Russia ‘Collusion’ Story Is Blowing Up Like the Hindenburg

[GURPS]

It is delicious to see, even more suddenly and completely than anyone had anticipated, the breakdown of the steamroller media smear of Donald Trump. A trinitarian deus ex machina descended.

The Washington Post, struggling desperately in its discomfort, a few days ahead of the information being forcibly extracted by congressional subpoenas, acknowledged that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee had paid for the assembly of the Steele dossier.

This rotten fish of lies and gossip was universally regarded at first as rubbish so scurrilous no one would publish it for months until Buzzfeed, the bottom of the web barrel, took it up, which emboldened the flounder skimming the bottom, CNN, to present it as a major triumph of journalistic enterprise and to popularize it.

Carl Bernstein, one of America’s most Pulitzer-laden mythmakers, was exhumed to pronounce it an important document.

Finally, after everything else had led nowhere, bloodthirsty Trumpophobes like the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sens. Burr and Warner, acknowledged that Steele was all they could go on, and they could not get at its sources because of the intervention of special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, preventing FBI officials from testifying before Congress.



Conrad Black: Russia ‘Collusion’ Story Is Blowing Up Like the Hindenburg

 

[SamSpade]

I have to say that it seems strange that - for some reason - meeting very briefly on the off-chance that a Russian lawyer who actually was just about adoptions was able to secure dirt on your opponent - THAT is terrible and tantamount to treason;
BUT -
ACTUALLY digging up and creating a dossier with Russians, paying them off, making deals and working with a former British intelligence agent in order to produce dirt on your opponent -

That gets a "so what"?

 

[PsyOps]

I have to say that it seems strange that - for some reason - meeting very briefly on the off-chance that a Russian lawyer who actually was just about adoptions was able to secure dirt on your opponent - THAT is terrible and tantamount to treason;
BUT -
ACTUALLY digging up and creating a dossier with Russians, paying them off, making deals and working with a former British intelligence agent in order to produce dirt on your opponent -

That gets a "so what"?

What else are democrats going to do, say "yeah, we admit it, Hillary's actions in collusion with the Russians is criminal and needs to be prosecuted"? Come on man! We're dealing with some of the most dishonest - no... CORRUPT - people on this earth.

 

[GURPS]

Green baldly aped the vast-right-wing conspiracy language Hillary used to first deny the Lewinsky scandal. He said the important story is who backed the journalism, not whether it was true or false. In 1998, Hillary said "The great story here for anyone willing to find it and write about and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Dishonest Clintonistas cry "old news" like Donald Trump cries "fake news." It doesn't matter that there's new news. They just pretend it never emerged. Green doesn't acknowledge that the 2015 New York Times story drew only three minutes on the TV newscasts -- which can't compare to the 1,000 minutes these network evening newscasts have given this year on Trump/Russia.

GREEN: The purpose of the story as Bannon tells me in the book was to impugn Clinton's character, which it did, and what's interesting is it's coming up now at the very point at which Russia has become a problem for Donald Trump and by Congressional Republicans surfacing this now, I think it muddies the water and draws attention away from Trump.​

CNN's Paul Begala, Joshua Green Use Clinton Playbook in Denying Uranium Scandal

 

[This_person]

I have to say that it seems strange that - for some reason - meeting very briefly on the off-chance that a Russian lawyer who actually was just about adoptions was able to secure dirt on your opponent - THAT is terrible and tantamount to treason;
BUT -
ACTUALLY digging up and creating a dossier with Russians, paying them off, making deals and working with a former British intelligence agent in order to produce dirt on your opponent -

That gets a "so what"?

The “dirt” on Trump, though, was pure fabrication. Makes it a great deal different.

 

[Midnightrider]

What else are democrats going to do, say "yeah, we admit it, Hillary's actions in collusion with the Russians is criminal and needs to be prosecuted"? Come on man! We're dealing with some of the most dishonest - no... CORRUPT - people on this earth.

I don’t know what Democrats say, but I’ll say appoint a SC and investigate that ####. If they did something illegal prosecute them all. Which begs the question, what the #### is trump waiting for? If she/they really did what trump and fox say they did why hasn’t trump appointed a prosecutor?

 

[Hijinx]

I don’t know what Democrats say, but I’ll say appoint a SC and investigate that ####. If they did something illegal prosecute them all. Which begs the question, what the #### is trump waiting for? If she/they really did what trump and fox say they did why hasn’t trump appointed a prosecutor?

First it isn't Trumps job to appoint a prosecutor and second , despite your asking why he doesn't --if he did you would be on him like stink on sh1t.

 

[Midnightrider]

First it isn't Trumps job to appoint a prosecutor and second , despite your asking why he doesn't --if he did you would be on him like stink on sh1t.

Actually it is his duty, he took an oath. Same with sessions. If they have evidence Hillary and her people did something illegal they are duty bound to prosecute her.

 

[Ken King]

I don’t know what Democrats say, but I’ll say appoint a SC and investigate that ####. If they did something illegal prosecute them all. Which begs the question, what the #### is trump waiting for? If she/they really did what trump and fox say they did why hasn’t trump appointed a prosecutor?

Why another SC? Mueller was appointed "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election", wouldn't actions by Dems, as well as Reps, be covered under that charter?

 

[Hijinx]

Why another SC? Mueller was appointed "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election", wouldn't actions by Dems, as well as Reps, be covered under that charter?

I would agree that it is covered, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Mueller to "Git 'er done" as the saying goes.

 

[Ken King]

I would agree that it is covered, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Mueller to "Git 'er done" as the saying goes.

Ask Tony Podesta, I'm sure he is experiencing some severe sphincter shrinkage.

 

[Midnightrider]

Why another SC? Mueller was appointed "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election", wouldn't actions by Dems, as well as Reps, be covered under that charter?

I thought we were talking about the uranium one deal and other BS trump is always harping on. Mueller can certainly go after her if he finds she colluded with the Russians to interfere in the election.

 

[nutz]

Actually it is his duty, he took an oath. Same with sessions. If they have evidence Hillary and her people did something illegal they are duty bound to prosecute her.

Without worrying about statute of limitations, he may be waiting for an nth hour reelection extravaganza.

 

[This_person]

I thought we were talking about the uranium one deal and other BS trump is always harping on. Mueller can certainly go after her if he finds she colluded with the Russians to interfere in the election.

It is implicated that he is heavily involved in that arrangement. It makes as much sense to have him go after her for that as it did to have Comey go after her for her e-mail...they're involved in the eventual crime, so they'll surely clear her of any crime.

 

[This_person]

Actually it is his duty, he took an oath. Same with sessions. If they have evidence Hillary and her people did something illegal they are duty bound to prosecute her.

We can agree that Sessions is failing in his duty to prosecute her.

We've already been told by Director Comey:

[T]here is evidence that [Secretary Clinton or her colleagues] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail.

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

So, according to the subordinate agency to Sessions, Clinton is guilty of a crime. Regardless of the FBI's recommendation to do something about it or not, it is Sessions' responsibility to charge. He has not. The fact that she committed the crime is not really in dispute, and was extensively investigated by Comey's FBI, and this was his official, to the public statement about it.

So, we can agree Sessions is failing in his duties to prosecute a criminal.

 

[Midnightrider]

Without worrying about statute of limitations, he may be waiting for an nth hour reelection extravaganza.

In other words ‘lock her up’ is just a campaign stunt. :shrug:

 

[Ken King]

I thought we were talking about the uranium one deal and other BS trump is always harping on. Mueller can certainly go after her if he finds she colluded with the Russians to interfere in the election.

Mueller's charter has the nice little catch all phrase "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation", so he can pretty much go in any direction he wants beyond what is being alleged as collusion in the who paid for the dossier. But back to your initial thought, do you think we need another SC and if so why since one is already in place?

 

[officeguy]

We can agree that Sessions is failing in his duty to prosecute her.

We've already been told by Director Comey:

So, according to the subordinate agency to Sessions, Clinton is guilty of a crime. Regardless of the FBI's recommendation to do something about it or not, it is Sessions' responsibility to charge. He has not. The fact that she committed the crime is not really in dispute, and was extensively investigated by Comey's FBI, and this was his official, to the public statement about it.

So, we can agree Sessions is failing in his duties to prosecute a criminal.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

 

[This_person]

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Sadly, you are stating reality, whereas I was stating design.

 

[Midnightrider]

Mueller's charter has the nice little catch all phrase "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation", so he can pretty much go in any direction he wants beyond what is being alleged as collusion in the who paid for the dossier. But back to your initial thought, do you think we need another SC and if so why since one is already in place?

If there is any truth to what fox and trump are saying, yes we need another one. I see nothing that connects the U one deal with the election. I’m not sure how muller gets from here to there. Appointing a separate SC would ensure that it was investigated AND it would take muller out of the loop, which would be important because trump and fox are suggesting that muller is somehow complicit.