Mueller: No Russian Collusion

The summary of the findings of the Special Counsel is out and, as predicted, it has found no Russian collusion. It declined to make a finding on obstruction and left the matter to the Congress and the public. Frankly, the latter finding seems a bit curious. There is a criminal code on the elements of this crime and we did not wait for two years for Meuller to say “meh.” Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein however did look at the evidence and concluded that the evidence does not amount to obstruction.

As I have written for two years, there never was a compelling case for a collusion crime. There has been a type of collective willful blindness to the glaring factual and legal flaws in criminal theories despite assurances from many legal analysts. While obstruction was stronger due to Trump self-defeating actions, there never was a serious case to be made for actual prosecution. Unfortunately, trying to offer objective analysis was often denounced as carrying the water for Trump or even the Russians. The result has been a national delusion over collusion.

Here is the summary: Barr summary


Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel’s Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions laid out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans — including individuals associated with the Trump campaign — joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

(Footnote 1: In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”)

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons associated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for the purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards regarding prosecution and conviction but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

(Footnote 2: See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C, 222 (2000).)

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 27,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.


As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose the letter to the public after delivering it to you.


William P. Barr

Attorney General


358 thoughts on “Mueller: No Russian Collusion”

  1. I think you need to read my comments more carefully
    …I never mentioned “The Deep State”.
    You’re the one who keeps bringing it up.

    1. Then what are you alleging? Are you saying you agree with me that there was no Deep State conspiracy to defeat Trump?

      1. I don’t mind your repeated mention of the Deep State or your question.
        I think the idea of and concern over a perma-structure cabal behind the scenes controlling events is exaggerated.
        So while conspiracies do exist, I’m not if the “everything is a conspiracy crowd”.
        One thing that feeds those theories is the behavior and history and records of people like J. Edgar Hoover. The uncovering of previously unknown CIA plots…..e.g., the hairbrained attempts to kill Castro….also help to feed the Deep State theories. The suspicious of people like Peter Strzok, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, and others in or connected to the government also help to feed those theories.
        To deny at least the potential for behind- the -scenes abuse of power in powerful agencies is as foolish as assuming that everything is a Deep State conspiracy.
        Those who are “out there” at either edge of those extremes…..whether it’s at the “everything is a conspiracy” end of the spectrum or the flat denial that abuse can and does occur….. are equally unrealistic.

      2. Im not. 3/4 years of badgering him every day slowed him down a lot, I’m sure. He’s delivered more on his promises than most presidents but his promises were relatively ambitious. And the usual bloated and entrenched bureaucracies did not and do not like his plans to roll them back. Other than border patrol which most certainly likes him the best but obviously the plan was not to roll them back but throw more at them. See how that works?


    Due to “Mueller: No Russian Collusion” Peter has been absent. Presently he is looking for answers and watching reruns of the announcement on TV hoping that the headlines will eventuall change.

    1. Shill is in the Pacific Time and went on a12 mile hike today, then stopped at the gym for a half hour before taking an hour nap. I didn’t even know about Barr’s letter until 40 minutes ago.

          1. Oops typo… Shoot’in Up

            Or as they say down here in the south, in middle of everything nice, mostly free of wackos, Shoot’em Liz, it’s another Commie/Nazi Libs. LOL;)

            I haven’t a clue as to what the Anti-American Trump Hater’s position will be tomorrow, but I’d be so bold as to suggest you guys first take baby steps & figure out which bathroom to use. No Guy Prevs in the lil girls bath rooms.

            Thanks for your attention to that “Matter”.

      1. Peter, glad to see that you didn’t have to be assigned to the loony assylum.

        The posting came in yesterday around 4PM EST or 1PM your time.

  3. The findings were insufficient evidence, not “no compelling case”. 12 indicted Russians? If amenable to testimony we could be looking at a different conclusion. Also, 34 indictments, including trump campaign chairman, assistant chairman, and deputy RNC finance chairman. Trump is treating this as an exoneration and so are you.

    1. Tell me, does living your life as an idiot cause you a great deal of difficulty? It’s over. You lost. You lost in 2016. Give it up.

  4. For 2 and a half years the dems have been on a witch hunt. At least they haven’t been passing legislation that would hurt us. I guess that’s the silver lining.

  5. Gee, my local restaurant is all out of nothing burgers and Russian dressing. Now all you people with TDS put this baby to bed!

  6. It’s sad and dangerous to this nation to see how low a major political party (Democrats) has gone. Stop trying to con America and start really trying to safeguard our nations boarders, cleanup the lunatics in your party and stop with the fake allegations. It’s getting old and tiresome. PS: Someone get Schiff some tailored shirts, that neck of his looks as bad as his lies sound.

    1. Fire the Dems but don’t let the treasonous B8astard Rinos off the hook!

      I plan to call & write the Prez & Rep this & demand criminal charges be bought immediately now the Globalist Coup has failed completely.

      As we can see the American Hating Enemy has no plans to quit, thus the ring leaders have to be rounded up.

      Can you just imagine your a good FBI or DOJ employee & have to do your job with these totally corrupt entrenched leadership azzholes still scattered around. I can & the trash has to removed to restore American’s confidence in these agencies.

      The democratic party leadership needs to be forced to Resign Today, be arrested & held as an ongoing threat to National Security.

      Be careful in public, I’m hearing reports the commie/nazi leftest have become even more violent, unhinged mental & have stepped up assaulting people, so don’t pause in protecting yourself & your family/friends.

      On Topic of who their leadership is:

      Slippery Slope Update: Barbra Streisand Comes Out in Favor of Pedophilia, Argues Michael Jackson’s Accusers Were ‘Thrilled to be There,’ His ‘Sexual Needs Were His Sexual Needs,’ and Whatever Happened to Them ‘Didn’t Kill Them’

      Slippery Slope Update: Barbra Streisand Comes Out in Favor of Pedophilia, Argues Michael Jackson’s Accusers Were ‘Thrilled to be There,’ His ‘Sexual Needs Were His Sexual Needs,’ and Whatever Happened to Them ‘Didn’t Kill Them’

      1. I almost threw up when I read Barbara Streisand’s dismissal of alleged victims of pedophile Michael Jackson. Not only did she say she believed them, she said it didn’t kill them. They all had families and appear fine, and they were thrilled to be with Michael. Gag. Ack. No kidding, groomed boys were not aware of the toxic abuse at the time. They were groomed by an adult and it wasn’t a fair fight.

        No conservative would ever be able to work again, or eat in a restaurant again, if they said such an abhorrent, deluded comment.

        Shame, Barbara. I’m sure a simple, one time apology will get her back in good graces nicely. Worked for Hanoi Jane.

        1. Karen…….that WAS such an unbelievable thing for her to say!
          I hate to say this but the only explanation is that there is something going on with her, mentally. Mayba a touch of dementia beginning. She will be 80 yrs old in 3 years.
          At any rate…..yes, definitely an apology, and like you say, any of her conservative “equals” would never work again in the entertainment business.

        2. Karen,

          1st, Michael isn’t here to defend himelf & it doesn’t feel fair to me to have his character attacked, I don’t know what he did. Maybe he was a pedo, maybe not.

          B Streisand on other hand is alive & one of many high profile public figures going out in public & attempting to desensitize normal people into accepting paedophilia.

          I don’t like some people of legal age getting their freak on, but I’ll never except legal age adults abusing yet to be born & born kids. It isn’t right.

          Vets4childrescue. org & Prez Trump have been attacking those pedos in full force the last few years.

          Most of the leaders Dems/Rinos, etc., attacking Trump are doing so because they are either directly involved pedos or are use pedo tapes for blackmail of other leaders. IE: Robert Mueller & some of the leadership of these intel agencies.

          I think it’ll be stopped the more it’s exposed to the public & that’s way I posted that story off of this link:

        3. Karen, those are truly disturbing and disgusting comments from Streisand but I think she speaks as a friend of MJ, not a liberal.

          She is not an elected political figure however. Would you like me to recount disturbing and disgusting comments from our president?

      2. @Oky1-Yes the Rhinos have played their part in this fiasco.
        Here is were I part with you, we don’t need to “round up” anyone. We have been and I hope we continue to be a nation of laws which provide safeguards to protect its citizens, government and our way of life. I certainly can’t address the particular laws that have been breached by a number of people in the last administration but I sure feel like top to bottom should be closely investigated. The more I hear Nadler and Schiff the more I’m hoping there’s at least one member of the Dums who will step up and say “enough”! They have wasted better then 2 years and millions on a lie and forgotten the good and welfare of our nation.

        1. Great Zambini,

          I like righting text, but it’s harder for us to be clear.

          I think I agree with you on your point.

          A Major/MAJOR point about the USA is that Everyone is Innocent until proven guilty.

          IE: Unlike say Scotland in a court trial: Guilty or Guilt not proven, Guilty or Innocent beyond a reasonable doubt., in the US.

          In the US, before an investigation the govt is supposed to have probable cause before starting an investigation.

          On multiple times in the Trump/Russia Bullsh*t Investigation it was proven inside the govt that there was no probable cause to investigate & the investigation should have been stopped way before the Criminal Mueller was brought in to clean things up.

          (It’s Proven now Mueller commented multiple felony crimes in regards to the Trump/Ruskie BS.)

          The new media I follow has been all over those points for at least 2 years now. And that’s why the powers are attempting to shut them down, but failing.

          AKA: “Rounding Up the Criminals” now the Trump/Russia BS has been put to bed.

          Unlike Trump/Russia there is overwhelm evidence/probable cause for the immediate Arrest of the Traitors Hillary/Obama & their crews.

          Who’s Carter Page, Poppa D, etc.., maybe the public at large hasn’t been paying attention to these cases, but others & I’ve wasted enough time on these American Hating Trash.

          I think you’d be amazed if only a very small bounty was placed on that trash who would show up to drag their traitorous azzes in front of JAG Judge, below the cost of doing so. Yea a JAG Judge. In WW2 it only took about 4 months to get basstards like these traitors legally hung for say sedition, espionage, etc., & we’ve already wasted so much time, if it’s going to get finished Trump might as well move the process along, “Legally!!!”

          BTW: I always like proof reading the beer the next day. An ole friend at DOJ told he thought I wrote better after drinking a few. I don’t know. LOL;)

  7. Rolling Stone: It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD

    “The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it”

    “As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it’s led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We’ve become sides-choosers, obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.

    We had the sense to eventually look inward a little in the WMD affair, which is the only reason we escaped that episode with any audience left. Is the press even capable of that kind of self-awareness now? WMD damaged our reputation. If we don’t turn things around, this story will destroy it.”

      1. Oh no you don’t dude… You keep your idiots back home. We got enough of them here in Canada, and a prime minister who actually is guilty of obstruction of justice.

  8. If Mueller was legitimately investigating Russian interference in our election, he would have investigated Hillary Clinton, who paid a British spy to pay Russian spies to get false allegations into a dossier about her political opponent. She then passed this dossier on to political operatives inside the FBI, who used it to defraud the FISA court and get warrants on her political opponent to undermine his Presidency.

    This is over and above her receiving millions of dollars through Bill’s speaking fees and foundation donations for the Uranium One pay to play, in which she sold 1/5 of US uranium to Russia. Our ore was not supposed to leave the country, but the Russians circumvented that.

    There were numerous other pay to play schemes, in which foreign governments bought preferential treatment through Hillary Clinton’s position as Secretary of Sate. Later, they paid millions to access Clinton, whom the odds put as the next POTUS.

    Mueller’s failure to investigate where we already knew Russia influenced rendered his investigation illigetimate.

    What I would also like to see investigated is the Russian influence on American academia. There are Russian think tanks that employ US professors, whose goal is to undermine capitalism and promote Socialism.

    Ever wonder how an entire generation of people could graduate college and be oblivious that the Nazis were the German Socialist Party, Socialism is inherently tyrannical and has killed hundreds of millions of people, the value of individual liberty, the fact that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic paradigm? Isn’t it strange how often one sees a Che Guevara shirt on a college grad, who should know better?

    That said, we are a tad hypocritical in our outrage at Russia interfereing in our elections. We interfere in foreign elections all the time, sometimes at the point of a tank. Obama sought to undermine Netenyahu’s election. Countries meddle. We would do better to protect our intellectual property from hacking, upgrade our election software, and do something about the intense bias of social media. In addition, the countries that most influence our elections are Mexico and South America, through fraudulent illegal alien voting. They do voting drives all the time here in CA, urging illegal aliens to vote. Democrats took great pains to obstruct any efforts to either enforce voter ID laws or purge the voter rolls of illegal voters.

  9. One reason why Mueller wouldn’t conclude on obstruction was he was helping his friend Comey. Comey illegally passed government notes to the press because he thought his firing was “obstruction of justice”. Mueller was saving face for why he was appointed in the first place and saving face for his friend Comey. Both faces which I’d like to forget.

  10. As I posted in another thread:

    Hopefully we see the full report minus dedacted grand jury, classified or sensitive national security information, and protection of non-public innocent parties.

    As to Rosenstein and Barrs finding of no obstruction – not shared by Mueller – no one can reasonably claim that Trump has not been trying to stifle if not shutdown the investigation from day one. The lack of evidence for a criminal conspiracy to collude – or other possible crimes – does not mean they did not happen, or that lesser, non-criminal attempts were not undertaken – see the Trump Tower and subsequent Trump cover story – and perhaps explain the President’s actions to stifle the investigation. It is not a given that Trump would know the legal line between provable and non-provable criminal conspiracy and so he could be still be trying to obstruct justice without that higher bar having been met.

    The Barr letter explanation of this does not make sense on this point by itself, but hopefully information to come will help us all better understand what happened. Depending on the evidence we all may or may not agree with Barr and Rosenstein or conversely with Mueller. Looks like voters will have the final say, at least until Trump leaves office and the SDNY or other legal authorities have a shot at him.

    1. Translation: “Even after two and half years, I’m STILL butt hurt about the 2016 election results!”

    2. Anon – the conspiracy was against Trump, not by Trump. Hillary Clinton conspired with the Russians to put out a false dossier against her political opponent, just before the election. Some of dossier were also comprised of anonymous comments on a CNN blog. Then Democrat political activists within the FBI conspired to defraud the FSI court, using unproven opposition research to get a warrant. This was after the DOJ and FBI conspired to absolve Hillary Clinton of numerous federal crimes.

      I must say I am continually gobsmacked at the lack of introspection it takes to ignore Hillary’s collusion and blame her victim for poltiical expediency.

      For God’s sake, she sold 1/5 of our Uranium deposit to the Russians.

      1. Funny how this conspiracy ended up with the conspirators sabotaging Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election at the same time they kept secret an investigation into Trump’s campaign. They must be the Keystone Kop Deep State, or can you explain that?

        Hiilary did not sell uranium to the Russians. The StateDept was one of 9 federal agencies which had to sign off on the transaction which was sponsored by Treasury, involved non-weapons grade uranium, which by law cannot be shipped out of the US.

        You’re smart. Check things before you post.

        1. Hillary Clinton broke multiple laws. You are not allowed to keep a bootleg server in your bathroom, lie about it, and upload top secret information to the Cloud, as well as have people with zero clearance maintain it. You are also not allowed to wipe your servers clean and hammer your Blackberries with hammers to destroy evidence.

          Democrats were upset that Comey admitted they were even obliquely looking at Hillary’s wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Comey lied about the law requiring intent, in order to aid and abet a felon.

          If intent to commit espionage was required, then the guy who took a selfie inside a nuclear submarine would not have been imprisoned and given a dishonorable discharge.

          Here is what I know about Uranium One:

          1. During the acquisition process, Uranium One’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation
          2. Clinton refused to disclose the donation, despite promising to disclose such donations upon accepting SOS
          3. A Russian bank Renaissance Capital paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for speaking fees just after the acquisition was approved. Again, the donation was not disclosed. This was over his usual speaking fees. This is also 5 times more than the $100,000 Russia paid for the FB ads that has outraged Democrats. Out of that $100,000, only $6,500 was spent on ads having to do with the election.
          4. The media claimed no uranium left the country, as required by law as it is a strategic asset. However, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission admitted that uranium did, indeed, leave the country. This was a shocking lack of journalistic integrity, again, by the media in order to protect Hillary Clinton.
          5. A country that we are currently on shaky ground with now controls 1/5 of all the uranium in the US
          6. Bush allowed the US to buy uranium from Russian warheads. The company overseeing this was Tenex, under Rosatom. The US arm was called Tenam USA, which was run by Vadim Mikerin.
          7. Obama approved a visa for Mikerin, but he was already operating here illegally.
          8. Mikerin had essentially monopoly control over American access to Russian degraded uranium. He is accused of inflating the price, funneling payments to offshore accounts. This amounted to bribing Russians to get access to the degraded uranium in Russia, leaving them open to blackmail.
          9. Mikerin employed a lobbyist, who reported bribery concerns to the FBI. They call him Confidential Source 1 (or CS-1). They permitted him to participate in the scheme and report information.
          10. CS-1 reported to the FBI and Mikerin was trying to get an in with Hillary Clinton
          11. In 2005, Bill Clinton helped his friend Frank Giustra obtain uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan, personally flying him out. Giustra merged his company, Ur-Asia Energy, with Uranium One. Afterward, he contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One owned 1/5 of US uranium reserves.
          12. Putin had Kazakhstan arrest the man who sold the mining rights, meaning all of Uranium One could be in jeopardy of being seized by the government of Kazakhstan.
          13. Uranium One execs met with the State Department, who negotiated with Kazakhstan. Russia bought 17% of Uranium One in exchange for Kazakhstan relinquishing its claim on Uranium One.
          14. The Russian Reset trip was during this time. A total of $145 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation, in addition to paying Bill $500,000, one of his highest speaking fees ever, in connection with this deal. Obama and Clinton hoped the Reset trip would also help relations with Iran.
          15. Russia proposed to acquire Uranium One in majority. Republicans in Congress objected, on the grounds that Rosatom built the Iranian nuclear reactor. Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and the FBI failed to inform Congress that Rosatom was under investigation for racketeering, nor did the FBI inform them that CS-1 advised that Mikerin was trying to get ties to Hillary.
          16. In 2014, Russia conquered Crimea, and Mikerin was finally arrested. If you did not hear about Mikerin’s arrest or his connection to Uranium One and Hillary Clinton, that was because of collusion with Obama and the media. The FBI had Mikerin sign a non-disclosure agreement that expressly forbade him to disclose information to Congress.

          There is a long and well established pattern of large speaking fees or donations to the Clinton Foundation timed around benevolent treatment of foreign entities.

          It wasn’t just Hillary Clinton that influenced the various agencies involved with the deal. It took a collaboration of the FBI withholding criminal information regarding to the agent of the deal, Obama and Hillary and the FBI withholding Rosatom racketeering, and Obama wanting to repair relations with Russia and influence Iran.

          They are all up to their necks in Uranium One. I researched this. Did you? Or did you stop at the point where you read that multiple agencies were involved in the decision?

          1. You don’t know what you think you know.

            The chairman of U-1 who Clinton knew divested his interest in U-1 about 3 years before the deal and 1.5 years before Hillary became SOS.

            The same guy – Giustra – who is Canadian gave to the Clinton Foundation bundled Canadian donations which he understood he could not by Canadian law divulge. Different tax and legal experts in Canada differ on this. However, one would have to show that the Clintons personally benefited from the Foundation which has a 4 star rating from the 2 main charity rating services in the US.


            $500,000 to get Bill Clinton to speak is not unusual:

            “Former President Bill Clinton has made the most of any modern president on the speaking circuit. He gives dozens of speeches a year and each brings in between $250,000 and $500,000 per engagement, according to published reports. He also earned $750,000 for a single speech in Hong Kong in 2011.

            In the decade or so after Clinton left office, from 2001 through 2012, he made at least $104 million in speaking fees, according to an analysis by The Washington Post….”


            A fairly small amount of the yellowcake was transferred to Canada for processing abd some of that – on paper at least – was sent to Europe, but all under the eye of the NRC. The uranium – whic is now estiomate to equal about 7-10% of US resources is non-weapons grade.

            The non-disclosure agreement with the FBI informant ended in 2017 and we eagerly await the Trump DOJ’s prosecution of this case. Wake me up when it starts.

            1. Anon writes: “has a 4 star rating from the 2 main charity rating services in the US.”

              I am constantly amazed how adults are unable to integrate information and understand simple concepts.

              You equate a 4 star rating as proof positive that a charity HAS to be good. You don’t know squat. The charity has certain questions. When answered an algorithm produces the stars. The questions are determined by individuals with innate biases. The answers given by the charities will be the same answers they give to the IRS if the same questions are asked. Charities acting outside of the law lie. These ratings are helpful but by no means something intelligent people give absolute absolute authority to.

              The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) has been considered one of the best charities by these organizations you talk about. Suddenly we find out that there is and has been racism and sexism in the SPLC since the start along with the firing of Morris Dees who was the cofounder of this charity. It was founded as a money making machine and the founders were experts at promoting it and the dupes supplied the money and the prestige. Are you one of the dupes? At present its net assets is slightly below 1/2Billion dollars.

            2. charity navigator has mud in its eye since SPLC fired Mo Dees. Because they failed to act on information and call him out. Well known racket! Sad how they were running along with anything but a big fat F grade at all.

              However, having fired him, they may be able to ratchet it up from “TOTAL FRAUD” to “LAME”

                1. It’s very effective at separating fools who are overly concerned about “racism,” from their money.

                  On the plus side, however, they have done some good for society, although unintended. They have vacuumed up a lot of donor shekels that might have gone towards other left wing groups that might really have done something dangerous with the money instead of just grandstanding for more donations.

                  Of course one wonders why Richard Cohen is still there, since as an executive he evidently played defense for Morris Dees for many years?

                  1. Kurtz, it appears the SPLC hate list is a reason for other companies to boycott groups on the right. This can hurt or injure groups that are excellent non profits but aren’t permitted to advertise. I think Prager U might be on the hate list. Check it out and then check out Prager U videos. Prager videos are truly an educational service.

        2. Funny how those who believe that the election turned on Comey’s late October announcement softened their hostility to Comey once he was fired and on the outside with Trump.
          It’s also interesting that there seems to be little or no curiosity expressed about why the FBI waited until late October to reopening the Hillary email investigation instead of getting on it a month earlier.
          The lame “oh, the New York FBI agents made Comey do it” seems to satisfy what little curiosity they have about the late Sept. to late October delay.

          1. Let’s say Tom is correct to doubt that Comey’s announcement threw the election to Trump as 538’s analysis of the polling at that time as well as the study of media coverage for the next week – both bad for Hillary with only 2 weeks left. That still does not explain how the king pin of the Deep State would risk such behavior while protecting Trump’s campaign which was also under investigation.

            I’m getting tired of stating this obvious and indisputable proof that the Deep State accusations are complete nonsense. Somebody, step up and show how this makes any sense.

            You can’t.

          2. Tom, Comey has been a Joker card since his letter to Congress. Lorretta Lynch should have fired him. But that would have looked overtly political. Trump should have fired Comey as soon as he took office. But Trump, perhaps, thought Comey might be useful to him.

            1. “But Trump, perhaps, thought Comey might be useful to him.”

              Yes, the head of the FBI is considered someone useful to the President. ….

              Awaiting the next brilliant statement.

            2. The way that Comey ran the FBI, and the way that Lynch ran the DOJ, it seems far more likely that Comey would fire Lynch than the other way around.

            3. Yes she should have fired him but the Clintons boxed her in. She lacked the energy to cut the Gordian knot on that one.

              Donna Brazile, by contrast, had the energy.

    3. “no one can reasonably claim that Trump has not been trying to stifle if not shutdown the investigation from day one.”

      Ridiculous Anon. Since the President had the constitutional power to stop the investigation, the above statement is ridiculous. Yes, the President voiced his opinions as is the right of every American citizen but as President he did nothing to stop the investigation.

      ” The lack of evidence for a criminal conspiracy to collude – or other possible crimes – does not mean they did not happen”

      Again a ridiculous statement. Lack of evidence is how one determines lack of guilt. There was a killing in your vicinity where the killer remains at large. The lack of evidence that you were the killer does not mean that you were innocent. It also doesn’t mean your neighbor is innocent or the person 5 blocks away, etc. Use a bit of logic.

      1. I don’t think Mueller was phased by Trump’s criticism of him that ramped up as the investigation dragged on.
        Those who suspected ( or were convinced) that acting AG Whitaker was tapped to impede or stop the Mueller probe were disappointed.
        It’s hard to see how Mueller had anything less than a free hand in how he conducted the investigation(s).
        I think it was mistake to choose Mueller for reasons I’ve stated before, and I think the optics of the Rosenstein/ Mueller project were terrible.
        That said, “he who would not be deterred, Robert Swan Mueller”, was not impeded in any way.
        One of his main disciples here repeatedly said as much.

        1. Besides for firing Comey over the investigation, Trump would have fired Mueller on more than one occasion but was warned the consequences would be staggering. He waged a constant verbal attack on Mueller and the special counsel investigation continuously. Of course he sought to stifle it. If he had nothing to hide why didn’t he welcome it and quit making up lies.

          “…WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive….”

          1. I think it’s difficult to make a case for obstruction based on something Trump “would have” or “might have” done.

            1. In any event, Mueller specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction. Barr and Rosenstein’s attempt at that is not logically consistent. It assumes that Trump would know exactly where the line was for an illegal conspiracy, and not crossing it could feel safe enough to not obstruct justice. In reality, he didn’t know that and acted in numerous ways – including making up a fake cover story for the Trump Tower meeting and firing Comey – which were meant to cover up something.

              1. In any event, Mueller specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction.

                He didn’t ‘explicitly exonerate’ him of buggering Christine Blasey, either.

                The obstruction complaint was facially nonsensical.

                1. Uh, Absurd, did he say that he did not specifically exonerate Trump of buggering Blasey, because I missed that. He did say that about Trump and obstruction of justice or did you miss that?

                    1. Attorney General Barr specifically testified to The Senate at his confirmation hearing that dangling pardons to tamper with witnesses and suborn perjury would be prima facie instances of a president obstructing justice.

                      Whence, once again, you are facially wrong.

                    2. Dangling a pardon to encourage a witness not to provide false testimony under prosecutorial coercion, is actually a righteous act of justice in itself. Well done President Trump!

              2. Anon………what in the name of Ned are you talking about?!
                You are just making up sh**. It would be hilsrious if it weren’t so sad.
                Constitutionally, Trump did not need a reason to fire Comey…….just for starters.

              3. “In any event, Mueller specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction.”

                Anon, he didn’t exonerate you either so by your failed logic you are as responsible as Trump for obstruction which is ridiculous.

                1. Anon does not possess the pardon power nor the executive privilege with which to refuse to answer questions about presidential communications with witnesses before Congress, the grand jury or the special counsel’s investigation during which pardons were dangled to tamper with witnesses and to suborn perjury.

                  Consequently, your refutation by logical analogy is so preposterously weak as to fail to qualify as logic in the first place.

                  1. Diane, you have provided the typical illogical word salad. Apparently you don’t understand that we require proof of an illegal action. If there is no proof the person is considered innocent. In the case at hand a 2 year investigation by a team appearing to be against the President and using all sorts of tactics that should not be used in a free society still couldn’t prove any guilt and have found zero connections to collusion. That doesn’t phase you one bit as you continue with your crazy ranting.

                    When the report comes out I am sure you will repeat every hazy comment turning that comment into guilt. That is your nature. It is a stupid way to look at things but there is nothing we can do about that.

                    1. There’s a bloody regulation that says the man can’t be indicted while in office. The presumption of innocence cannot possibly be the sodding issue. Abuse of the pardon power to tamper with witnesses and suborn perjury can only be done by someone who has the pardon power. And that person supposedly cannot be indicted. And yet, according to Trump, he has the power to pardon himself, anyway–just in case the rule turns out to be a figment of somebody else’s imagination.

                      Your refutation by analogy has been refuted. Stop typing the mere word “logic” and learn to wrap your mind around der dang in sich.

                    2. “Your refutation by analogy has been refuted. ”

                      Diane, your explanation above is totally ridiculous. In essence you are saying that because Trump can pardon it is impossible for you to provide facts that would be damaging to Trump. You can make your entire case with facts and proof. Pardons have nothing to do with that type of presentation. You are demostrating the stupidity of hanging on to a conclusion that has been proven wrong.

              4. Given that Mueller did not present a conclusion in the obstruction area, and left it up to the DOJ to draw a conclusion, the DOJ reached the conclusion.
                Regardless of what Mueller ultimately concluded, or did not conclude, it was inevitable that there would be an extended period of bitching and moaning by overnight constitutional and criminal law experts.

          2. I applaud our great POTUS for his tenacity and perspective. He was strong and persistent as all true leaders must be.

        2. “was not impeded in any way.”

          Tom, if anything the Mueller team weighed heavily to the left. I expect the actual report will be spun in a leftist direction, but one can’t be sure. The only thing one can say is if Mueller found nothing then any further attempts are pure political theatrics and hopefully will cost the opposing party dearly.

          1. The grotesque spectacle they staged during the Kavanaugh hearings appears to have cost them nothing. Their own voters like this crud. As for swing voters, recall the assessment of the political scientist James Neuchterlein: they’re the sort of people who vote against someone because ‘she reminds me of my first wife’. They ain’t paying attention.

            1. DSS, this doesn’t say much for a good number of people that post on this blog.

              I think, however, Trump’s message may be starting to get through so that some of those people you are talking about will peal off.

          2. Allan says: March 24, 2019 at 10:01 PM

            “I expect the actual report will be spun in a leftist direction, but one can’t be sure.”

            Sure you can. Release Mueller’s report in its entirety. Then you’ll know whether Mueller’s report spins to the left. Keep Mueller’s report under lock and key where no one can read it and everything that you, Trump and Barr say about Mueller’s report will remain literally unbelievable.

            Deep State has not yet begun to leak. (But they might if Trump keeps putting words into Mueller’s mouth)

            1. Diane, I was talking in the present. However, I agree everything should be released with regard to the 2016 election along with any forms of government abuse by anyone. I believe the full report will be released with some redactions for national security which will provide you with a talking point where you will say the redactions prove guit. The truth is, only the facts in the report can count and if there is opinion one has to balance that opinion with what the opposing side says, something you are unable to do.

              If all things related to the 2016 election and government misbehavior by all participants are released accurately then I believe there will be a big problem for the Democrats. The weaponizing of the bureaucracy would have to be included and that would bring much of the Obama administration under investigation. Likely we would find enough bad behavior to indict and potentially convict numerous people including the likes of Hillary Clinton. I don’t know if the nation could endure such scrutiny so I am not looking for such an in depth accounting of the activities of those in the prior administration or the bureaucrats that worked in government or are still working there.

  11. In honor of our dear Squeeky, wherever she may be:

    From the Left, suffering delusion
    Came the false charge of Trump and collusion.
    But when none was discovered
    The Left stammered and stuttered
    And took no blame for the abusion!

      1. Kitty……..thank you!
        I could never replace the Squeek-ster, but it’s fun to try one’s hand at “poetry”.

  12. Should’ve waited a few minutes to post under this thread given the Barr release…

    What Dems and MSM are hoping for is that the reason Trump wasn’t indicted was because of DOJ policy expressly forbidding the indictment of a sitting president. However, this is extremely unlikely as there are no more Mueller indictments forthcoming and none of the indictments have charged collusion and/or conspiracy. As Turley correctly notes, you then are left with the somewhat remarkable and incongruent case of Trump colluding with himself.

    Furthermore, if Mueller found that there was no collusion or conspiracy, you then can not have obstruction as a matter of law and logic. For example, take the Jim Comey firing. The underlying obstruction theory being used (one that is novel and unprecedented) is essentially that an otherwise lawful exercise of Article II powers can be transformed into an unlawful one because of provable corrupt intent. In this case, Trump’s intent was to impair the Russia investigation so that he could cover up Russia collusion. In other words, the firing was nothing more than a corrupt pretext. However, if there is no collusion/conspiracy, then where is the provable corrupt intent? What you’re left with is a lawful exercise of Article II powers and no obstruction by definition.

    The most significant tell in the whole Mueller saga was when he accepted written answers to a select set of questions dictated by the Trump legal team that notably excluded any questions on obstruction. This, of course, raises significant questions such as:

    1) If Mueller had such a strong case in addition to all that evidence hiding in plain sight as posited by Mssrs Nadler and Schiff, why wouldn’t he subpoena the President for an in-person interview rather than accept just written answers? Wouldn’t he be professionally compelled to do so if he had such a case?

    2) How exactly do you prove obstruction dependent on corrupt intent on the part of the President without having him answer a single question either in written form or via interview?

    The other point is if Mueller were seriously pursuing obstruction of justice, then it seems Rosenstein would almost certainly have to recuse himself as he would be a fact witness.

    Thus, the most likely outcome of the Mueller report is that it will exonerate Trump and this will leave the Dems with the following strategic pathway:

    1) Continue the Schiff/Nadler media narrative of clear and abundant evidence hiding in plain sight…except that it didn’t reach the level of being indictable (work the beyond a reasonable doubt legal standard angle etc.)

    2) Shift the narrative from collusion to the other still existing tertiary investigations

    3) Continue with the House investigations

    4) Monitor the political and evidentiary landscape opportunistically for plausible impeachment narratives

    Personally, I think this comes with a decided set of risks namely that after a House, Senate and Special Counsel investigation (assuming exoneration), how does this not begin to play into Trump’s infamous “witch hunt” narrative- a series of politically motivated malicious investigations in desperate search for an impeachable offense or damaging narratives to optimize 2020 political prospects? I suspect after about 6 months or so these investigations will start to ring hollow (barring new significant and damaging evidence) not with the hard core left but with a swath of more moderate Dems and Independents as investigation fatigue begins to set in.

    The other risk is that I suspect that very shortly the Trump narrative may longer be the only parlor game in town. There’s also the 3-headed Cerberus in the room of what were the predicates for the Russia investigations and the appointment of the Special Counsel:

    1) Were the predicates valid or politically motivated?
    2) Was there misconduct or not on the part of DOJ/FBI/IC senior officials?
    3) What is the appropriate predicate for launching a Special Counsel investigation especially into a President? Is it simply a fired senior official (a legitimate exercise of Article II authority) unilaterally claiming he was told “I hope you can see your way clear…” and that the issue of loyalty was brought up–a he said/he said situation with no provable context? How does that not invite personal/political abuse with potentially significant ramifications?
    4) Are there appropriate checks and balances in place to prevent improper investigations and DOJ/FBI/IC abuse of power?
    5) Has DOJ/FBI/IC simply grown too powerful and become a de facto fourth branch of government at the expense of civil liberties, legal norms and the Constitution (or, if so, do we simply want them on that wall to invoke Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men)?
    6) Is it really desirable or even constitutional to set legal precedents that amount to Executive Branch (and potentially all federal officials) actions being subject to potential analyses of intent, review and investigation by DOJ/FBI? For example, intent is complex, multi-faceted and notoriously difficult to prove–how does that not invite or even incent partisan abuse? How does the Executive Branch avoid being tied into a legal and investigatory Gordian knot?

    I suspect the launching point for this will be the potential release of de-classified material by Trump and/or the next phase of the Horowitz investigation.

  13. Late4Dinner: If you woke up this morning thinking “How can I make myself look like a complete imbecile today” you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

    1. For how long have you been holding back on thought? And why would you wait till now to cough that thought up?

  14. Braking News:

    The National Weather Service has issued a Flash Flood Warning for the next few days in all Democrat controlled large cities because of all the Commie Lefist Tears.

    Avoid opening windows as there is expect to be ear piercing thunder but not a spark of lightening.

    BTW: It’s been best just to avoid all those areas in the first place. lol

    1. Oky1………Hilarious!!! Thanks for the laugh!

      Hope you and your wife are having a good weekend.

    2. Oky1 – I’ve seen toddlers in toy stores acting just like that girl plopped on the ground. Nooooooooo!!!!!! I WANT that truck NOWWWWWWWWW!

      They react Iike this because Democrats have slandered all conservatives for decades, claiming we’re all racist Nazis. By now, there is an entire generation naive enough to believe it. They can’t debate policy or outcome so they resort to dehumanizing conservatives every time. Just recently, Hillary Clinton remarked that red states are comprised of people still angry that black people and women got the vote.

      Now, personally, I believe that a President is responsible for all of us, not just those who voted for him or her. The POTUS has to do what’s in the best interest of all American citizens. By proclaiming that half the country were racist misogynists, Hillary Clinton showed that she could never respect or be responsible for the people of the US who did not vote for her. Should the Electoral College be abolished, it is grim to imagine what newly elected Democrat Presidents would do to the Other 48 states that they despise so much. And they would be powerless to get any recourse.

      1. Karen, in your paranoia you’re accusing all Democrats of behavior like yours. I assure you I have never thought, let alone acted on the ludicrous idea that all conservatives or Republicans are Nazis racists. Most, but not all of my good friends are liberal Democrats, and if they are thinking it they have not expressed it to me. You’re wrong, and you’re using your fantasy to gin up more anger and hatred of your own. It’s nuts.

        1. No, not all Democrats believe all conservatives are subhuman racists, Nazis, don’t care about the poor, etc. Just a majority. ( “61% of Democrats see Republicans as “racist/bigoted/sexist.” 31% of Republicans say they view Democrats in the same light.” Democrat identity politics, misandry, and bigotry against white men is literally racist and gender bias, so I am surprised that Republicans were generous enough that only 31% thought Democrats were racist. However, not all Democrats ascribe to identity politics. When I hear a Democrat condemn “white men” or “boys” then I consider them racist. I think that not all Democrats are racist, but the identity politics of the platform are.

          That is the message in the Democrat run media, Hollywood, and academia K-grad school. Hillary Clinton just made the announcement about red states on national television, and there was no collective gasp of shock at her demented attitude.

          It is a common idea that I have encounter, personally, enough times to attribute it to a general Democrat platform. Dissect the Democrat platform and talking points. Read Amherst’s college “Common Language” document describing capitalism and conservatism.

          I would never blame the DNC for the position of looney Democrat extremist fanatics. It’s mainstream, as socialism is now becoming mainstreamed in the Democrat party.

          You’re not really paranoid if people are really out to get you.

          “How Democrats view Republicans:

          Of the 22% who provided open-ended descriptions of Republicans, responses included: selfish, greedy, corrupt, spineless, fearful and bad.
          How Republicans view Democrats:

          Of the 26% who provided open-ended descriptions of Democrats, responses included: socialist, angry, hypocritical, uniformed, power-hungry and violent.”

          Perhaps ad hominem is not the way to go in discussing policy, and identity politics needs to get thrown out the window.

          1. My problem is with the Democrat Party, and concerted attacks by Democrat controlled media, Hollywood, various government agencies targeting conservatives, social media targeting, excluding, demonetizing, and silencing conservatives, social media openly claiming it will try to influence the next presidential election, and a basic tendency for ad hominem over policy discussion.

            I try to judge individuals on their own merits.

            It is true that the Democrats have so far alienated me that I have become hardened against them. I will try to keep an open mind. If a Democrat proclaimed himself a fiscal conservative, who wanted only American citizens to vote in elections, did not want children to vote, supported the Constitution including the electoral college, did not think Republicans were racist, was not an anti-semite who viewed Israel as an illegal occupier, condemned anti-semitic Democrat senators, opposed the Green New Deal as delusional and would bring our economy to dystopia, anti-socialist, helped repeal Obamacare, opposed 9 month abortion and infanticide, supported voter ID to prevent fraud, as well as purging the rolls of ineligible voters, wanted to get the money out of politics, supported border security including a barrier and increased technological and manpower monitoring, addressed the misuse of asylum claims that have backed up our courts for years, opposed sanctuary cities, supported the police and only targeted the bad apples, and supported limited government as well as saving every dime possible before raising any taxes, and then only for vitally needed programs, then, yes, that would be wonderful. He’d probably come in riding a unicorn and holding the golden goose, too.

            All joking aside, I do know Democrats who like conservatives, and have never called anyone names over voting for Trump. Moderates do exist, and I really wish they would reclaim the party.

            The current position appears to be that Democrats should be free to call conservatives any name they want, even in college, silence them on social media, use government agencies to abuse them, but it’s not fair if conservatives complain about it. If they do, the problem is on both sides. That’s not reasonable.

        2. Anon……..I am shocked that you use words like paranoia, fantasy, hatred…in describing Karen.
          You might as well call Mother Teresa a slut…… makes about as much sense.
          You are probably just now realizing how much the Left has been lying to you for over 2 years.
          But you need to get a grip, IMHO, or you will be in full-blown frenzy by 2020.

          1. Thanks, but I’m no Mother Theresa. I get a bit hot under the collar when Obamacare gets mentioned in a favorable light. 🙂

          2. “You are probably just now realizing how much the Left has been lying to you for over 2 years.”

            Anon, has an encyclopedia of talking points. He looks up the subject and picks the closest answer. If there is no direct answer or he has been challanged he is told to accuse opponents of paranoia and lying. I am sure now that the Mueller Report conclusions have been reached a new encyclopedia will come out. Watch his new answers as they are created.

          3. Karen, your catalogue of grievances is too large for mt try to spend time countering, but Ill note that the Axios poll you are quoting – regardless of how accurate it is – is not exactly conclusive. More Republicans – by a small number – see democrats as evil than democrats see republicans. So what? Tying sexist and racist together may not give a clear picture of either.

            If you think identity politics is a problem – the common complaint of Republicans – look at your lily white party. Is it that way by accident or is their some “identity politics” in what the party is selling. Democratic (not “Democrat” – you call parties and other entities the name they chose, not what you want, or maybe we can start calling Republicans “Republicanists”) office holders and voters are mostly white but have large numbers of the rest of America, something I think we all can be proud of.

            Elsewhere you define your positions as a litmus test for how un-American and your perceived enemies are while complaining your being demonized. Pot, meet the kettle.

            Lastly, I am a “moderate democrat” as are most in the country, which is why Hillary beat Bernie and why Biden is leading Bernie, Warren etc. now. If you believe the hype about AOC and Beto and socialism, you’re being played. It sells advertising I guess but these people speak for very few. I’m supporting Amy Klobuchar. You won’t like a lot of her positions, but no Democrat has a chance for your vote and we both know that. She won a lot of Trump supporting rural counties in Minnesota in her senate reelection this year, and if his campaign is serious, she’s their worst nightmare, not Biden or Bernie or Beto..

  15. Excuse me Ms. Late4Yoga, Mr. Anon, Fishwings (gender unknown), Ms. Becka G., et. al. How you gonna spin this news?

    1. Easy. Trump obstructed his way out of the conspiracy charge and without the conspiracy charge the obstruction charge was defensible. And he couldn’t be indicted anyway. It is all now a strictly political issue. See you at the polls on election day in 2020, Beak Guitar.

      1. Late4Dinner – Trump did not interfere with Mueller’s investigation. Mueller had access to everyone and everything he needed.

        Comey leaked classified information to the press, and abused his authority to allow a felon, Hillary Clinton, to escape justice. It was well within Trump’s authority to fire him.

        If Trump was really trying to stop Mueller’s investigation, then he would have taken action to prevent it, instead of just loudly and repeatedly complaining about the complete miscarriage of justice.

        Do you have any defense for the fact that Mueller’s investigation into Russia completely ignored Hillary Clinton paying Russian spies for false information about her political opponent, released just before the election to defraud voters? Then, she gave it to poltiical operatives inside the FBI, which colluded to defraud the FISA court to wrongfully obtain a warrant, that had been denied multiple times previously. This was in order to undermine Trump’s Presidency, in a further effort to defraud voters.

        This was after Hillary Clinton sold 1/5 of US uranium deposits to the Russians, unlawfully allowing the resource to leave our country. If Trump had done the above, there would be riots. Guess there’s nothing to see here because it’s Hillary.

        I have never heard any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. The only things that I’ve heard is that his son took a meeting with a Russian promising dirt on Hillary (just like Hillary got fake dirt from Russians on Trump). She had nothing to offer so it did not go anywhere. Then, it is claimed that Trump said, “Great” when he heard that Wikileaks was coming out with damaging information against Hillary. I think all conservatives said, “Great!” After the Crimea invasion, Russia exerted a lot of influence gaining entree among American politicians. None of this was any sort of collusion between Russia and Trump.

        Mind you, after Hillary’s absurd “Reset Button” debacle, Russia was in everyone’s drawing room. They were lobbying hard to get the Magninsky Act repealed. They met with Russians, Democrats, all over the Beltway. MIstrusting Russia was so 80’s, according to Obama. Everyone did business with them. In fact, many US professors still contribute to Russian think tanks, to this day, actively undermining capitalism and promoting Socialism. The latter is the most insidious Russian influence in our culture, today, because it impacts those who teach our children, and they pass on Russian propaganda.

        1. Now that you’ve got the Mueller report that you’ve all been demanding for the past eight months, all you have to do is publicly release the Mueller report that you’ve all been demanding for the past eight months. If Trump did not abuse the pardon power to tamper with witnesses and suborn perjury, then there ought not to be any evidence in the Mueller report that you’ve all bee demanding for the past eight months of Trump abusing the pardon power to tamper with witnesses and suborn perjury.

          Here is what you will not be allowed to get away with: 1) Demand evidence; 2) Suppress the evidence that you demanded; 3) Claim that the evidence that you demanded and suppressed never existed.

          P. S. Deep State has not yet begun to leak.

    2. Only the programmer of those names knows for sure. But whatever drivel they come up with for those names it will be same drivel as before. Still no human presence so it’s back to ad machina for The Collective.

      Bill M.,
      Do not underestimate her efforts, willingness, and experience in the Hyper-Spin cycle.
      It’s been about 45 years since I saw anyone go through the extraordinary spinning contortions she regularly exhibits here.

      1. Barr said that Mueller said, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

        Turley said that Mueller found “no evidence of collusion.” That’s not what Barr said about what Mueller said. Ergo, that’s not what Mueller said, either. Unless and until we get to read or hear Mueller speaking in his own words without anybody else working Mueller’s stops, you don’t get to garble Mueller’s words Trump and Turley’s “extraordinary spinning contortions.”

        P. S. Deep State has not yet begun to leak.

  16. If AG Barr says, Mueller says, “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” then AG Barr needs to release to the public something substantially more than a mere paraphrase of Mueller’s supposed conclusion. OTOH, if Mueller says, in his own words, without any intervening paraphrase from AG Barr, “there’s not enough evidence to warrant charging a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” then the Trump/Russia conspiracy allegation will, in fact, be dead as a doornail.

    There’s still an excellent chance that somebody, somewhere is going to leak the Mueller report in its entirety. So AG Barr might as well go ahead on and publicly release the Mueller report in its entirety.

    P. S. It’s still not over. This is just the beginning of “Phase Two.” Just because “collusion” might no longer be a “legal” issues doesn’t mean that “collusion” is no longer a “political” issue. Guess what? Collusion is still a “political” issue.

    1. Oh I see how you gonna spin it Late4Yoga. You gonna parse words on obstruction. Barr said no obstruction and Muler said no collusion. Seems there was no crime to even obstruct. Hope you can follow that simple logic. And my parting words for you today until we meet again: Na Na Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye!

      1. Quid pro quo. That’s the crime the investigation of which that Trump obstructed by dangling pardons for Flynn, Manafort, Cohen and an estimated 34 people or more who were members of Trump’s JDA omerta. Donald Trump Jr. knew about the ongoing negotiations for the $300 Million Trump Tower Moscow deal at the time that discussed sanctions relief for Russia in exchange for dirt on Hillary Clinton at the June (th, 2016, Trump Tower (New York) meeting. That means that Donald Trump Jr. knew that his father had to use a sanctioned Russian bank and a former GRU intelligence officer as a broker to get the $300 Million Trump Tower Moscow deal.

        Unfortunately, Donald Trump Jr. was not, at the time, and has not since become, a public official capable of committing an official act in any official capacity. Consequently, Mueller needed Manafort (who also attended the meeting) to testify that Trump knew about the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting. And that’s where Trump’s pardon dangling JDA omerta with Manafort obstructed Mueller’s conspiracy case; which, in turn, is the primary reason that Mueller did not charge a quid pro quo conspiracy against Donald Trump Jr.

        However, just because a given act cannot be charged as a crime doesn’t mean that that same act cannot become a political issue going forward. Guess what? Playing footsie under the table with Russia while running for president is, and will remain, a political issue in 2020. And Deep State has not yet begun to leak.

        1. L4D,

          Sorry my eyes are gone this morning, were you trying to say something about former VP Joe Biden’s son’s 5 Billion$$$ oil/gas payday in Ukraine that broke the deal with the Russian you Nazi aholes?

          Is that what you’re talkin trash about?

          If that’s it you boyz need to come on & get you some as I think the Ruskies have ever Right to kick ever tooth out of your collective heads, & the rest of us will stand aside laugh & watch.

          Phkin Morons, Trump/Russia BS, you might want to advert your eyes to the large enemy China!

          1. I must admit that The Joads are avid recyclers. Out of curiosity, though, how much more time you all Joads need to bring charges against someone who is not a public official and, therefore, not officially capable of committing any official act?


            May 14, 2014 … Burisma, a private oil and gas company in Ukraine, announced this week that … Hunter Biden, the youngest son of US Vice President Joe Biden, to its board … and money and name recognition – for protection against Russia”.

    2. My friend drives a cab in Adam Schiff’s district. The cab arrived at Schiff’s destination (Progressive BS factory, very huge, billions of employees, most of whom work for MSM). Of course Adam did not tip. Adam exits the cab and (fortunately) steps in a huge pile of wet dog feces, subsequently causing Adam to scream in despair, “I’M MELTING! HELP! HELP! I’M MELTING!!!”

  17. And NO COLLUSION WITH WIKILEAKS! There can’t be obstruction because he was not guilty of anything to obstruct. PERIOD. BIG WIN FOR TRUMP. Let’s be happy. Trump told the truth and that’s what’s important here.

Leave a Reply