the Democrats have been scooping up by the potful and tossing it against the wall to see what sticks.

    Part of the blame lies with Trump himself for not seeing the forest for the trees and thinking that his tweets will somehow convince the Democraps and their CommieMedia to back the hell off. But, the larger blame goes all those on the left seeking to bring his presidency down and the GOP with it.

    You would think that, by now, Trump or his advisers would have known what to expect and bitching about “Fake News” and how unfairly he’s being treated are not going to stop the bleeding or stem the tide of traitors. From Day One of his presidency, Trump should have assigned Comey to continue the investigation of Hillary’s email scandal and assess the damage that it, alone, caused to her political aspirations. That way, the element of the Russian hacks could serve to highlight the the carelessness (and sheer stupidity) of the Clinton campaign in receiving, sending and storing top secret emails on an unsecured server in her home.

    We know that Obama and actors within his administration were routinely leaking top secret information to influence the outcomes of a number of national elections in the Middle East, most notably Israel’s to promote the left-wing Labor Party candidate and to prevent the re-election of Netanyahu. They have also leaked top secret information about Israel’s plans to keep Iran from going nuclear.

    The best defense is a strong offense and Trump should have come out with guns blazing (and hard evidence to back up his attacks) instead of sitting back and letting this campaign wound fester. The substance of all the contacts made between members of the Trump team and Russian diplomats should have been fully disclosed to the public to prove that nothing was improperly said or shared. If there was shared information that could be detrimental to the country or perceived to be detrimental, then trying to hide it only serves to make matters worse.

  • Kelley

    Such bias in this “article”. Harvard studies was correct. Negative news surrounding our beloved President is absolutely slanted and biased. The people are on to it though, just strengthens our numbers.

  • Dave Schwartz

    They will find nothing on any of this, unless the broaden the investigation to include Cunton and Barry O-Hole

  • Jim Emmons

    “After Mueller, Trump Critics Worry: Maybe There’s No Scandal”. Don’t we wish but like now, they make a new one up.

  • jp

    hey it actually is a legitimate concern because the term used in the constitution is a term of art from british law. in british law the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not refer solely or even mainly to actions that are actually criminal, but included maladministration. therefore there is no requirement that an action be a crime to be impeachable. so therefore the fact that inappropriate but not illegal behavior uncovered by mueller would not become public is a great reason for the senate investigations to continue unencumbered by mueler’s investigation

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service