╌>

Collusion, Anyone?

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  sixpick  •  6 years ago  •  23 comments

Collusion, Anyone?






As the likelihood that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia seems headed toward zero, the likelihood of proof of a different form of collusion seems headed upward toward certainty.

The Russia collusion charge had some initial credibility because of businessman Donald Trump's dealings in Russia and candidate Trump's off-putting praise of Vladimir Putin.




It was fueled by breathless media coverage of such trivial events as Jeff Sessions' conversation with the Russian ambassador at a Washington reception -- and, of course, by the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel. But Mueller's prosecutions of Trump campaign operatives were for misdeeds long before the campaign, and his indictment of 13 Russians specified that no American was a "knowing participant" in their work.

Now there's talk that Mueller is winding up his investigation. It seems unlikely that whatever he reports will fulfill the daydreams so many liberals have of making Trump go the way of Richard Nixon.

Meanwhile, the evidence builds of collusion by Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence personnel in trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat and delegitimize Trump in and after the 2016 election.


The investigation of Clinton's illegal email system was conducted with kid gloves. FBI Director James Comey accepted Attorney General Loretta Lynch's order to call it a "matter" rather than an "investigation." Clinton aides were allowed to keep her emails and destroy 30,000 of them, plus cellphones. They were not subject to grand jury subpoenas, and a potential co-defendant was allowed to claim attorney-client privilege.

On June 27, 2016, Lynch clandestinely met with Bill Clinton on his plane at the Phoenix airport -- a meeting that became known only thanks to an alert local TV reporter. Lynch supposedly left the decision on prosecution to Comey, who on July 5 announced publicly that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but lacked intent to violate the law, even though the statute punishes such violations whether they are intentional or not.

Contrast that with the collusion of Obama officials with the Clinton campaign-financed Christophe Steele/Fusion GPS dossier alleging Trump ties with Russians. Comey and the Justice Department used it, without divulging who paid for it, to get a FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign operative Carter Page's future and past communications -- the "wiretap" Trump was derided for mentioning.

Similarly, when Comey informed Trump in January 2017 of the contents of the then-unpublished Steele dossier, he didn't reveal that the Clinton campaign had paid for it. Asked on his iatrogenic book tour why not, he blandly said he didn't know. And maybe he doesn't actually realize he was employing J. Edgar Hoover-like tactics to keep his job. Maybe.


In any case, after he was fired, he immediately sent four of his internal memos, at least one of them classified, to a law professor friend to leak them to the press, with the intent of getting a special counsel appointed -- who turned out to be his longtime friend and ally Robert Mueller. Collusion, anyone?

Collusion can get complicated and sometimes fails to produce the intended results. Comey's deputy FBI director, Andrew McCabe, reportedly kept to himself for weeks the discovery that Clinton emails had been transmitted over the home computer of her aide Huma Abedin's then-husband, the disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner. After Comey learned of this, he made his Oct. 28 announcement that the Clinton email investigation was being reopened.

Comey and McCabe have produced contradictory accounts of events, and Comey's public praise of McCabe contrasts with his referral of McCabe to Justice's inspector general, who found him guilty of "lack of candor" -- a fireable offense for which he was indeed fired. Partners in collusion sometimes fall out.

Longtime Clinton friend Lanny Davis charges that Comey's statement was responsible for Clinton's defeat, and Comey, on his book tour, admitted that he may have made it only because he assumed Clinton would win.

Davis may be right, though no one can prove it. But one could also say that the Democratic Party lost the presidency because it nominated a candidate under investigation for committing a felony. And it seems as certain as these things can be that if Hillary Clinton had followed the law and regulations, there would be today no President Trump, no Attorney General Sessions, no EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, no Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The blame ultimately belongs to Barack Obama, who knew of Clinton's private email system and who could have ordered her to follow the law. But that's one bit of collusion that didn't occur.

~Link~



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
1  seeder  sixpick    6 years ago

The Real Collusion Story

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  sixpick @1    6 years ago

The blame ultimately belongs to Barack Obama, who knew of Clinton's private email system and who could have ordered her to follow the law. But that's one bit of collusion that didn't occur.

That's it all wrapped up inside a nutshell. The public has grown weary of this prolonged and ludicrous sideshow by the whiny losers of the left, and their voting decisions in the midterms won't be influenced by faux scandals like Stormy Daniels and a fake dossier, but by their usual concerns...their jobs, their economic situation, with the country at peace and winding down current engagements.

The problems for the Democrats are just beginning and won't be going away. Watch for lots of action after the midterms.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  seeder  sixpick  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    6 years ago
The problems for the Democrats are just beginning and won't be going away. Watch for lots of action after the midterms.

I totally agree.  There problems have only begun and talk about that pendulum, it's starting to swing in the direction of real justice instead of Totalitarian Left Wing Justice, with their Police State Justice System.  Soviet Style, by the way.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2  Buzz of the Orient    6 years ago

WARNING TO ALL NT MEMBERS: 

Do not collude with me. My father was born in Russia, and although he immigrated to Canada at the age of 13 and I was born in Canada, according to Russian law, I am still considered to be Russian.  What you must also be aware of is that I am presently living in a COMMUNIST country, China, and even married to a Chinese woman.  Two reasons to be VERY CAREFUL in the event that any correspondence takes place between us.  You could be investigated for collusion with the enemy, lose your jobs, be shunned by your friends and even your children could be bullied in their schools.  Hey, if an American teenage student is suspended from his American school for singing the American National Anthem in the school cafeteria, there could be a protest march with placards damning you for even reading my articles and comments.

BE CAREFUL.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
2.1  seeder  sixpick  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    6 years ago

You're probably pretty safe Buzz if you're part of the #Resistance against Trump.  You can get away with murder if that is the case.  By the way, you haven't seen any of Trump's relatives, friends, business associates, campaign people or anyone else you could somehow tie into Trump over there, have you?  We're offering a $12 million dollar reward for any information, whether you can provide any evidence or not, doesn't matter.  We have a very accommodating media here in the USA under the developing Police State tactics from the Left.

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
2.2  Pedro  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    6 years ago

Since you aren't also involved in voter fraud and money laundering, among other things  (presumably), I'm thinking it is safe.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  seeder  sixpick  replied to  Pedro @2.2    6 years ago

Bombshell: FEC Records Indicate Hillary Campaign Illegally Laundered $84 Million

 

The mainstream media took no notice of a federal court filing that exposes a $84 million money-laundering conspiracy Democrats executed during the 2016 presidential election.

The overwhelming evidence of tsunami-level campaign-finance criminality—more than $84 million—the media instead chases the cloud cast over President Trump because of the $130,000 payment his attorney, Michael Cohen, made to Stormy Daniels, and claims that payment constituted an illegal campaign contribution. One wonders what it will take to break through the mainstream media blackout. Maybe a few pointed unpresidential tweets from our commander-in-chief?

You mean like this?  This is a fact and there is evidence, just like the real collusion, there is evidence, unlike the Trump witch hunt where there is no evidence.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Pedro @2.2    6 years ago
Since you aren't also involved in voter fraud and money laundering, among other things

There was no voter fraud or money laundering that has been uncovered, except on the side of the Democrats. "What about" all those foreign campaign "donations" to the Clinton Foundation that amounted to trying to buy influence when Hillary became the prez??

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
2.2.3  Pedro  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.2    6 years ago

I agree. I have found Buzz to be innocent of all these things.

I do wonder why you seem to think one crime being allegedly committed absolves all others from guilt for doing the same.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Pedro @2.2.3    6 years ago

It doesn't. In the case of HRC there is credible evidence of wrong doing, in Trump's case none has been presented to date.

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
2.2.5  Pedro  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.4    6 years ago

I don't agree with that, and one thing also has nothing to do with the other. You agree that they are not the same person, yes?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.2.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Pedro @2.2.5    6 years ago

I agree with that, that they are two separate cases. 

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
2.2.7  Pedro  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.6    6 years ago

Good deal. It's appropriate that they don't get jumbled together and can both be viewed independently. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    6 years ago
Do not collude with me.

With so many conservative Republicans misusing that word, it's no wonder the definition has changed from "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others" to "communication with". With that idiotic definition everyone must be colluding with everyone else. When Chris Steele had concerns with the large number of Trump campaign members colluding, er, I mean "communicating" with Russian operatives in an attempt to get dirt on Hillary in exchange for lifting sanctions and repealing the Magnitsky act, he turned that info over to the FBI so he communicated, er, I mean "colluded" with the FBI. No wonder conservative Republicans are so confused, they are apparently so dumb they can't remember simple definitions. 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
5  seeder  sixpick    6 years ago

Can Mueller be more honest than his colleagues?

I think it’s entirely possible — likely, in fact — that Robert Mueller is an honest broker and performing his job as special counsel without fear or favor. That he will investigate until he reaches the end of the logical trail and present his legitimate findings accordingly, recommending prosecution of those who may have violated our nation’s laws and betrayed our trust.
 
But considering the information that’s become available in the past year, we would be remiss if we didn’t at least consider other possible scenarios. Here’s one of them, posited amidst the context of news that has come to light. It has to do with a special counsel probe with the appearance of several important conflicts of interest.
There are many excellent agents within our intelligence agencies who deserve great credit and respect. But we also know that some bad actors within those agencies have a daunting record of problems that include  lying  about evidence; conducting politically-motivated  acts ; botched terrorism investigations; improper surveillance  of private citizens, members of Congress and journalists; providing  incorrect  information to  Congress ; and  illegally withholding evidence .
 
 
When top FBI officials spoke privately of needing an “insurance policy” in case Trump were elected, what if they felt this “policy” were necessary not just because they hated Trump, or because they believed Trump was illegally conspiring with Russia? What if they feared what a Trump administration might uncover within the intelligence agencies … and what the administration might do to take steps to reform them? Go up against the intelligence agencies, and as top Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)  warned , “They have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
 
Mueller isn’t exactly an unconflicted player in this scenario. He was FBI director from 2001-2013 when many alleged abuses occurred and — theoretically — would have a vested interest in protecting his former colleagues and his own legacy by preventing a Trump administration from poking around into alleged intelligence agency misdeeds.
 
Another factor to consider is ex-FBI Director  James Comey's admission  that he conspired to secretly leak “memos” to the New York Times in hopes of publicly damaging President Trump enough to spur appointment of a special counsel — which seemed to work according to plan. If this was part of an “insurance policy” plan, then it’s possible that the planners also predetermined that the special counsel should — or would — be ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller.
 
Mueller is not only a friend and colleague of Comey, he personally knows and employed key players who are accused of improper behavior or wrongdoing surrounding the Trump-Russia narratives and probes. Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe , accused of lying by the Justice Department’s inspector general, worked under Mueller. So did fired FBI general counsel James Baker.
 
Mueller also  worked  with then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , who provided incorrect testimony to Congress about surveillance of American citizens that is linked to allegedly politically-motivated surveillance and “unmaskings,” and who has proven to be a vehement foe of President Trump.
 
Further complicating Mueller’s perceived status as a neutral investigator (under this scenario) is the fact that he named at least two conflicted players to his Trump-Russia investigative team: lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. According to reports, the FBI couple was only removed from Mueller’s team after the Office of Inspector General discovered their text messages apparently calling into question their ability to be impartial.
 
Under normal circumstances, if members of a prosecutor’s team get booted for ethics reasons or conflicts of interest, that tends to call into question the entire investigative product to date. In those instances, defendants are typically afforded the chance to challenge the impartiality of the prosecution and argue that the case has been tainted.
 
But with the Mueller team, the investigation didn’t start over. There was no public discussion about examining and possibly segregating parts of the case that Strzok and Page had touched. No neutral party was invited to arbitrate from an impartiality standpoint.
 
A conflict of interest — whether perceived or real — is usually treated very seriously under the law. In fact, that’s the whole reason Mueller was appointed; because it was determined that the normal systems were fraught with conflicts of interest.
 
None of this is to say that Mueller can’t rise above what some would say are perceived conflicts of interest inherent in his own investigation. He may, indeed, be an extraordinary man who can set aside his personal interests, experiences, and relationships with intimately involved colleagues past and present to conduct an impartial and fair probe of a president who some in the intelligence community — it seems — are working hard to undermine.
 
Sharyl Attkisson ( @SharylAttkisson ) is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program “ Full Measure .”
 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  sixpick @5    6 years ago

Sharyl is known for getting to the heart of the matter and finding the truth. And now that Comey has been caught both leaking FBI info and lying to investigators, this melodrama should start to get really, REALLY, interesting.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
6  seeder  sixpick    6 years ago

Revolution and Worse to Come

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred


329 visitors