Mueller’s Collusion Illusion

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 November 12, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By now, it’s impossible to believe there was no collusion involving foreign powers in the 2016 presidential election. It’s just that the campaign in question isn’t Trump’s. If you’ve missed the evidence pointing to Clinton collusion, you’ve not been following the events precipitating—and now engulfing—the Mueller investigation very carefully.

With the initial set of indictments handed down recently in that sprawling, curiously one-sided investigation, it has become clear that the investigation has run far afield of its original charter. The real and entirely political purpose of this unconstitutional farce is becoming clear.

Mueller’s partisan legal team composed largely of Democratic donors was never assembled to uncover the real collusion, but instead to bury it. Its real purpose was to project the illusion that the campaign cheerfully engaged in various kinds of collusion—Hillary Clinton’s—was, in fact, the helpless victim of collusion.

What Really Happened?
The hard, if elusive, evidence of her scheming is beginning to emerge despite the mainstream media blockade and the complete indifference of Team Mueller. It is time now to consider seriously that the opposite of the conventional narrative is true.

Yes, it is time to confront the shocking possibility that our own government colluded with its preferred presidential campaign, a campaign that concocted a bogus “dossier” with the help of useful idiots and willing foreign powers (including, but not limited to, Russia), and then used politically weaponized federal agencies to spy on and attempt to destroy the Republican candidate for President in 2016.

Worse, when that effort failed, the outgoing administration and its holdovers then embarked on an aggressive, multi-layered criminal conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral victor, even if that meant destabilizing our entire political system.

This, despite Hillary’s incessant lecturing and the media’s plodding insistence after the debates, that the eventual winner acknowledge the importance of losing gracefully. This, apparently, is a lesson only Republicans are supposed to learn.

A Tale of Two Treasons
If all of this sounds unbelieveable, consider: Is it any less unbelievable than the media-hyped narrative we’re asked to swallow concerning Trump’s supposed collusion? Either way, we are asked to believe a story that reads like a John Le Carré spy novel or a Robert Ludlum conspiracy tale. And whichever narrative is true, it makes the crimes of the Watergate scandal look like political jaywalking by comparison.

Our job now is to consider the facts, and apply Occam’s razor with care and precision to decide which explosive narrative is least implausible. Because, in the absence of a clear explanation, the one that is the least implausible must be true.

The Real “Bridge” to Nowhere
There is no question which narrative is simpler to explain; but is this explanation plausible merely because it is simple? Simplicity, it turns out, is all this tale has going for it.

Trump, according to this story, actively colluded with the Russian government to steal the election from an otherwise inevitable Hillary Clinton. In exchange for “hacking” the DNC’s emails (emails that contained damning content that is not disputed) and exposing them through WikiLeaks, it is claimed Trump agreed to do Moscow’s bidding as President. Somewhere out there, true believers claim we will find the evidence.

The circumstantial “evidence” for this narrative is Trump’s tongue-in-cheek campaign taunt in the summer of 2016 regarding the possibility that the Russians had Hillary’s missing emails (and should release them). Exhibit B was his alleged “bromance” with Putin, inasmuch as Trump appeared to speak favorably of the Russian strongman when alluding to the desire for the United States to have closer ties with Russia, and criticizing Obama’s failed “reset” during Clinton’s term as Secretary of State.

This all-smoke, no-fire narrative has been reduced so much that the millions of devastated Hillary supporters who have invested their hearts and souls in it and waited on pins and needles for impeachment to commence, now howl helplessly at the moon in despair over an election they still cannot understand they lost because of positions on the issues and the flaws of their weak candidate.

Based on these flimsy foundations, the post-election mantras that “Russia hacked our election,” and “our democracy is under attack by a hostile power,” repeated relentlessly by Clinton and her surrogates to explain her loss, and the illegal obstruction of justice committed by James Comey himself, fueled a myopic focus of “Russian collusion” accusations against the Trump campaign, and a carte blanche Les Miserables-style inquisition to discover all his supposed “ties” to, and interactions with, any and all things Russian.

But this story, we now know, is so factually challenged, especially after the unrelated indictments of Manafort, Gates, and Papadopoulos, that it cannot be believed. To this day there is no evidence whatsoever that Trump colluded with the Russians, or that his campaign violated any statutes in the course of the campaign.

This all-smoke, no-fire narrative has been reduced so much that the millions of devastated Hillary supporters who have invested their hearts and souls in it and waited on pins and needles for impeachment to commence, now howl helplessly at the moon in despair over an election they still cannot understand they lost because of positions on the issues and the flaws of their weak candidate.

And Now the Rest of the Story . . .
Since the early days of this audacious hoax, we have learned much about the Clinton campaign and its real ties to Russian interests; exploding the conventional narrative. These are not conspiracy theories, but conspiracy facts—bolstered in credibility by Donna Brazile’s recent performance as a character witness for the Hillary campaign and the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

What is emerging is a far more disturbing picture of actual foul play, both foreign and domestic, and demonstrable collusion, at multiple levels, between the losing campaign of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and then soon to be out-of-power administration of Barack Hussein Obama.

More and more that meeting between the junior Trump and Natalia Veselnitskaya looks like a deliberate setup—what the KGB under Putin back in the day would call “kompromat.”

We know, for example, that the Democrat-connected law firm of Perkins Coie was used as an intermediary by her campaign to help pay $1 million to fund the discredited Fusion GPS dossier, intended not merely to discredit Trump, but also—and possibly even more criminally—to create a false pretext for government spying on his campaign.

More shocking than that, we know one of GPS’ principals met with the very same Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump, Jr., both before and after that infamous meeting—even though she wasn’t supposed to be in the United States at all at the time.

More and more that meeting between the junior Trump and Natalia Veselnitskaya looks like a deliberate setup—what the KGB under Putin back in the day would call “kompromat.”  In other words, this meeting was set up entirely for the purpose that it might be used later to “prove” Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, should it become necessary. And the over-the-top howls of “treason!” leveled against Donald Jr. as well as the drumbeat of clumsy attempts to connect the scandal to Trump’s family and inner circle emanate from the media echo chamber when news of the meeting broke seemed entirely too well coordinated to be spontaneous. Yet these same hypocrites yawn and shrug at the murky origins of Fusion GPS dossier—which Russian officials, along with Hillary’s campaign actually participated in creating.

At some point, you have to ask: Why on earth would a foreign country trying to elect Trump participate in so many schemes seemingly designed to defeat him?

Most damning of all, we learn of the extraordinary Uranium One deal, involving 20 percent of America’s uranium supply. This deal implicates none than other Mueller himself, who was head of the FBI when it happened. Under Mueller, the FBI squelched hard evidence of Russia’s designs to bribe Hillary Clinton in her role as one of the deal’s signatories.

It matters not at all that other agencies besides Foggy Bottom were involved in the approval of Russia’s acquisition of Uranium One, or even if (for the sake of argument only) we concede that it was a reasonable decision for our national security. What matters is that she and Bill Clinton collected money, in the form of $145 million in donations to their shady foundation, from Russian oligarchs tied to the deal, and took $500,000 in direct payments to the former president for a speech. This, after meeting Putin himself in his Moscow home.

The facts of Hillary Clinton’s collusion are complicated and involve, as it were, many more entities than the fairy tale of Trump’s collusion. For this reason, in a world where good political fiction trumps confusing facts, it is tempting to prefer the Trump collusion narrative, if only to avoid a migraine.

All of which points to another obvious question: Why would a nation that had real leverage-increasing “kompromat” on an ethically fluid Hillary Clinton work with Trump to steal “her” election?

Even more to the point: Why did our FBI hide the fact that all of this was contemporaneous with the Obama administration’s pending decision to approve Russia’s acquisition of Uranium One?

With this information, Mueller’s one-sided, heavy-handed inquiry into clearly diversionary targets suddenly makes perfect, if horrifying, sense.

Willful Ignorance
Occam’s razor, in paraphrase, suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the best. But all it literally says is that we should not “multiply the entities beyond the necessary.” Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler, is how Einstein put it.

The facts of Hillary Clinton’s collusion are complicated and involve, as it were, many more entities than the fairy tale of Trump’s collusion. For this reason, in a world where good political fiction trumps confusing facts, it is tempting to prefer the Trump collusion narrative, if only to avoid a migraine.

But doing so requires ignoring many interrelated facts already available in the public domain that make sense only in the context of the treasonous, un-democratic scheming of the Clinton campaign—first to deny Bernie Sanders a fair shot at the Democratic nomination, and then to deny the duly elected president his legitimacy.

About the Author:

Bob Calco
Bob Calco is a verified Deplorable who lives in Tampa, Florida, with his wife, two sons, and four cats. A successful software architect by trade, and an inveterate polyglot and world traveler at heart, he studied political philosophy until it was clear that to pay bills he needed a marketable skill. His passion on issues related to trade and economics go back to his formative college days, when he learned to distrust, and independently verify, literally everything he was taught.
  • NaphiSoc

    OMG ROFLMAO – wait a couple days – let see who is indicted… Flynn, Page, Pence, multiple Trumps, Sessions, Nunes, Rochbacher (sp?), Ryan, Rubio, McConnell – then get back to me

    • NaphiSoc

      and it is going down THIS WEEK

      • TruthBeTold

        How do you know the specific date? Will it be 12:05 or 3:15?

        What do you think will happen after Flynn is indicted? Do you think Flynn will flip?

    • TheGipper

      Flynn had an Obama Administration issued security clearance. If there was a problem, they need to go after them.

      • NaphiSoc

        nope – it was Flynn who colluded w Russia and Trump
        it is going down – most likely date: Weds Nov 15

      • TruthBeTold

        Yes, he had been director of the DIA. Then he was fired during Obama. People in the Obama administration tried to warn Trump abut Flynn – that he had contacts with the Russians and had been paid by Russia, but did not report it. What did Trump do? He made him the highest intelligence officer in the Country.

        But let’s talk about Hillary’s emails.

    • Marshall Gill

      Is that avatar a current picture of you or an attempt to reveal the level of your intellect? Either way it is perfect!

      • wmlady

        It looks like a photo of a Hitler youth cadet.

    • TrustbutVerify

      Clinton (both or all) and their staffs, Podesta, Brazille, DWS, etc etc. – yes, we’ll get back to you in the end. Mueller is “investigating” a crime that isn’t in the statutes and for which there is no evidence because it never happened. We know that Hillary did collude with Russia through the Podesta Group and Fusion GPS via the “dossier”. We know Uranium One happened and we know of the FBI investigations and convictions for bribery, money laundering, kick backs, and racketeering – and we know they kept this information from Congress and let the deal go through. We know Hillary’s “Foundation” got $145M and that Bill got money directly all from Russians and other investors in the Uranium One deal. We know Hillary was “extremely careless” in regards to her emails and server – which means grossly negligent under the law – and by Comey’s statement and the State Dept. IG report we know she broke all the Sections of 18 USC and State Department regulations. We know she lied about Benghazi, purposely, with the Obama administration. We could go on and on and on. There will be a reckoning for Hillary, the Dems, the “deep state”, and the MSM. It will all come out in the end and the Dems will be done forever.

  • Sir Bruce

    A masterful analysis, Mr. Calco. Well done!

  • Harlan

    Hmmm….actual, factual logic. I’m not sure that has any place in our modern justice system.

  • OBAMA STOLE SS#042-68-4425

    This is treason to the max and deserves nothing less than hanging till death.

    • Miek D.

      Maybe Kim Jong Un will lend us one of his anti-aircraft guns.

  • RAM500

    Traitors in, or formerly in, government impute treason to their enemies.

  • What is emerging is a far more disturbing picture of actual foul play, both foreign and domestic, and demonstrable collusion, at multiple levels, between the losing campaign of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and then soon to be out-of-power administration of Barack Hussein Obama.

    This is exactly right. The claims that the Russians ‘meddled’ in our election and that the Trump campaign ‘colluded’ with them to do so are deliberate fabrications by the Obama administration and the DNC, with a Cabal of Intelligence heads and Obama loyalists (Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, et al.) leading the charge. The Mueller ‘investigation’ that has taken over the Justice Department is the militant arm of this Cabal.

    Mueller’s phony ‘investigation’ has effectively neutered the Justice Department and is laying seige to the White House. At this point it looks as though the President has no defenses. If Mueller can create the illusion that Mr Trump and his associates over time have contrived to conceal misdeeds, of whatever sort and however trivial, then he can turn the Democrats’ attack dogs of the press on him. That was all it took to get the Republicans in the Senate to march up to Richard Nixon and ask for the keys. And that’s the Democrats’ fondest hope.

    For some more discussion, see my posts on Walking Creek World:

    https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-easter-bunny-cover-up/

    https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/topsy-turvy/

    /L. E. Joiner

  • Theonewhoknocks

    “To this day there is no evidence whatsoever that Trump colluded with the Russians, or that his campaign violated any statutes in the course of the campaign.”

    I guess those emails from Jr. and the DMs via twitter don’t count as evidence to a self professed “deplorable.” Not surprised.

    • SadCircus

      Do you remember the part when he said that this meeting was a setup and Veselnitskaya was an employee of Fusion GPS and she met with the Fusion GPS founder, G.R Simson, immediately before and immediately after that meeting?
      Oh, you don’t. Thats because you didnt read the article. Or any articles contradicting your safe space.
      And you won’t. Ever. Even as you read these lines you think Im just a russian bot.
      But reality is slowly kicking in. 2018 wil be epic.
      Please go watch Colbert and don’t reply to me. Because it will be the least useful discusion possible.

      • Theonewhoknocks

        I see you failed to refute literally anything I said, probably because you can’t. And there is also no evidence of what you claim regarding Fusion GPS and the Russian agent. You provided no evidence of this because you can’t. Stick to the facts or be willfully ignorant. Your choice.

        • SadCircus

          READ THE ARTICLE you effing moron.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            READ WHAT I POSTED deplorable. If you can

          • gda

            Theonewhosucks is just a sad troll.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Well that answers it. You can’t.

        • SadCircus

          You didnt read and you wont read the article. You simply just wont.
          You foaming clueless anti-Trump zombie.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            I did read the article. Did you read what I posted? Because you seem really keen on not even attempting to refute it. Wanna give it another try?

        • Major Woody

          Your “facts” are out of wack. Hillary and the DNC admitted they paid for the GPS dossier. After denying it for almost a year and funneling the money through a law firm. Having a meeting denotes that they had a meeting. What is the proof of collusion? These McCarthy like tactics are growing old and laughable. The author of this article paints an interesting picture that is unfolding where all the Dems are eventually going to lawyer up. This is classic Alinski
          tactics; accuse your opponent of exactly what you are doing.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            The claim was that the Russian agent was working for Fusion GPS. If you believe this, please provide proof of this. This article is choosing to ignore the very real evidence and try every possible conspiracy theory out there and the deplorables eat it up as truth. You want proof of collusion? Read my first post again. Otherwise you are willfully choosing to ignore evidence and believe theories that have no facts to support them.

          • Major Woody

            SO using your nifty logic how can you prove Trump Juniors collusion? A meeting took place so therefor it proves collusion? But if that Russian lawyer met with Fusion GPS before and after Trump is meaningless? Remember Fusion was getting paid to dig dirt that you are willing to ignore. The Manafort indictment only demonstrates that this is a fishing expedition looking to catch anything. Watch out for the Podesta’s they were working with Manafort doing the same thing in the Ukraine.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Emails prove the collusion. Information from a foreign agent was offered and he responded with approval and attended the meeting. How can’t you see this? He attended the meeting. Throw in his conversations with wikileaks and this is a slam dunk. Again, ignore all you want. The indictments will still happen. And I see you have chosen not to provide any actual proof as I requested. Not surprised.

          • JoeSchmoe

            @disqus_CQ6tGnPve3:disqus your proof is utterly ridiculous… Trump Jr. ate a cookie, cookies have been known to be stolen, therefor President Donald Trump heads up a cookie theft ring… That’s how stupid you sound!

          • Theonewhoknocks

            … I’m not the one using cookie references…

          • JoeSchmoe

            I didn’t think you’d be smart enough to understand the analogy… I was right!

          • Theonewhoknocks

            I didn’t think you would actually double down on your pathetic analogy. I was wrong

          • JoeSchmoe

            Again, you still don’t get it. My analogy was meant to be pathetic. It was a reflection of your logic!! Haha

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Pathetic suits you well. Congratulations

          • JoeSchmoe

            You’re still confused. You must be looking in the mirror because that’s not me you’re seeing!

          • Theonewhoknocks

            While these grade school insults fit nicely with your grade school analogies, you are a waste of my time. Move along now.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Bye now! I know it’s tough for you to debate someone who knows what they are talking about and won’t come down to your level, but thanks for trying!

          • Theonewhoknocks

            It rarely is actually. I’ll let you know if I ever find one.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Not that you’d admit and that’ll never happen because you think everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of deplorable, idiot, kiddo. When you jump off topic and start flinging insults, that’s when everybody reading these comments knows you’re wrong and knows that you know it too.

        • Steve Scale

          The Washington Post reported on July 11 2017 the meeting between Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at a Manhattan federal courtroom just hours before the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016 and again after the meeting with Trump Jr.
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/07/11/inside-the-link-between-the-russian-lawyer-who-met-donald-trump-jr-and-the-trump-dossier/?utm_term=.0bea4cde9abc

          • Theonewhoknocks

            You wanna go ahead and tell me what the hell that has to do with anything?

          • Steve Scale

            You claimed “The claim was that the Russian agent was working for Fusion GPS. If you believe this, please provide proof of this”
            I just did. Please remove your tin foil hat before reading for better comprehension on your part.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Lol did you read the article you linked? Seriously….

          • Steve Scale

            I did and obviously you didn’t. I warned you that wearing your tin foil hat would interfere with your comprehension.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Damn. You don’t even realize what you posted. Thanks for playing kiddo

          • Steve Scale

            So you are still trying to deny that Fusion GPS and the Russian lawyer or agent as you like to believe were meeting before and after the meeting with Trump Jr.? No collusion there. LOL.
            What a complete moron you must be.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            So you are willing to believe every conspiracy theory floated about Hillary in order to distract from the very real Trump/Russia investigation? What a absolute moron you must be. I bet you believed the Seth Rich story too…

          • Steve Scale

            Nice try, Moron.
            The DOJ is opening an investigation into your “conspiracy theory” about Hillary. Ha Ha
            And Donna Brazile believes in the Seth Rich story so she got extra protection when she worked for the DNC. Hillary, Fusion GPS is the real Russian collusion story.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Lol holy sh*t you believe the Rich story. I didn’t think you would actually fall for that. And the DOJ isn’t opening an investigation. Sessions back-tracked on that during his testimony yesterday. If anything they are looking into possibly opening up an investigation. There is a difference, but you are wayyy too stupid to know the difference.

            After you concluded that you actually believe the Rich story it is obvious that I am wasting my time talking to someone who believe literally anything they read. Good luck to you, you surely need it.

          • Steve Scale

            Sessions has given the go ahead for federal prosecutors to look into Hillary and even CNN reported that. The investigations have started as well as the 2 senate investigations on Hillary already underway. No where for you to hide now.
            I really don’t care what a Moron like you believes but Donna Brazile doesn’t believe the Seth Rich story you are trying to push either and she worked with Seth at the DNC. I guess you want to run away now that the walls are closing in.

    • KenIh

      Trump Jr. said in an email he would happily receive anti-Clinton information from Russia.

      Hillary happily paid millions for anti-Trump information from Russia.

      Trump Jr’s meeting was a waste of time.

      HIllary’s millions got a special prosecutor appointed against Trump.

      Does this really make sense to you?

      • Theonewhoknocks

        1. Hillary didn’t pay millions for information from Russia. If you think you have proof of this please provide it;
        2. Jr. Attended a meeting with a Russian agent along with Kushner. There is proof of this. This meeting is being heavily investigated by Mueller. To say that it was nothing or a waste of time is being willfully ignorant to the facts;
        3. A special prosecutor was appointed because Trump fired Comey. Hillary had nothing to do with it. If you think you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

        This should now make sense to you.

        • spunky2go

          Sadly, it will never make sense to the deplorables until we are at war, or their wives/daughters kitties are grabbed, or they are dying in the street w no health insurance.

          • Vallum Hadriani

            And the sky will fall and we’ll all be eaten by zombies.

          • Name

            or their Medicare gets cut

          • TrustbutVerify

            That would be Weinstein and the other liberal Dem supporting guys in Hollywood you are talking about. I have health insurance, always have. Was never any reason to change all of OUR insurance to get insurance (not health care, of course, but insurance) to a few million who didn’t. It was a naked try to single payer. Dems got kicked out because of it in several waves and Trump is in the White House – still not seeing the problem, Skippy?

          • Steve Scale

            Well we are not at war and still at Defcon 5 (the lowest). My wife and daughter have never been to Hollywood so they don’t worry about their kitties and the only people dying in the streets without healthcare are veterans while we give free healthcare to illegal immigrants and criminals.
            Now that is deplorable.

        • TrustbutVerify

          1. Ummm….yeah…the DNC and Hillary, as admitted by Fusion GPS, paid millions for the “dossier” through their attorney. The dossier was compiled by Steele and he has stated he paid Russian intelligence and government officials for the (erroneous) information and rumors. So, yeah…all over the news.
          2. She is a Russian lawyer for one, not an “agent” no matter how you want to make her sound like a spy. She was working with Fusion GPS and the Dem Podesta Group – so you really want to make her into a Russian agent? Because she belongs to them, not Republicans. A meeting is not illegal…and nothing came from the meeting, so there is no “collusion”. If there had been any information presented, they could well have taken it to the FBI…you don’t know what they would have done, because there was no information. But Hillary sent GPS and Steele directly to Russia. THAT is collusion.
          3. Various reports have shown that the FBI and Comey were politicized by Obama and Hillary. So, yeah, Trump fired Comey for being compromised and violating his oath. From the email scandal to Uranium One, he, Rosenstein, and Mueller have all know what was done and suppressed the information and covered for the Dems. Trump knew enough then to fire him and what we have found out since has validated Trump’s decision to get rid of Comey. Comey is a Hillary stooge and has been working with the Dems.

          This should make sense to you now.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            1. The dossier was originally funded by a republican. Paying for and putting together such a document is not illegal, not that I care about Hillary or the DNC. Besides, your six degrees of separation won’t hold up without actual evidence. Feel free to provide some. Kinda tired of asking.
            2. She is a Russian lawyer, one with direct ties to the Kremlin and Putin. You forgot that part. You freely dismiss the meeting for some reason, probably through abject denial, yet have no problem assigning instant collusion for Hillary with absolutely no proof that she communicated with a foreign agent like Jr. did. If you have anything against Hillary as damning as the emails and wikileaks tweets please, provide them.
            3.”Various reports.” Great, provide them. And Trump openly admitted, on national TV, that he fired Comey because of “that Russia thing.” Trump’s own words. Can’t really argue around that one.

            That should clear things up for you. If you respond with anything but proof that substantiates your baseless assertions it will be clear you are only arguing from your own point of view rather than verifiable facts. Just a suggestion.

          • Blackstone

            That accusation has been proven false repeatedly. Steele was not brought onboard until after the Clinton campaign funded Fusian GPS in June 2016, and all the dossier’s memos are dated from that time.

          • Rumpelstilskin

            You should read the article.

          • TrustbutVerify

            1. No, it wasn’t and that is a bold faced lie. The Beacon funded domestic oppo research with Fusion GPS. Then they stopped paying. The DNC and Hillary THEN hired Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS THEN hired Steele and Steele THEN went to Russian sources to compile the dossier. Republicans had NOTHING to do with the dossier. Paying Russian government and intelligence officials – with evidence of doing so – is PROOF OF COLLUSION with foreign government agents. What you accuse Trump of with NO evidence, yet here is DIRECT evidence staring you in the face! So, yeah, there are several campaign finance laws that WOULD violate. The law firm and Fusion GPS already ADMITTED they were paid by the DNC and Hillary – THERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE. Ties it all together very nicely – and their billing records show it.
            2. She is a Russian lawyer – a private lawyer – who works with the Dem Fusion GPS and Dem Podesta group – your forgot that part. The meeting is inconsequential legally or as proof of any so-called collusion. One, because it isn’t illegal and two, because there was NO COLLUSION. I have no problem assigning it to Hillary because we have billing records from her law firm and the Podesta Group and Fusion GPS and Steele, documented trips by her campaign staff to collude with Ukraine…you know, ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Not just “the Dems and Media say so”.
            3. http://www.newsweek.com/gop-using-muellers-role-uranium-deal-call-his-resignation-russia-probe-701673
            https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/8/james-comey-loretta-lynch-request-call-clinton-pro/
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/03/read-the-full-testimony-of-fbi-director-james-comey-in-which-he-discusses-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.8742929f14b3
            http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451053/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision
            http://nypost.com/2017/09/02/the-case-for-a-special-counsel-to-investigate-hillary-clinton/
            http://observer.com/2016/10/clintons-disgraceful-three-headed-crime-has-compromised-the-fbi/

            I could go on. Of course, you are ignoring prima facia evidence of crimes committed by Clinton, Obama, the DNC and others while believing wholeheartedly – despite NO evidence at all – that Trump is guilty of….something. The only thing he is guilty of is beating Hillary and making you snowflakes melt.

            This should make things clearer for you. If you respond with anything but “hmmm, OK”, it will be clear that you are only a liberal Dem shill who is just here to obfuscate and apologize and cover up the real wrongdoing of Clinton and the Dems. Just a suggestion.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            1. Proof? Third time I have asked this. Starting to see a pattern forming…
            2. See above.
            3. Serious? Lol. Nothing but conspiracy from this guy. Why am I surprised?
            4. Done with you kiddo. You live within conspiracy and ignore facts while pretending to know the law. Bye Felicia

          • TrustbutVerify

            1. I’ve given you proof, it has been in all the papers – once – but I can see how you might have missed it given the MSM. So here you are, from the Washington Post…https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html
            I can also give you the reporting from The Hill: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration
            As you have ignored this evidence in the past, I expect you to keep on ignoring it and claiming there is no evidence. NOW, where is your documented evidence of any collusion by Trump? Millionth time I’ve asked Dems, Mueller and the FBI have nothing – but I am sure YOU do, right?
            2. See above.
            3. Serious? Nothing but willful ignorance and blind bias from this guy. Why am I surprised?
            4. Done with you Skippy. You live within liberal fantasy land and ignore facts – which are posted above from LEFTY SOURCES for you – and believe Trump did things for which there is NO evidence simply because you are upset about losing an election you thought you would win. Guess what? The people rejected you, that is why you lost. Bye Dr. Frank-N-Furter.

          • JoeSchmoe

            @disqus_CQ6tGnPve3:disqus Your response starts with a lie! “The dossier was originally funded by a republican” That is a lie! A right-leaning website (not “a republican”) funded Fusion GPS to do opposition research. They DID NOT fund the dossier, that is a LIE! The dossier was written by Mr. Steele who was not hired by Fusion GPS until after the website stopped funding Fusion GPS and the Hillary Campaign and the DNC hired Fusion GPS. Stop telling other people to prove their comments and then turn around and lie in yours. And stop feeding people false information with your blatantly false comments!

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Lies! Lies! Lies!

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

            See if you can figure out were you are factually wrong there.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Don’t play the fool… oh wait, you are one. They may have done it through a law firm but her campaign and the DNC hired Fusion GPS. And filed a false campaign finance form to boot. The semantics you choose to care about are exactly why the whole damn thing stinks to high heaven. I stand by my statement and nothing you put forth refutes it. Not to mention the fact that what you said is still a complete and total lie!!!

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Lol Fusion GPS is just a conspiracy theory believed by the simple minded deplorables desperately hoping to deflect from Trump’s multiple scandals. The rest of the country is paying attention to the actual scandal, the Trump/Russia investigation being headed by Mueller. He already issued indictments and has a guilty plea. Did you miss that while stalking Hillary?

          • JoeSchmoe

            You’re really are thick! The Mueller investigation has issued indictments and garnered one guilty plea for things that have zero to do with President Donald Trump. Those are the facts which once again you are trying to conflate and expand into something more than what they are. You confuse me with someone who won’t admit to things that are fact when it is clearly you who are confusing them with something more than what they actually are. That’s the premise of your whole argument.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            “You’re really are thick!” This sentence has problems. Look into it.

            Mueller’s investigations are ongoing. Did you really think he was done after those initial unsealings? And the guilty plea from Papdopolous had everything to do with Trump. That is a fact you are choosing to ignore.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Wow, you caught me with a typo… I am Soooo bad! Haha

            Correct, Mueller’s investigation is ongoing and unless you are in the room, don’t pretend you know what is next. I can speculate too and it might just be the Podesta brothers who are next. And Mr. Papadopoulos (not “Papdopolous” as you misspelled it) plead guilty to lying to the FBI which has absolutely nothing to do with President Trump. You can speculate all you want about what he lied about but that’s all conjecture and wishful thinking on your part, NOT facts!

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Lol you failed to grammatically form a short sentence and then compare it to an actual typo. You are a moron.

            Lastly, what the hell do you think “Papa” lied to the FBI about? You are a special kind of stupid kiddo. Good luck to you.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Yeah, yeah… more insults…

            The point is, he was charged with and plead guilty to lying to the FBI. Without charges, what he was lying about is of no consequence at this moment. He lied, just him, not President Trump. Don’t conflate and expand what that guilty plea means. If that plea by itself was so consequential, why would they release it to the press on the same day as the other charges rather than put it out by itself? You’re making a bigger deal out of it simply because you want it to be a big deal but… as of today, what he lied about is of no major consequence.

          • kcmark

            So if it’s not illegal for the Democrats to pay for dirt on Trump through a Dossier —

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Nope. Did you seriously not know that? This happens all the time in races across the country.

        • Neal

          Jr. Attended a meeting with a Russian agent along with Kushner – No legal jeopardy. To think otherwise is “wishful thinking”.
          Firing Comey – Trump was exercising his constitutional authority when he fired James Comey

          • birdonawire

            Proves intent, usually the most difficultpart of a case to prove.

          • Neal

            Intent to do what? What’s the crime?

          • birdonawire

            Intent to collude with an enemy of the USA. The crime is collusion. My guess that they will all be charged with money laundering too.

          • Neal

            Notice that Mueller did not make Papadopoulos plead guilty to collusion with Russia. For a prosecutor…” Papadopoulos pled guilty to lying, a process crime, a Martha Stewart kind of crime. He didn’t plead guilty to what everybody is hoping to prove here and that is collusion with Russia. There’s just a single false statement charge on which — according to the plea agreement — he’s probably looking at no jail time. And if there is, it’s not gonna be any more than six months. Why no collusion charge? Why no collusion charge? Because collusion is not a crime. Did you know that? It isn’t a crime.
            Maybe money laundering, but doubtful.
            Mueller does not have / cannot find a campaign crime.

          • gda

            Podestas for sure. The FBI informant should nail quite a few more too – Hillary in all probability.

            Remember, he has lots of hard evidence. Maybe your name is there too.

          • Ken

            please show me the statute that defines “collusion” as a crime. Having asked this question countless times I have still not had anyone who could provide said statute. please tell me that you are the one.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            “No legal jeopardy”. What kind of legal authority are you? Mueller is investigating this. Mueller, the former head of the FBI. Do you hold yourself out to be more of an authority than Mueller? Please, provide your credentials.

            Never claimed that Trump couldn’t fire Comey. All I stated was that it was what caused the appointment of Mueller. Reading comprehension. Its a thing.

          • Neal

            What is the violation Jr. committed by meeting with a Russian lawyer?

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Hasn’t been charged yet. I’m sure Meuller will spell it out in the coming indictment.

          • JoeSchmoe

            @@disqus_CQ6tGnPve3:disqus …More wishful thinking and conjecture!!!

          • Neal

            He won’t find a campaign crime, what he was appointed to find.
            Do you realize what’s happening here? The Mueller investigation keeps hiring people, and they can’t find a crime. There wasn’t a Trump crime that got the special counsel going. The special counsel regulation, law, whatever it is, specifies that the attorney general or acting attorney general has to have an underlying crime for which a special counsel to pursue. Well, this doesn’t have that. An individual familiar with the Mueller inquiry told New York Magazine,25 Sept 2017, there isn’t a crime. Now. Not in the beginning, there isn’t a crime now. They haven’t found a crime! He continued. This is a backward investigation. You don’t have a crime. “You’re searching. And so you’re not really sure exactly what you’re searching for. So you start asking around and you see what comes up. And you start creating a paradigm and you see what else comes up and figure out at some point whether or not there’s a crime.”
            They had nothing but allegations of collusion with the Russians based on a phony dossier put together with Democrat operatives working with the Russians. You know, the golden showers dossier. There’s nothing in it that’s true, and it forms the basis of the Mueller investigation. It formed the basis of the Obama effort to get Trump investigated in the first place. There’s nothing there. And Mueller hasn’t found it.
            What’s to be found, though, there was election rigging. It happened in the Democrat Party. There were crimes that Hillary Clinton committed with her email server. An election was rigged, and it has been documented, and it can be proven. And it happened on the Democrat side. And it happened with Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz and Hillary Clinton.

          • Matthew_Snow

            Phony? We’ll see. it make zero sense that Putin was planting information that would be bound to increase US pressure against Russia.

            “But questions about Fusion’s credibility, client list or aggressive tactics are irrelevant. Fusion brokered the dossier but Steele produced it. What’s relevant is his credibility, the reliability of his sources and the truthfulness of their claims.These check out. Bill Browder, the anti-Putin campaigner who is an outspoken critic of Fusion, calls Steele “a top-class person whose reputation is beyond reproach.” At least one of Steele’s possible Russian sources was found dead and three others were charged with treason, suggesting, as one Wall Street Journal news account noted, that the Kremlin was cleaning out the moles who had betrayed its hand in last year’s election meddling.”

          • gda

            ‘ What’s relevant is his credibility, the reliability of his sources and the truthfulness of their claims.These check out.”

            Russian sources are now “credible”, “reliable” and “truthful”?
            They “check out”?

            Are you a Putin puppet or an idiot or both?

          • Yoda0060

            After it’s release by Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele adamantly denied that he had anything to do with the final version of the dossier, claiming over aver again that a good portion of it was completely fake, for which he had nothing to do with.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Wow, so you figured out what a fishing expedition is. Quite common in federal prosecutions. Besides that, Rosenstein already addressed what the scope of the investigation was and specified it included any and all related issues with Russian interference with the election. Mueller is working well within the scope. Of course this is based upon your belief that there was nothing to investigate in the first place, which is factually inaccurate. The public keeps learning more and more about what Mueller has found and this is just the tip of the iceberg. More indictments on the way. I expect Flynn, Jr., and Kushner to be next. Enjoy the ride, we are just getting started.

          • Yoda0060

            We’ve been hearing these things for over 6 months now. And still, Robert Mueller is no closer to finding anything on Trump or his campaign team, than what he was then. And it just keeps getting more stupid by the day, for those who continue to support, what we know, is nothing more than a politically motivated fishing expedition.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Well you clearly have no idea how the legal system works or care to listen when I explain it to you. Things will be revealed in due course.

          • Montanagirl1

            Mueller is compromised and you know it. He was Head of the FBI when the Uranium One deal went down and is as culpable as Clinton and Obama in this treason. His job is to cover up for the criminals in the obama administration and find something, anything, on Trump. A real political coup happening right before our eyes.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Great. Please provide proof of your allegation. Otherwise you have nothing but pure speculation.

          • Yoda0060

            Perhaps the appropriate measure of Robert Mueller should be less about his constitutional knowledge of the law and more about his willingness to morally disseminate between right and wrong.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Perhaps? No thanks. I’ll go with his credentials and impressive career.

          • Yoda0060

            Don’t forget that the firing of Comey was supported, in writing, by Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein. And ironically, it was Rosenstein who appointed Robert Mueller as “special investigator”, regarding possible charges of collusion. Under the circumstances, it would be virtually impossible for Mueller to somehow come up with obstruction charges against Trump.

          • Joe Blow

            That and the little fact that all executive power is vested in the president, and the DOJ and FBI both are executive agencies.
            Under United States law, the president can legally order the FBI to stop an investigation. The President can legally order an investigation of somebody else. The president can legally pardon himself.
            Mueller can’t do Dick unless Trump allows him to.
            Congress is the only body that can do anything. It’s called impeachment. Unfortunately for the left, Trump hasn’t done anything to warrant impeachment, and, oh, Congress is controlled by the president’s party, so you know.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            “Under the circumstances”? How so? That is exactly what he is doing now. Any conflict of interest the deplorables think they have is not supported by any evidence and is purely speculative.

        • JoeSchmoe

          @@disqus_CQ6tGnPve3:disqus you say… “This meeting is being heavily investigated by Mueller”… So you like to keep asking people for proof so where is yours??? You the heck do you know just what Mueller is investigating??? You are so full of it pushing a narrative like you are in the know and frankly, you don’t “know” sheet!!!

          • Theonewhoknocks
          • JoeSchmoe

            No, no, no… I can can print all kinds of links to articles from people who think they are in the know too, but you don’t have a clue what Mueller is “heavily” investigating. Don’t act like you’re in the room just because you can read a liberal rag.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Whoa, hold up there chief. I stated only that Mueller was investigating it, and I provided proof that he is in fact investigating it. I obviously don’t know the specifics of the investigation beyond what is reported and I made no such inference. So don’t change your complaint after I provide proof just so you can keep complaining. I provided you with proof. Deal with it.

          • JoeSchmoe

            My point was simple and again your simple mind can’t follow it… You used the term “heavily” to describe the way Mueller was investigating it and my point was you really have no factual basis to make that claim. You provided proof it was something being looked at NOT “heavily” investigated. I can read too but unlike you I don’t “read into it” more than it actually says.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Oh wow. That is quite the point you made there. The fact that I used the adjective “heavily” certainly discredits the fact that Mueller is investigating this issue. Seriously…

          • JoeSchmoe

            Yes, seriously! We need to continue to point out where you and others take things that are indeed facts and conflate and expand them into more than they actually are. Yes, the meeting is one of many things that no doubt Mueller has or is looking at, but unless you are on his team, you cannot make comments about how seriously or important that item is to the Mueller investigation. Why are you so surprised that smart people question how much you claim to “know” in you comments??

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Show me where a smart person challenged me and I’ll answer that.

            Regardless, you are trying to make this more than it is. Mueller is investigating a variety of things.

            And if you want to argue that I am “conflating and expanding” things into more than they actually are, let me ask you this: Do you believe the Clinton/Uranium story?

          • JoeSchmoe

            Well first off, like it or not I am pretty smart.

            Secondly, you are actually the one making more of things than actually exist in fact, not me. Accusing your opponent of that which you are guilty of is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. You have obviously read Rules for Radicals.

            Thirdly, that depends on what you are talking about. Millions in donations to the Canadian arm of the Clinton Foundation? Probably not an issue! Bill’s trip to Russia and payment for a speech? Questionable at least. Stupid to create such optics for sure! I understand that Clinton herself didn’t make this decision so to call it a Clinton/Uranium story is too narrow.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Look, the Uranium thing has long since been debunked. It is Seth Rich inaccurate. But you will keep believing it because you are “pretty smart.” Clearly.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Now you’re trying to take what I said and make more out of it than what it was. You really are a piece of work!

        • James Weigel

          A special prosecutor was appointed after Comey leaked his memos post firing, which was intended to make Donald look like he was attempting to pressure him to drop the Flynn investigation. In those memos we learned that Comey had told Trump he was not, after all, under investigation at the time, interestingly.

          Mueller has not put forward any such obstruction charges as of yet, but is looking under any and every rock he can find, hence the Manifort charges that have zero to do with the election or the campaign.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Mueller is using a common and successful tactic in how he is revealing the indictments. He is going after the small guys first and slowly building his case against the power players. This is only the beginning. If you want to hang your hat on the fact that Manafort’s indictment had little to do with the campaign then fine; it was more of a shot across the bow to Trump. He now knows that Mueller will look into his past financials, and Trump desperately wants to keep that information private. Additionally, you seem to be ignoring the Papdopolous guilty plea, which had everything to do with the campaign.

          • Melissa

            OMG, it’s like you’re not paying any attention. If you’re going to continue commenting, please go back and read previous posts so you can keep up with the conversation.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Unable to refute literally any of my statements, so deflect. Sad tactic.

        • manapp99

          Her campaign paid Fusion who paid Steele to come up with oppo research.

          Just because she used a cutout does not mean she did not pay for the dossier.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Fusion has gone on the record to state that they did not obtain their information from Russia. I am sure you will claim that Trump has not colluded by proxy. You can’t then make the same allegation about Clinton.

          • JoeSchmoe

            This is the same ridiculous insulation defense you keep using everywhere. Just because they insulated themselves by using go-betweens doesn’t change the fact that the dossier contains information that was obtained from Russian sources and was bought and paid for by money that ultimately came from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Just another simple fact you can’t quite grasp.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            The Fusion thing is nothing but a conspiracy. Those who can’t grasp that are only hoping to make a story out of it to deflect from whatever misstep Trump just took, usually having to do with Russia. Thanks for playing, nobody is falling for it.

          • JoeSchmoe

            No, the dossier is an actual, physical and factual example of a foreign contribution to an American candidate for president in an attempt to influence an election. And it was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Those are facts which is why nobody needs to fall for them, because they are true and are a clear violation of Federal Election law. The problem is that you’re the one who’s “playing” a game and the rest of us of living in reality. Thanks for nothing!

          • Theonewhoknocks

            I’ll go ahead and believe the actual facts and evidence on this issue. You can go ahead and keep living a life of conspiracy. Thanks for playing kiddo

          • JoeSchmoe

            Every time someone puts facts in front of you that you don’t like you just blow it off and say thanks for playing. That’s why we know it’s just a game for you and that you should just leave the serious thinking to people with serious minds.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Sure thing kiddo. Keep striving to be both serious and smart. You should eventually accomplish one of those.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Your insults don’t hurt or bother me. As I have said before, they just show everyone else you have no good response and are wrong.

          • manapp99

            They obtained their information from Steele who obtained it from Russia. This is all been verified and on record. Surprised you didn’t know about it.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Agree to disagree.

          • manapp99

            You can disagree but that is the fact.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Not going to argue it with you. Have a nice day

        • kcmark

          A Law Firm representing Hillary and the DNC paid millions to a Russian intermediary (Fusion GPS) for information from the Russians.

          Hillary/DNC —

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Fusion GPS is an American company.

        • NoDependsLoseElection

          1. Hillary and DNC paid MILLIONS to a firm that paid MILLIONS to Fusion GPS to PAY Russians for lies.
          Do the math, kid….Watergate was less complicated than this.
          2. And that Russian met with Fusion GPS before and after that meeting, the same Fusion GPS paid for by Hillary to create the Russian Dossier.
          3. Hillary would have fired Comey and your side hated him until they loved him…

          • altster76

            This should make sense to him now.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            1. Partially true. They did pay for it. Russia had nothing to do with it though.
            2. “That Russian” had prior interactions withe Fusion years prior on a separate case. Do the math. It’s not hard.
            3. Guessing about what a fictional president would do is a waste of time. And I don’t have a side.

    • Name

      true

    • gda

      You guess right, they don’t.

      • Theonewhoknocks

        I guess you must be a deplorable too since you couldn’t figure out that statement. Try again

    • kcmark

      Yet you ignore the actual exchange of money between the Russians and the Clintons.

      • Theonewhoknocks

        Please provide proof of this “exchange of money” that is illegal

    • Bob

      Jr walked away from those meetings after seeing the ‘dirt’, and he said that nothing he was presented with in that meeting was credible. Clinton paid for a bag of dirt that is not credible. And you think Jr’s action are illicit? Wow.

      • Theonewhoknocks

        Yes I do. You are taking his explanations at face value when the actual evidence says otherwise. Not to mention the wikileaks tweets that further corroborate his collusion. The only thing you got correct was that Clinton partially paid for the dossier. Nothing illegal there.

        • Bob

          Don’t put to much confidence in those wikileaks tweets. Relying on the MSN will come back to bite you almost every time: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-selectively-edits-to-smear-wikileaks-65ecd7c2468f
          Clinton paid for the Dossier by hiding it behind her lawyer. Illegal.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Not sure what the MSN is. Regardless, they show clear conspiracy between Jr. and more than a mere coincidence with Trump himself, tweeting 15 minutes after Jr. was informed of a specific website. There is nothing illegal in what Clinton did. Please provide proof if you actually believe this.

          • Bob

            Sorry for the typo- MSM. What is the conspiracy? Trump Jr called the meeting inane, cause there was no ‘dirt’ on Clinton, but rather attempts to convince him of the merits of un-doing the Magnitsky Act, as was HC’s preference.

          • Theonewhoknocks

            Conspiracy in aiding and abetting a foreign agent. I’m not about to take this guys word for it. There has been nothing but a steady stream of lies from this entire admin. The walls are closing in though

          • Bob

            Ah well. We agree that the walls are closing in. We disagree about who they are closing around…. I would recommend you not bet on the outcome

          • Theonewhoknocks

            I would have no problem betting on this outcome. One of them is under investigation and the other is not.

          • Bob

            Yet. A number of Clinton investigations are being considered. Stay tuned.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Your opinions and accusations with zero credentials is really getting old. Please show what part of United States Code has been violated and proof. No more opinion and conjecture. Show me the code… USC XXXX Part XX

            You keep flinging around all kinds of official sounding crap like “aiding and abetting a foreign agent” but show me the Federal Code that supports your claims.

            Stop acting like an expert when you don’t actually know sheet.

          • JoeSchmoe

            Both the Clinton campaign and the DNC filed campaign finance reports listing all money paid to the law firm as legal services. At least some of that money was used to finance opposition research. Opposition research is a separate line of reporting on campaign finance forms and it is likely that reporting money spent on opposition research as being spent on legal services is a violation of campaign finance laws.

            It is also likely that the pass-thru of fund raising dollars from state DNC accounts up to the National DNC and on to HVF was additionally a violation of campaign finance laws.

    • NoDependsLoseElection

      hey sir what did the emails say….?

      • Theonewhoknocks

        Do your own research, sir

  • Miek D.

    “But doing so requires ignoring many interrelated facts already available in the public domain that make sense only in the context of the treasonous, un-democratic scheming of the Clinton campaign—first to deny Bernie Sanders a fair shot at the Democratic nomination, and then to deny the duly elected president his legitimacy.”

    I wouldn’t say that Clinton denied Bernie Sanders as fair shot at the Democratic nomination, although she did that too. More importantly she denied Democratic voters the right to choose their own Democratic nominee.

    • Matthew_Snow

      I think I remember people voting in the Democtatic primaries. How did Hillary prevent them voting for the person they preferred?

  • FVCKDEPLORABLES

    What a load of crap!

    • Joe White

      Hey, funny! You should go fvck yourself.

  • spunky2go

    LOL! Oh man, this article really made my day…complete laughter from a stupid bagger…thanks Calco for making me laugh.

  • DisgustedwithElitism

    BHO got it wrong about HRC; she was not perhaps the most qualified person to run for POTUS, she was the most corrupt person to ever seek the office.

    • Tech

      She wasn’t even close to being the most qualified….Eisenhower and George HW Bush were so far over her head that she couldn’t even see them. HRC was the most corrupt and incompetent political hack of my life time, and the poor fools who fawned over her scare the veegeebers out of me.

      • Kim

        Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a great New Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !da222d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyMediaUpdateWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da222luuu

  • TrustbutVerify

    Well done and illustrates the crux of the matter perfectly!

  • Nessie509

    The Congressional Hearings are meaningless. Mueller’s indictments so far serve two purposes:
    1. Diversion from Democratic Party antics in 2016.
    2. Stopping lobbyist folks in DC from selling out their country for big bucks.

  • birdonawire

    The constant cries of “but still no evidence of collusion” are laughable. Especially the DJT tweet 15 minutes after the Wikileaks email, plus the meeting at Trump Tower and the background facts of what Papadopoulos pled guilty to, are of course evidence of collusion. Price fixers often go to jail on the basis of much less. Maybe not conclusive. Maybe. But evidence of collusion? Absolutely.

    • odys

      Papdopoulas pleaded guilty to “lying to the FBI” which is the FBI’s “go to” charge when they can find no other guilt of any kind And Jr.s meeting was a complete set up, read the above article you are commenting on if you do not believe me.

      And this is not price fixing, look it up if you do not believe me.

      • birdonawire

        Price fixing and financial crimes also cover collusion.The threshold for establishing what the crime is and that a crime took place are similiar. So yes there is already plenty of evidence of collusion and intent to collude. DJT tweeting 15 minutes after Jr received a back channel communication from Wikileaks over twitter establishes his complicity.

        You can look that up.

        • manapp99

          “Price fixing and financial crimes also cover collusion”

          Did look that up. Could find nothing relevant to the Russian investigation. What else do you have?

    • gda

      Desperation for something, anything has made a fool out of you. You and the many others like you are the laughable ones. Keep hoping and praying that unicorns really do exist though.

    • Travvy

      Even if it happened?

      Collusion is not a Crime.

      At least, that’s what Alan Dershowitz, Johnathon Turley and CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin says.

      So, there’s that.

      Idiot.

      • birdonawire didn’t say collusion is a crime. He said people have gone to jail for price fixing based on less evidence than exists here. In any event, It isn’t a crime to find a wallet on the sidewalk, ignore the driver’s license, pocket the cash, and throw the wallet away. It isn’t a crime to cheat at your neighborhood poker game, in a pickup football game, on an algebra exam, or on your girlfriend. It’s not illegal to lie to your wife about where you were last night. That doesn’t make any of these actions right. Why is “it won’t land them in jail” the highest ethical/moral bar we should expect from our elected officials?

    • Bob

      you see what you want to see. Nothing in the litany you state is nefarious. Everything has a far less malevolent and reasonable interpretation. The same cannot be said for all the hide and seek machinations of the Clinton crime syndicate.

      • June 3, 2016: Trump Jr. receives an e-mail saying that a Russian lawyer wants to share information damaging to Clinton that had been developed by the Russian government as part of its effort to support Trump Sr.’s candidacy, to which Trump Jr. responds “I love it!” June 9, 2016: Trump Jr. and other senior members of the campaign meet with the Russian lawyer. July 29, 2016: A mere six weeks after he received an email that the Russian government wanted to help his father and met with a Russian lawyer he hoped would have dirt on Clinton, in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Trump Jr. professes to be outraged – outraged! – at the “disgusting” and “phony” suggestion the Russians might be trying to help the Trump campaign.

        To my eyes a couple of conclusions can be drawn from this: (1) Trump Jr. is dumb as a stump; (2) In July, 2016 he certainly thought he had been engaged in something nefarious a month earlier. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive.

        As for the Clintons: Yes, for 30 years, while under the harsh, relentless microscope of the press and their political rivals, both Democrat and Republican, they masterminded a criminal empire engaged in numberless crimes involving vast conspiracies, titanic graft, child prostitution, and outright murder. The fact that they haven’t been prosecuted for any of these is just further proof that for decades these monsters have had both houses of Congress, the White House, the FBI, the Justice Department, and scads of state law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors in their pocket.

        And we’re the ones who see want we want to see.

        • Bob

          Three conclusions can be drawn from your answer: 1) you are a NYT reporter, 2) you are paid to repeat false caricatures, 3) you are not a very good detective. Of course all three could operate concurrently. I have no horse in this race, being a Canadian, but I am watching and following events closely. You have missed a few important points re Jr’s meeting, but you probably know that, and would rather not discuss evidence which makes your theory null and void. And maybe you are right, and Jr’s is dumb. Dumb is not criminal, esp when said dumb person refused to bite on what was being offered.

          The bigger guffaw is the notion that Hilary is not criminally culpable. While no verdict (yet) has been reached, because no criminal trial has yet occurred, it beggars believe that one can excuse her actions in a multiplicity of incidents, all of which ought to leave no thinking person any doubt where the trail of bread crumbs lead. I will not here details that trail of bread crumbs. I do hope, however, that rule of law (upon which american greatness is built) will yet prevail.
          Here is where I expect that to lead: Trump exoneration, for no collusion exists, and Clinton imprisonment for multiple crimes.

          • P.S. – For what it’s worth, I’m American and for nearly a decade was a trial attorney (I’m still licensed, though no longer in private practice) and dare say my willingness to discuss the evidence and my commitment to and respect for the rule of law in America is at least equal to yours. In other words, I do have skin in the game as a concerned American. Consequently, I’m also confident I’m also watching and studying events every bit as closely as you

          • Bob

            Then i tip my hat to you even as i think you have not been as open as you ought to contrary evidence. I also have a law school degree.

          • Ah, a Brother at the Bar! Condolences on having had to suffer through Property and Trusts & Estates, too. This post was intended as an addendum to a primary post that keeps disappearing, so I’ll raise one of my points here: Did I get any facts wrong? What facts relating to the Trump Jr. meeting do you think I omit?

          • Bob

            I did see a post to that effect and replied. Mine is a masters degree in international law. Maybe cousins at the bar? I would buy you a beer however.

          • Nuts, this was supposed to be an addendum to my main response, which isn’t appearing. Hold, please…

          • Curses! You found me out! Which reminds me, I have to call my Times handler and demand about 20 years of back pay – with interest I should be rolling in it!

            As for being a good detective, what facts did I get wrong? You are free to take issue with the conclusions I draw, but Trump Jr. has confirmed all of the facts, including his motivation for taking the meeting, i.e. when it became apparent Veselnitskaya didn’t have anything harmful to Clinton he quickly ended it. If I omitted facts about the meeting you believe are relevant, please provide them.

          • It may surprise you, however, to hear that you and I do agree on one important thing: None of the evidence I’ve seen convinces me that Trump Sr. himself was involved with the Russians and it wouldn’t surprise me if, at the end of the day, Mueller comes back with “The President is clean on collusion.” (Obstruction of justice, on the other hand…)

            As for Hillary, until she’s actually indicted for one of the constellation of crimes of which she’s been accused over the decades, I’ll leave the Hillary-obsessed to their fevered dreams.

          • Bob

            Good luck with the back pay! Remember me when you get it…
            Fact one: Veselnitskaya wanted to present the case for repeal of the magnitski act, which Jr refused to consider. 2) Clinton also wanted this act repealed. 3) Ves. Worked for fusion, the org hired by the clinton campaign to create the steele dossier. 4) The Podesta lobbying group was hired to lobby for the repeal of this act. Conclusion: Clinton and the Russions shared the same goal. Is it criminal to walk away from a meeting and call it ‘inane’?

          • 1)This ignores the chronology and actually emphasizes my point. When Trump Jr., took the meeting he didn’t know that Veselnitskaya was going to talk about the Magnitsky Act. He took the meeting because he hoped Veselnitskaya could produce dirt on Clinton developed by the Russian government as part of its efforts to support his father’s candidacy. He only decided the meeting was “inane” when it became apparent she didn’t have any compromising information on Clinton. He has explained this on record several times.

            2) How is this relevant to why Trump Jr. took the meeting and what he hoped to gain from it?

            3) Where has this been established? The Fox article the author links to doesn’t claim this. Citation, please?

            4) How is this relevant to why Trump Jr. took the meeting or what he hoped to gain from it?

            I’m willing to entertain the possibility Clinton was also looking to collude, but even if it were true, that doesn’t make the simple chronology and Trump Jr.’s own statements about what he was looking for go away.

          • Bob

            If I am making your point, then it stands to reason you are agreeing with me. Very good. I have been drinking with some Syrian refugees, and while we did not talk about this, they agree with me too. I can tell. That’s four of us who agree that Trump did not collude with the Russians.

          • Respectfully: Huh? Did I really need to phrase it “You are inadvertently making my point for me”?

            Since you didn’t provide a source for your claim that Veselnitskaya worked for Fusion, I assume you don’t have one. I believe you are badly misconstruing the evidence that is undisputed. Of course, I assume you feel the same about me, so I suspect this discussion has reached the end of its productive life. Still, I thank you for the civil conversation. In that spirit, I’ll repeat something from one of my “disappeared” posts: The evidence thus far doesn’t convince me that Trump Sr. himself had improper contacts with the Russians, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mueller came back with “President Trump is in the clear on collusion.”

            Obstruction of Justice, on the other hand…

            Until our next exchange, all the best.

          • Bob
          • Just to close this loop: The N.Y. Post article you link to cites the Fox article, and says Simpson “was with” Velnitskaya at a Manhattan courtroom before the Trump Jr. meeting. That’s it. Nothing about whether they might have talked or what about. It doesn’t even mention what the proceeding was about. There certainly is no suggestion they were working together on anything.

            “Worked with” is too strong, too.

          • Bob

            A new morning, a sharp sword, and a fine interlocutor. A closed loop, or a tightening noose?
            So, Ves meets Glen Simpson, the director/founder of Fusion GPS of Steele dossier infamy, before her meeting with Trump Jr, and after. They were talking about… grand-kids? At the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya pushes for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, which Clinton, Podesta (and Manafort at the time period of the accusations against him) all were working to overthrow, as of course the Putin regime wanted, as it was a very serious hindrance to money flows. These are bread crumbs, not highways, but are far more suggestive of ill intent than Jr’s meeting with Ves. To mix metaphors, we have a smoking backyard BBQ at the Trump residence, and a plume of smoke which engulfs the house at the Clinton Mansion. The media, of course, calls for a five alarm fire response to the backyard BBQ, and calls the house engulfed not worthy of squirting with a waterhose. The momentum is gathering however: Clinton corruptions are getting greater traction, and the Trump collusion narrative is no longer tenable.

          • Bob

            Here is press report of those who were at the 30 minute meetings with Ves and Jr:

            Trump Jr. was joined on the campaign side by Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Veselnitskaya was joined by Goldstone, her translator Anatoli Samochornov, a business representative of the Agalarov family named Ike Kaveladze, and Rinat Akhmetshin, a former Soviet military intelligence officer who now works as a Washington, D.C. political operative.

            At the time of the Trump Tower meeting, Fusion’s Simpson was working with Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin on a project aimed at undermining the Magnitsky Act, which is opposed by the Kremlin because it blacklists Russians accused of human rights abuses.

            The trio were working for Denis Katsyv, a Russian businessman who faced repercussions from the sanctions bill. http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/07/fusion-gps-founder-met-with-russian-at-center-of-trump-tower-meeting

            Veselnitskaya working with/alongside Fusion.

          • Ok, I’ll give it one more shot, because it’s fun and I appreciate that the conversation hasn’t devolved into name-calling and insults, like so many others here. It’s a long one, so I beg your indulgence.

            I said before that I’m willing to consider the possibility that Clinton had improper contacts with the Russians. Why wouldn’t Putin try to work both sides, so he could compromise whoever was elected? But I don’t think the Veselnitskaya evidence gets anywhere close to establishing this. I’ll explain further, but in sum: Your conclusion rests on a couple of very large assumptions (remember Occam’s Razor?).

            My conclusion about Trump Jr. doesn’t rest on any assumptions at all, but you continue to refuse to engage the plain and simple evidence of Trump Jr.’s culpability. Note that I didn’t say “criminality,” because collusion isn’t a crime. Criminal analogies are helpful, though. Did you study the criminal law concept mens rea in your L.L.M. program? It’s roughly translated as “guilty mind.” For many crimes, to find a defendant guilty the jury must find he intended to do something he knew or should have known was wrong.

            The undisputed evidence is that Trump Jr. had a guilty mind. Trump Jr. intended to take a meeting with a woman he believed to be a “Russian government attorney” to get dirt on Hillary Clinton developed as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” This is in black and white, and is more than enough to establish Trump Jr. intended to do something he knew or should have known was wrong.

            But if any additional evidence is really needed: (1) He ended the meeting when he realized he wasn’t going to get the Russian-government-developed dirt he was looking for; and (2) when asked about the possibility that Russians were trying to help Trump, instead of saying “last month we received a communication stating the Russian government was trying to help my father, which we have forwarded to the F.B.I.,” he lied, and instead proclaimed the very suggestion was outrageous. Again, this evidence is undisputed, and leads to only one reasonable conclusion: He knew what he was trying to do was wrong.

            Even if Veselnetskaya intended something duplicitous or nefarious, that doesn’t negate any of this. Another analogy to crime is helpful. Are you old enough to remember ABSCAM? It was an F.B.I. sting operation in which agents posed as representatives of an Arabian company who wanted to bribe various government officials. Seven members of Congress were convicted. It was no defense that they thought they were dealing with Arab sheiks who wanted to bribe them but were in fact dealing with F.B.I. agents who wanted to nail them. They were taking bribes. The DeLorean case is helpful, too. He skated on a successful entrapment defense, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was trying to buy a mountain of coke. Donald Trump Jr. was (metaphorically) trying to buy a mountain of coke, and later lied about it. He had the requisite mens rea. He knew he was doing wrong.

            As for Veselnitskaya: Veselnitskaya and Clinton both opposed the Magnitsky Act. So what?
            Yes, it’s possible Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS were working together at the behest of the Clinton campaign. But without any evidence to this effect this is a huge assumption. There are no e-mails connecting Veselnetskaya to the Clinton campaign, there’s no paper trail, there’s no money trail, nothing you’ve cited even connects Katsyv or Akhmetshin to the Clinton campaign.
            Based on the available evidence it’s just as reasonable to conclude that because GPS obviously knows Russia and Russian issues, all sorts of people dealing with Russia regularly engage Fusion GPS, including unrelated entities that might both oppose the Magnitsky Act.
            Finally, I’d like to point out that there is only one degree of separation between the Trump campaign and Veselnitskaya, whereas there are three between Veselnitskaya and the Clinton campaign.

            I can see why the author of the piece urged us to jettison Occam’s Razor; it slices cleanly against Trump.

  • odys

    It is this simple:

    Russia’s economy is the same size as mexico’s, is half the size of Canada’s and Vlad gets 90% of his foreign earnings from oil and gas sales. So only an idjit would suggest that Vlad preferred the pro-oil and gas exporting Trump over the anti-fracking Hillary.

    Vlad will run out of money much faster with Trump as presdient.

    • Matthew_Snow

      Um.. Putin and his cronies are prevented from laundering their money overseas. That’s what they care about. Until that money is safely overseas, it’s at risk. It’s Trump that wants to get rid of sanctions.

    • Dave781

      Only an idiot would think that Trump is somehow going to reduce the world market price of oil and natural gas or that Hillary could have outlawed fracking even if she wanted to which she clearly didn’t.

  • Blackstone

    Thank you for connecting the dots, Mr. Calco. A lot of us subscribe to Malcolm Gladwell’s theory (“Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking”) and immediately (as soon as it was interjected into the national discourse) grasped this whole “Russia! Collusion!” narrative for what it was and is being revealed to be. What I’ve never understood, however, is that even granting liberal journalists their pet biases in favor of Clinton, why do they refuse to take the blinders off as all these irrefutable circumstantial facts have been coming to light but STILL insist on circling the wagons for her (sorry for mixed metaphor)? Surely they should have more of a vested interest in pursuing the professionalism of their craft than acting as the lowlife muckaking yellow presstitutes that they have proven themselves to be?

  • joe blow

    If you look deeper, you will see the hand of George Soros behind it all. Soros has Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate that he uses for blackmail and he is manipulating events to make another killing in the arbitrage markets. No one else is evil enough to contrive the “multi-layered criminal conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral victor, even if that meant destabilizing our entire political system.”

  • Corky

    I am open-minded to evidence of Hilary-related corruption. But here are two questions I can’t get beyond:
    1) speaking of occam’s razor: why didn’t HRC or Dems use the dossier in the campaign? I’m not buying it that HRC bought the dossier to get to a special pros, or to get the FBI to investigate Trump camp, Trump camp earned that on their own – Gen Flynn and Manafort were already filthy.
    2) Why is it that every time Trump’s ppl say something abt Russian influence on the election – they turn out to be wrong or lying?

    • JoeSchmoe

      @Corky 1) For the same reason they hired Fusion GPS through a lawyer. They knew it was illegal to pay foreign agents to produce the Dossier. Therefore, they needed Steele to push the Dossier himself so as to maintain the appearance that their hands were clean. He did pitch the dossier to the media before the election. They didn’t print it because they couldn’t verify it.
      2) Because Trump’s people are defining “influence” to “mean affected the outcome of the election” just like everybody else is interpreting it. And in that regard there is no proof of Russian influence affecting the outcome of the election.

      • Corky

        Ok, fair enough. But fusion GPS is an American firm, right? Founded by a wall st journal reporter. So why is buying an intelligence report from a DC based firm illegal? And although Steele is not american, there is no proof that the HRC camp interfaced with him, as opposed to FGPS only. Or maybe I missed that detail?? I dunno. On the second point ? Forget abt the word ‘influence’. I’ve heard, countless times, Trump, Trump jr., Manafort, Sessions, Pence, etc say there were absolutely NO contacts with Russians. Throw HRC in jail, I don’t mind, but are you saying Trump and his ppl have been telling the truth abt everything?

        • Travvy

          Ok, fair enough.

          Agreed.

          Now STFLUCKEUP.

          • Corky

            Oh, ok – STFLUCKEUP. That’s a good point. That hadn’t occurred to me.

        • JoeSchmoe

          So if it’s just opposition research from an American firm, why hide it and file false campaign finance reporting forms by hiring them through a law firm and calling it a legal services expenditure instead of what it really was? I’m sorry but if it smells like a rat…

          Secondly, I’m not saying that everyone is being truthful about things but in some cases they are responding to how things are being portrayed and taken by everyone and their response are being twisted into something else. And when I say that everyone is not being truthful, I mean both sides. Why else would Fussion GPS folks need to plead the 5th? Again something smells like a rat…

          • Sebastian Cremmington

            Obama was born in Kenya.

  • Paul52

    Well, we know that in 2016 the FBI was investigating both the Clinton and Trump camps.
    And we know that twice in 2016 the FBI spoke out about Clinton, once calling her “extremely reckless” and then, with two weeks to go in the campaign, saying it was reopening its investigation into her emails.
    And we know that through the campaign, and through the period where the Electoral College voted, indeed until March 2017, the FBI said nothing about what are at least two criminal issues related to the trump campaign (Russia & Turkey).

    So you think they were out to help Clinton because Occam’s Razor?

    Really?

    And, as to what Mueller is doing about Clinton, my suggestion is you read the document outlining the scope of his authority.

    • Travvy

      His MANDATE didn’t include looking at 10 year old Bank Records, and Picking the locks of Manafort’s House, before going in WITH GUNS DRAWN, in a pre-dawn raid.

      Idiot.

      • Paul52

        Nonsense.

      • Matthew_Snow

        It say, and I quote, that Mueller is authorized the investigate ‘any matters that arose or arise fro, the investigation.’ It not what you want it to say, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t say it. Facts please.

  • Matthew_Snow

    Trump calls our intelligence chief liars, and, when unscripted, that he believes Putin. Why might he be siding with a hostile power Whois actively trying to undermine our democracy? Might they have something on him? It’s the most logical explanation I can think of.

    • gda

      You obviously don’t have that “thinking” thing perfected yet.

      • Matthew_Snow

        Thinking gets you to that point. Rotely repeating the latest outrage from opinion sites is not thinking. It’s under investigation, so we are not sure yet, but what other logical explanation is for Trump to choose a murderous thug over our men who have served many presidents keeping our country safe? Doesn’t seem like a response is forthcoming.

        • gda

          Don’t you yearn for the days when the MSM let the POTUS do his job and didn’t interfere in his every attempt to manage foreign relations by second-guessing his every move?

          It’s obvious to any rational human being that we need to have better relations with Russia and that running around screaming and pointing fingers every time Trump talks with Putin is just bat-sh1t crazy.

          Of course people who still (ever) put any credence on the Russia, Russia, Russia collusion nonsense are not rational human beings. They are crazed ideologues – much like you.

          • Matthew_Snow

            There never was a time where the media didn’t ‘second guess’ the president. More importantly, Russia is actively and undeniably trying to subvert our democracy, Europe’s, and Ukraine’s. Not much different than the Cold War except it is with cash, technology and disinformation. Anyone them who supported Russia over the US was considered a traitor. Nothing has changed.

            And why is it so important to ‘get along with’ Russia, when it means we have to allow them to threaten our democracy to do that? We weed their support is Syria? Joke. Next. North Korea? Nope, if the Chinese couldn’t, the Russians don’t have a chance. But critical to that is that Putin won’t help us.. he’s been playing a Trump for a fool (or he has compromising if we ‘play nice’ with Putin, say by eliminating sanctions, and say ‘suckers’. He’s KGB. They are not our friends.

            For whatever reason Putin is Trumps puppet master, and we are likely to find out why.

          • gda

            There was only one puppet that Putin controlled, and she lost. Despite the best efforts of 3 investigations there still is zero evidence against Trump (because of course, there’s nothing there) and mounting evidence against Hil, yet you persist in your fantasy. Smacks of desperation, no? Understandable in another context I guess – once you are forced to give up your faith, whats left? I hear prescription pain-killers are an option for many…..

            Of course Trump and Putin could be conspiring secretly by cosmic rays or in some such fashion. Is that that how you get your information of Putin’s control of Trump?

            The dossier, the FBI informant, Uranium One. It’s all coming out and linking up. Time to start manufacturing a new narrative, doncha think?

            What about the Chinese? Trump manufactures ties etc. there, he’s very friendly with Xi. I’m sure you can take it from there.

          • Matthew_Snow

            Pretty much everything you stated is factually incorrect, drawn from clickbait sites intended to outrage by innuendo and flat out lies. Not worth pointing out all, clearly you don’t care about the truth, here’s one.

            UraniumOnes US production was 16 tons, that couldn’t be exported. Out of 64,000 tons worldwide. That’s why approval didn’t draw in cabinet members. Who cares? Why did Rostacom want UraniumOne then? Their Khazakatan operation was one of the worlds largest. Those are facts, not reported on right wing clickbait sites.. the truth would destroy their business.

          • gda

            When the FBI informant testifies your little fantasy world will get shattered.

            Surely you need to have a new narrative in place when that happens? China, China, China!

          • Matthew_Snow

            And again, unless you are in Muellers team, you have no idea what has been proven. Of what is known, most backs up what the dossier says.

    • manapp99

      He said that he believes that Putin believes it when he says he had nothing to do with the hacking. He did say he believes that Putin did not have anything to do with the hacks.

      The interesting question concerning the hack of the DNC server is why the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine the server they say was hacked. The next question is why the FBI did not insist.

      How many times have you seen the FBI or any law enforcement agency say something is definitive without examining the evidence?

      • Dave781

        You keep repeating that lie over and over and over and over again.

        If you see someone shot someone else on 5th Avenue and the victim falls over dead in a pool of blood, do you have to exam the dead body to find out who shot him? All you are going to find out from examining the body is that the person died from a gunshot wound which you knew already.

        And only an effing moron, in the immortal words of our SoS, could believe that the Russian security agencies would do any hacking without the knowledge of Putin who is himself an ex-KGB agent.

        • Bob

          Maybe you missed a news item: The DNC was not hacked. Data was downloaded, and taken out of the building on a memory device. Podesta was Phished. The RNC was subject to the same attacked, but they had better security protocol, or smarter people at the keyboard.

          • Dave781

            As a matter of fact I did miss that “news” item, mainly because it isn’t true.

          • Bob
          • Dave781

            Yeah, The Nation. That story is pure cr*p.

          • Bob

            Of course it is! the DNC says so!

          • Bob

            In fairness, the article raised the inside leak story as a strong possibility, not an established fact. It is more plausible than the alternatives however.

          • Dave781

            The alternative is that the FBI is telling the truth. I believe the FBI.

          • Bob

            Maybe Assange is telling the truth. Why did not the FBI get access to these hacked computers? Only Crowdstrike, a DNC service provider, was allowed access. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January, Comey testified that the FBI had been denied access to the servers by the DNC after repeated requests.

          • Dogbert1

            Did you also believe Lois Lerner?

      • Matthew_Snow

        If he believes Putin they he is not qualified to be president by a long shot. That’s pretty much all that matters. Anyone who think she that Putin has not been doing this in many countries for years should get out of the bubble and catch up on the news.

        • Bob

          You talking about Hillary? Reset button? I would prefer Trump at the table with Putin, as he did not sell USA strategic assets to Russia in exchange for money. Lots of money. And that while the FBI KNEW that Russia was bribing folks to get these assets. Not qualified is right.

    • Dogbert1

      Brennan, Clapper and now Comey along with Mueller are known liars.

      • Matthew_Snow

        Trump call them liars, sure. But then he calls anyone a liar who criticizes him (until he is under oath, like in the lawsuit against the reporter who said he wasn’t worth as much as he said.) But Congress, led by Republicans haven’t taken action for the, for lying under oath. Considering Trump the ‘truthteller’ as compared to those dedicated lifelong public servants is not only absurd, it’s promoting Putin’s agenda to undermine our democracy. Putin has created an army of ‘useful idiots’. He achieved his goal through Trump. And you wonder why Putin wanted Trump to be President?

        • Bob

          I don’t believe that the Russian Government wanted Trump to be president- they had a willing patsy in Clinton. In any event, Trump is not a Putin ‘useful idiot’. It takes a unique form of self-deception to swallow that particular MSM narrative. There is a deep state, and Trump is making some (slow) progress in draining that swamp, whose denizens will throw up all kinds of mud to obfuscate their complicity. That is the dedication of (some) lifetime public servants presently on display.

          • Matthew_Snow

            Riiiiight: Heres what they each said. Not too hard to figure out. All you need to do was is flatter Trump.

            Here’s Clinton, pre-campaign:

            In one of her last acts as secretary of state in early 2013, Hillary Clinton wrote a confidential memo to the White House on how to handle Vladimir Putin, the aggressive and newly reinstalled Russian president. Her bluntly worded advice: Snub him. “Don’t appear too eager to work together,” Clinton urged President Obama, according to her recollection of the note in her 2014 memoir. “Don’t flatter Putin with high-level attention. Decline his invitation for a presidential summit.”

            Heres Trump:
            “Putin said good things about me. He said, ‘he’s a leader and there’s no question about it, he’s a genius.’

          • Bob

            Was that before or after she agreed to allow Uranium one to pass to Kremlin Control? Obama signed into law the Mangitsky act, which froze some assets of the Putin regime after a high profile reporter was killed by Putin’s thugs. Hillary, and the Podesta lobbing org, opposed the legislation. The group the Clinton team hired to create the dossier, Fusion, included a woman lawyer working to undo those sanctions- the same woman who met with Trump Jr’, and whose offer of ‘dirt’ on Clinton he turned down (sting operation?). Seems like HC is serving Putin’s interests in these cases, no?

          • Bob

            Here is Clinton, writing in the WSJ in 2012, argueing for normalized relations with Russia: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303836404577475061208876588
            “By making Moscow a normal trading partner, Congress would create American jobs and advance human rights.”

  • Travvy

    “Based on these flimsy foundations, the post-election mantras that “Russia hacked our election,” and “our democracy is under attack by a hostile power,” repeated relentlessly by Clinton and her surrogates to explain her loss, and the illegal obstruction of justice committed by James Comey himself, fueled a myopic focus of “Russian collusion” accusations against the Trump campaign, and a carte blanche Les Miserables-style inquisition to discover all his supposed “ties” to, and interactions with, any and all things Russian.”

    Truth be told?

    The only HACKING, on Election Night, occurred when Jeh Johnson’s Homeland Security Agency was caught, RED HANDED, trying to HACK THE VOTING MACHINES in Georgia and Indiana.

    LOOK IT UP!

  • Clutchdriven

    Never trust a Democrat.

  • “[Occam’s Razor states that] in the absence of a clear explanation, the one that is the least implausible must be true.” Re-written to eliminate the double negative, the author’s position is that in the absence of a “clear explanation” (whatever that means), “the most plausible explanation must be true.”

    This is badly wrong, both on its face — plausibility is in the eye of the beholder and is a threshold for further inquiry, not the end point — and as a statement of Occam’s Razor. The Razor is a principle of parsimony, not logic or proof, which states that when choosing between competing hypotheses the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions should be favored. The author’s misunderstanding of this principle may explain why the rest of the article (to the extent it’s actually coherent, not a great extent) is mostly breathless rhetoric liberally peppered with stated and implied assumptions.

    That said I’ll offer my own simple, plausible assumption, based on a few very specific, undisputed facts:

    Fact: On June 3,2016, Donald Trump, Jr. received an e-mail stating that the Russian government supported his father’s candidacy and was engaged in efforts to help his campaign, specifically by providing dirt on Clinton. Trump Jr. responded “I love it!” and agreed to meet with the purported Russian dirt-peddler.

    Fact: On June 9, 2016, Trump Jr. and two other high-ranking members of the Trump campaign met with the Russian lawyer Trump Jr. believed/hoped had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    Fact: On July 29, 2016, a mere six weeks after he received an email that the Russian government wanted to help his father and met with a Russian lawyer he hoped would have dirt on Clinton, in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Trump Jr. dials up the self-righteousness and sanctimony to eleven, proclaiming that the very suggestion the Russians might be helping his dad was “disgusting” and “phony.” In the coming months, Manafort, Kushner, and others in the campaign will offer similar high-dudgeon denials regarding contacts with Russians, which they will repeatedly have to walk back, clarify, etc. as the evidence proves these denials were false.

    Assumption: Trump Jr. et al. are lying sacks of s*** who knew the Russians were pro-Trump and were eager to work with them. (We’d also accept the assumption “Trump Jr. is dumb as a stump.” Of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive.)

  • wheretonow

    The mediaocracy underestimated how much their influence has waned since the Clinton presidency. They thought the only reason they failed to take Bush 43 out was Dan Rather’s brainless overreach, but the truth is, they just don’t have the power anymore. They ran out of gas trying to take down Trump and he was probably the worst guy they could have chosen to have that happen.

  • SouthOhioGipper

    Problem is that it worked. It really worked. Trump is despised so badly, considered so illegitimate, that leftwing people who normally don’t come out and vote are fired up and coming out in record numbers.

    The GOP won’t cooperate with him, for fear that something might come out. Tax evasion, money laundering from 20 years ago. Who knows?

    The only real progress American conservatism has made is in firing thousands of Progressive bureaucrats and reshaping the judiciary.

    Well have to hope that is enough.

    • Trump’s popularity will quickly turn around when we have 4% growth over several quarters, a tax cut that puts dollars in people’s pockets, and repeal of an absolutely reprehensible health care law that stifles new hires.
      Trump’s popularity will skyrocket if he can drain the infamous Swamp and significantly reduce government spending.
      His style may be disconcerting, but it will be his results that truly matter.

      • SouthOhioGipper

        I”m not so sure. Honestly I think that socailism has won a critical mass of support in America and Trump is probably the last truly capitalist President we’re going to have. From here on out, America will become less capitalist, and less free in certain critical ways.

        I read an interesting article about gun control. It asked the question. What if the Government DOESN’T send a jack boot to your house to confiscate your firearms, but instead freezes all your bank accounts and assets until you comply and turn them in?

        That is the sort of power the Government has now. It doesn’t need to send a jackboot thug out for you to shoot. It can merely screw your life up in a million little annoying ways that, when added together, really screw up your life.

  • Lets all go to Saudi Arabia

    It is impossible to “hack” an American election.

  • Left Coaster

    Trump is not supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    The GOP will pay the price.

    • JohnnyClams

      The vast majority of Americans want the NSA, nhe FBI, and the DNC controlled by the Clintons to pick their presidents, right? So much easier!

    • altster76

      Trump is not supported by the Democrats, the D.C. Establishment, Hollywood, the Intelligence agencies, the mainstream media, etc. The only group standing strong behind Trump is the voters.

  • In his conclusion the author better defines Occam’s Razor and admits the Trump Collusion story satisfies the Razor better than the Clinton Collusion story does. Nevertheless, the author asks us to ignore Occam’s Razor and instead accept a much more “complicated” yet undeniable story told by the “many interrelated facts.” (One wonders why he brought up Occam’s Razor in the first place.)

    Here is my attempt to list all of the relatively-undisputed facts relevant to the Mueller Russia investigation the author cites in this piece (as opposed to assumptions, argument, rank speculation, subjective or pejorative characterizations, insinuations, etc.):

    Paragraph 1: There was a presidential election in 2016

    Paragraph 2: None

    Paragraph 3: None

    Paragraph 4: Some of Mueller’s legal team have donated to Democrats.

    Paragraph 5: None

    Paragraph 6: Opposition research, including by GPS Fusion, was conducted on Trump.

    Paragraph 7: None

    Paragraph 8: None

    Paragraph 9: John Le Carre and Robert Ludlum wrote spy novels (o.k., not relevant, but they are a lot of fun!).

    Paragraph 10: None

    Paragraph 11: None

    Paragraph 12: None

    Paragraph 13: Trump asked the Russians to find Clinton’s e-mails (though I agree this was tongue-in-cheek).

    Paragraph 14: None

    Paragraph 15: Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate have been indicted. Campaign advisor George Papadapolous has pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with Russians during the campaign. To date there is no evidence that President Trump himself directly colluded with Russians.*

    Paragraph 16: None

    Paragraph 17: None**

    Paragraph 18: Perkins Coie did channel funds for some of Fusion’s opposition research into Trump.

    Paragraph 19: Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer whom he hoped would provide damaging information on Clinton developed by the Russian government as part of its purported effort to support his father’s candidacy. Veselnitskaya and Simpson were present at the same court hearing before the meeting with Trump Jr.. They also “were together after the Trump Tower meeting,” whatever that means, according to an unidentified Fox News source.***

    Paragraph 20: None

    Paragraph 21: None

    Paragraph 22: None****

    Paragraph 23: None*****

    Paragraph 24: None

    Paragraph 25: None

    Paragraph 26: None

    Paragraph 27: None

    Paragraph 28: None

    Paragraph 29: None

    Good god, what a mountain of facts. The scales sure have fallen from my eyes.

    *Whether other campaign members violated any statutes is a legal question I doubt either the author or I are fit to answer. What I can say is that the author neatly side-steps the question whether there is evidence to support the conclusion that other campaign members colluded with the Russians, and instead re-frames it as whether any statutes were violated. The super-duper technical term for this is “moving the goalposts.”

    **I’m not sure why the author thinks it’s important to point out that Obama’s middle name is “Hussein,” though I think I have my suspicions.

    ***Really, that’s all the Fox article to which the author links says about Veselnitskaya and Simpson’s contacts.

    ****I mean it – None. The Uranium One “scandal” is, in the immortal words of Colonel Sherman T. Potter, “moose muffins!” No evidence HC was directly involved in approving the deal, eight agencies besides State had to approve it, profit from the deal went to Canadian seller, no evidence Hillary was ever paid a dime by the Foundation (which the author tacitly admits), $140M of the $145M was donated by a single guy who had divested from Uranium One years before HC became SoS, none of the uranium could ever have left the United States, etc., etc etc. More to the point of this article, there is zero evidence the Uranium One deal is connected in any way with the 2016 elections.

    *****See previous note re: “moose muffins.”

  • olderwiser

    It won’t be over till the Clinton’s and Obamas are in prison.

  • Max Flasher

    The inability to transition to a new government after an election is a classic sign of a failed state. Is America now a failed state?

    We obviously have huge groups of people in this society who lack a common reality. We’re basically incomprehensible to each other. We no longer have the capacity to communicate. How can such a severely fragmented society remain intact?

    I’ve lived in Chicago all my life and have never met a white supremacist yet according to the left, white supremacists are everywhere, even in the White House where a White Supremacist Nazi has been installed by Putin.

    I consider the left insane and the left considers people like me to be deplorably evil racists who simply must be stopped. Time will tell what fate has in store for us. Hopefully fate will be kind to us and somehow spare us from the abyss.

  • Dunboy

    A real special prosecutor would be the only way to dig up this quagmire. But as Donna Brazile said, any one who took the job would need some serious body-guarding…

  • Cjones1

    The Democrats have only hanging chads of integrity and sanity remaining. They would destroy the country in a civil war to prevent Trump from having a successful administration.

  • Tech

    My greatest concern is all the vermin will still walk, and it looks more like that daily, especially after this article.

  • NoDependsLoseElection

    When REAL Historians look at the disaster of the Hussein Obama years, they will collectively look to his appointment of The Cuckold as evidence that he was personally weak, publicly fickle and overall incompetent. he brought her in to quiet Bill and all she did was ruin what little accomplishments he made.
    Worst mistake of a myriad of mistakes Obama made…sorry, its the truth.

  • Peta Johnson

    Well written and transparently correct.

  • [I tried to post a version of this earlier, but it was flagged as spam. (This seems to happen to me more often on Conservative sites, though I’m sure Hillary is behind it somehow.) Apologies for any duplication.]

    The author offers several different and conflicting definitions of Occam’s Razor, but ultimately acknowledges that applying the Razor favors the hypothesis that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Nevertheless, he asks us to ignore Occam’s Razor and instead accept a much more “complicated” story told by the “many interrelated facts.” (One has to wonder why he brought up Occam’s Razor in the first place.)

    Here is my attempt to list all of the relatively-undisputed facts relevant to the Mueller Russia investigation the author identifies in this piece (as opposed to assumptions, argument, rank speculation, subjective or pejorative characterizations, hyperbole, insinuations, etc.):

    Paragraph 1: There was a presidential election in 2016
    Paragraph 2: None
    Paragraph 3: None
    Paragraph 4: Some members of Mueller’s team have donated to Democrats.
    Paragraph 5: None
    Paragraph 6: Opposition research, including by GPS Fusion, was conducted on Trump.
    Paragraph 7: None
    Paragraph 8: None
    Paragraph 9: John Le Carre and Robert Ludlum wrote spy novels (o.k., not relevant, but they are a lot of fun!).
    Paragraph 10: None
    Paragraph 11: None
    Paragraph 12: None
    Paragraph 13: Trump asked the Russians to find Clinton’s e-mails.
    Paragraph 14: None
    Paragraph 15: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and his associate have been indicted for crimes against the United States. Trump campaign advisor George Papadapolous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians during the campaign. To date there is no evidence that President Trump himself colluded with Russians.*
    Paragraph 16: None
    Paragraph 17: None**
    Paragraph 18: Perkins Coie channeled funds for some of Fusion’s opposition research into Trump.
    Paragraph 19: Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer whom he hoped would provide damaging information on Clinton developed by the Russian government as part of its effort to support his father’s candidacy.
    Paragraph 19: Veselnitskaya and Simpson were present at the same court hearing before the meeting with Trump Jr. The Fox article the author cites doesn’t report that they came or left together, sat together, or even spoke to each other. The Fox article also quotes an unidentified source that they also “were together after the Trump Tower meeting,” whatever that means.
    Paragraph 20: None
    Paragraph 21: None
    Paragraph 22: NONE***
    Paragraph 23: None****
    Paragraph 24: None
    Paragraph 25: None
    Paragraph 26: None
    Paragraph 27: None
    Paragraph 28: None
    Paragraph 29: None

    Good god, what a mountain of facts. The scales sure have fallen from my eyes. It’s always been Hillary. Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! [ad infinitum]

    *Whether other campaign members violated any statutes is a legal question I doubt either the author or I are fit to answer. What I can say is that the author neatly side-steps the question of whether there is evidence to support the conclusion campaign members other than Trump himself colluded with the Russians, and instead re-frames it as whether any statutes were violated. The super-duper technical term for this is “moving the goalposts.” (Or is it “hiding the ball”?)

    **I’m not sure why the author thinks it’s important to point out that Obama’s middle name is “Hussein,” though I think I can guess.

    ***I mean it, NONE. The Hillary Obsessed will waste their last apoplectic breaths on the Uranium One “scandal,” but in the immortal words of Colonel Sherman T. Potter, the scandal is “moose muffins!” No evidence HC was directly involved in approving the deal, eight agencies besides State had to approve it, profit from the deal went to Canadian seller, no evidence Hillary was ever paid a dime by the Foundation (which means the very worst thing she can be accused of is raising tons of money for charity), $140M of the $145M was donated by a single guy who had divested from Uranium One years before HC became SoS, none of the uranium could ever have left the United States, etc., etc etc. More to the point of this post, it’s irrelevant: there is zero actual evidence the Uranium One deal is connected in any way with the 2016 elections.

    ****See previous note re: “moose muffins.”

  • During A.G. Session’s most recent appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) displayed a chart purportedly outlining the latest Clinton Conspiracy, in an effort to persuade Sessions to have the DoJ investigate Clinton et al. The chart is a tangle of unexplained connections, missing logical connections, duplicate entries, and unsupported inferences. In short, it’s a bananas mess that Gohmert basically held up and said “See?!?!” It was one of the most hilarious and terrifying things to happen in Congress in recent memory (perhaps topped only by Gohmert himself, when he tossed a snowball on the Floor to disprove climate change).

    This article and its defenses are the print equivalent of Gohmert’s chart.

  • Oops, sorry, Gohmert didn’t toss the snowball. That was James Inhofe (R-Okla.). My bad.

  • (1 of 3)

    I’ve spent a lot of ink below trying to lay out in detail why the Trump-Russia Conspiracy is far more plausible than the Clinton-Russia Conspiracy (thanks Bob!). But leave it to Jordan Klepper to suggest a much, much simpler way to make the point.

    I can’t post an image here, but the following is a rough approximation of the Clinton-Russia Conspiracy flowchart Louie Gohmert introduced in the House the other day:

    ISIS Intelligence Scandal–Obama DoD Fast & Furious URANIUM ONE
    I I
    I I
    Michele Flournoy—— I I
    I—– OBAMA FBI —Mueller—Clinton Foundation—
    James Clapper———I I—- Benghazi – ERIC HOLDER, AG,
    I—- Rosenstein
    I——- Obama—–
    Susan Rice————————————————————-I–Hillary Clinton

    RUSSIA—–Vadim Mikeri——- Obama again for some reason

    I Obama again, for some reason

    RUSSIA—————–I I

    I

    I

    Susan Rice again, for some reason

  • (2 of 3)

    This is the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Flowchart:

    Trump——->Russia

  • (3 of 3)

    Gohmert’s chart is a Rorshach Test, Klepper’s is True/False. It’s pretty clear which side is seeing what it wants to see.