Capital idea! King Donald. Got to keep the investigations going or the people won’t be distracted enough and might notice Trump is running the country into the ground.
Mueller submits report to AG Barr
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
Capital idea! King Donald. Got to keep the investigations going or the people won’t be distracted enough and might notice Trump is running the country into the ground.
Somehow I doubt it.
While non-Lefties are mercilessly... even fraudulently... attacked, Lefty/Dems usually are "given a pass", regardless.
Mr. Binary strikes again. Another all or none scenario.
No, we certainly do not need to do an investigation every time one does not result in charges.
We do, however, need to do an investigation every time that there is probable cause to believe that said investigation was launched based on uncorroborated evidence from a political opponent and when warrants were obtained by foisting a fraud upon the courts. Also, extra scrutiny required when the former Acting FBI Director involved in the case was fired for perjury. Extra look-see required.
And, thus, it will never end.
Expect democrats to poke similar holes and we will never move on.
Trump dossier, Michael Flynn testimony, Michael Cohen in Prague: Stories that fell flat during Mueller probe
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...a-stories-that-fell-flat-during-mueller-probe
Countless “scoops” and “bombshell” reports have rocked Washington and the country during the 675 days of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
Now, in the wake of Attorney General William Barr’s letter stating Mueller did not establish evidence that President Trump's team or any associates of the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 election, some of those pumped-up headlines are left looking a little flat.
The Washington Examiner compiled a list of stories from ABC News, Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, CNN, The Guardian and McClatchy that the outlet says now “look like busts.”
The stories critiqued by the outlet were published between January 10, 2017 and January 17, 2019, the first of which was related to the now-infamous Trump dossier.
At the time, CNN reported President Obama and then-President-elect Trump were presented classified documents claiming Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information” on Trump. BuzzFeed would later publish the dossier in its entirety.
The unverified dossier was authored by ex-British spy Christopher Steele.
“Proving the central claims of the dossier about Russian collusion, as well as its more salacious elements, remains incomplete to this day,” the Examiner’s Jerry Dunleavy wrote.
The Examiner also singled-out an ABC News story from December 2017 that claimed one-time national security adviser Michael Flynn was set to testify “that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians” during the campaign. It was later revealed Flynn reached out to the Russians shortly after the election, and ABC News issued an apology.
The Washington outlet also pointed out a McClatchy report from April 2018 claiming President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen “made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to two sources familiar with the matter.”
In February this year, Cohen testified before the House Oversight Committee that he’s never been to Prague.
“Have you ever been to Prague?” Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., asked Cohen.
“I’ve never been to Prague,” Cohen replied. “I’ve never been to the Czech Republic.”
The constant push over the past few years of the unsubstantiated claim that President Trump and his campaign staff conspired with Russia is going to bring about a “day of reckoning… like we haven’t seen since the 2016 election," media reporter Joe Concha said Monday morning.
“Throughout these last 22 months, gossip was treated as gospel,” Concha told "Fox & Friends". “Sources providing information to reporters all too willing to accept it, like seagulls at the beach."
Concha also lamented how The Washington Post and the New York Times “won Pulitzers for their reporting on Russian collusion.”
“The Post’s revelations about Russia, including contacts between Russian figures and President Trump’s associates and advisers, helped set the stage for the special counsel’s ongoing investigation of the administration,” it wrote.
Concha added that for all the time spent pushing unsubstantiated claims of collusion, the media could have better invested their resources elsewhere.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...a-stories-that-fell-flat-during-mueller-probe
Countless “scoops” and “bombshell” reports have rocked Washington and the country during the 675 days of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
Now, in the wake of Attorney General William Barr’s letter stating Mueller did not establish evidence that President Trump's team or any associates of the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 election, some of those pumped-up headlines are left looking a little flat.
The Washington Examiner compiled a list of stories from ABC News, Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, CNN, The Guardian and McClatchy that the outlet says now “look like busts.”
The stories critiqued by the outlet were published between January 10, 2017 and January 17, 2019, the first of which was related to the now-infamous Trump dossier.
At the time, CNN reported President Obama and then-President-elect Trump were presented classified documents claiming Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information” on Trump. BuzzFeed would later publish the dossier in its entirety.
The unverified dossier was authored by ex-British spy Christopher Steele.
“Proving the central claims of the dossier about Russian collusion, as well as its more salacious elements, remains incomplete to this day,” the Examiner’s Jerry Dunleavy wrote.
The Examiner also singled-out an ABC News story from December 2017 that claimed one-time national security adviser Michael Flynn was set to testify “that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians” during the campaign. It was later revealed Flynn reached out to the Russians shortly after the election, and ABC News issued an apology.
The Washington outlet also pointed out a McClatchy report from April 2018 claiming President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen “made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to two sources familiar with the matter.”
In February this year, Cohen testified before the House Oversight Committee that he’s never been to Prague.
“Have you ever been to Prague?” Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., asked Cohen.
“I’ve never been to Prague,” Cohen replied. “I’ve never been to the Czech Republic.”
The constant push over the past few years of the unsubstantiated claim that President Trump and his campaign staff conspired with Russia is going to bring about a “day of reckoning… like we haven’t seen since the 2016 election," media reporter Joe Concha said Monday morning.
“Throughout these last 22 months, gossip was treated as gospel,” Concha told "Fox & Friends". “Sources providing information to reporters all too willing to accept it, like seagulls at the beach."
Concha also lamented how The Washington Post and the New York Times “won Pulitzers for their reporting on Russian collusion.”
“The Post’s revelations about Russia, including contacts between Russian figures and President Trump’s associates and advisers, helped set the stage for the special counsel’s ongoing investigation of the administration,” it wrote.
Concha added that for all the time spent pushing unsubstantiated claims of collusion, the media could have better invested their resources elsewhere.
Oh I see. You want the investigation to end with Trump and not go over into your camp.
And what about all the investigation of fib/doj misconduct/crimes. You want that to all come to a screeching halt because it does not get trump impeached?
Good luck wit dat.
Clinton Foundation investigation is in progress too even though kept quiet. Witnesses continue to report that they have been interviewed.
From the WALL STREET JOURNAL
US media froths over red herring as real story ignoredHOLMAN W. JENKINS
US Attorney-General William Barr arrives at his home in McLean, Virginia, yesterday as he weighs how much of the Mueller inquiry will be disclosed. Picture: AP
While Washington sizzles over news that the Mueller report is now in the hands of Attorney-General William Barr, it pays to remember the other big intrigue from the 2016 election. You won’t hear me arguing it was ever realistic that Hillary Clinton might be charged for email-related crimes. It was even less likely when her opponent became Donald Trump. Still, the inner workings of the project of finessing Clinton’s email vulnerability should be especially resonant now.
The man who deliberately sought the Mueller investigation, then FBI director James Comey, was key to that finessing and also had every reason to want to change the subject from his own role in the 2016 race. And we know that the same small circle of FBI headquarters personnel who worked on the Clinton investigation also gave birth to the Trump investigation that would be handed over to special counsel Robert Mueller.
So what have we learned that’s new? In just the past few weeks, the release of a congressional interview with FBI lawyer Lisa Page revealed two ways the FBI tried unsuccessfully to resist attempts by the Obama administration to influence its questioning of Clinton.
We also know, thanks to a combination of press reporting and public disclosure, that Comey himself possessed what appeared to be direct evidence, from a Russian source, of a scheme to fix the Clinton investigation involving Obama attorney-general Loretta Lynch. What also seems clear from the public record, including the public report of the Justice Department’s own inspector-general, is that the FBI had little interest in finding out if the information was true, false or a Russian plant.
Instead Comey, as he told us himself, seized on it as a justification for his protocol-busting intrusion into the Clinton case to convince the American people that the investigation was not fixed.
Robert Muller arrives at work in Washington last week. Picture: AP
His first intervention led to his second intervention, in some ways the weirdest, in which Comey reopened the Clinton case just before election day, believing Clinton was certain to win. Now pollsters tell us this action may have inadvertently tilted the race to Trump.
The press is not interested in this story, thanks in no small part to the Mueller-Russia distraction.
The Mueller report itself is not likely to say anything about any of this, though it represents the most consequential if indirect way Russian intelligence activities influenced the election.
The Justice Department’s own inspector-general, Michael Horowitz, author of a secret report on these matters, told congress that it was not his decision to classify the information at “such a high level”. “We very much want the committee to see this information,” he testified. His comment has gone virtually unreported in the US media.
This is not the place to trace how the Steele dossier begat the Mueller investigation, but it clearly did, as well as the previous FBI “counter-intelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign, which Mueller inherited.
Because the dossier spells the names of some of Trump’s associates correctly, to this day some in the press insist on writing that “many of the allegations in the Steele dossier have been corroborated”. They haven’t been. The dossier remains one of the biggest red herrings in American history, a thing that had no provenance that the US press should have respected. Whether by accident or design, it has occluded this more important story.
The US media continues to obsess over a document any nine-year-old with Google and an inkjet printer could have created. Yet the press has no interest in a secret government report that details how a piece of dubious Russian intelligence was used by the FBI to meddle ineptly in a US presidential election.
At this late hour, reporters even now cling to the hope that Mueller will validate the improbable Steele allegations.
Our language casually refers to the “news media”, but many in the media wouldn’t know news if it bit them in the rear end. That’s not their job. To them, the “story” is whatever the social animals in their milieu say it is, even if it rests on something as fundamentally flimsy and anonymous as the Steele dossier (notice even its putative author has no interest in making the rounds to defend his work).
I am not alleging partisan bias here, partly because portraying Trump’s victory as a fluke occasioned by the actions of Comey fits neither side’s preferred narrative. I am alleging a media groupthink that has many reporters falling-down drunk with credulity for the Steele allegations even as the real story passes them by.
Let’s hope once the Mueller red herring has been reeled in, the press will start doing its job again and get to the bottom of the FBI’s deranged actions in the 2016 race.
The Wall Street Journal
US media froths over red herring as real story ignoredHOLMAN W. JENKINS
US Attorney-General William Barr arrives at his home in McLean, Virginia, yesterday as he weighs how much of the Mueller inquiry will be disclosed. Picture: AP
- THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
- 12:00AM MARCH 25, 2019
- 10
While Washington sizzles over news that the Mueller report is now in the hands of Attorney-General William Barr, it pays to remember the other big intrigue from the 2016 election. You won’t hear me arguing it was ever realistic that Hillary Clinton might be charged for email-related crimes. It was even less likely when her opponent became Donald Trump. Still, the inner workings of the project of finessing Clinton’s email vulnerability should be especially resonant now.
The man who deliberately sought the Mueller investigation, then FBI director James Comey, was key to that finessing and also had every reason to want to change the subject from his own role in the 2016 race. And we know that the same small circle of FBI headquarters personnel who worked on the Clinton investigation also gave birth to the Trump investigation that would be handed over to special counsel Robert Mueller.
So what have we learned that’s new? In just the past few weeks, the release of a congressional interview with FBI lawyer Lisa Page revealed two ways the FBI tried unsuccessfully to resist attempts by the Obama administration to influence its questioning of Clinton.
We also know, thanks to a combination of press reporting and public disclosure, that Comey himself possessed what appeared to be direct evidence, from a Russian source, of a scheme to fix the Clinton investigation involving Obama attorney-general Loretta Lynch. What also seems clear from the public record, including the public report of the Justice Department’s own inspector-general, is that the FBI had little interest in finding out if the information was true, false or a Russian plant.
Instead Comey, as he told us himself, seized on it as a justification for his protocol-busting intrusion into the Clinton case to convince the American people that the investigation was not fixed.
Robert Muller arrives at work in Washington last week. Picture: AP
His first intervention led to his second intervention, in some ways the weirdest, in which Comey reopened the Clinton case just before election day, believing Clinton was certain to win. Now pollsters tell us this action may have inadvertently tilted the race to Trump.
The press is not interested in this story, thanks in no small part to the Mueller-Russia distraction.
The Mueller report itself is not likely to say anything about any of this, though it represents the most consequential if indirect way Russian intelligence activities influenced the election.
The Justice Department’s own inspector-general, Michael Horowitz, author of a secret report on these matters, told congress that it was not his decision to classify the information at “such a high level”. “We very much want the committee to see this information,” he testified. His comment has gone virtually unreported in the US media.
This is not the place to trace how the Steele dossier begat the Mueller investigation, but it clearly did, as well as the previous FBI “counter-intelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign, which Mueller inherited.
Because the dossier spells the names of some of Trump’s associates correctly, to this day some in the press insist on writing that “many of the allegations in the Steele dossier have been corroborated”. They haven’t been. The dossier remains one of the biggest red herrings in American history, a thing that had no provenance that the US press should have respected. Whether by accident or design, it has occluded this more important story.
The US media continues to obsess over a document any nine-year-old with Google and an inkjet printer could have created. Yet the press has no interest in a secret government report that details how a piece of dubious Russian intelligence was used by the FBI to meddle ineptly in a US presidential election.
At this late hour, reporters even now cling to the hope that Mueller will validate the improbable Steele allegations.
Our language casually refers to the “news media”, but many in the media wouldn’t know news if it bit them in the rear end. That’s not their job. To them, the “story” is whatever the social animals in their milieu say it is, even if it rests on something as fundamentally flimsy and anonymous as the Steele dossier (notice even its putative author has no interest in making the rounds to defend his work).
I am not alleging partisan bias here, partly because portraying Trump’s victory as a fluke occasioned by the actions of Comey fits neither side’s preferred narrative. I am alleging a media groupthink that has many reporters falling-down drunk with credulity for the Steele allegations even as the real story passes them by.
Let’s hope once the Mueller red herring has been reeled in, the press will start doing its job again and get to the bottom of the FBI’s deranged actions in the 2016 race.
The Wall Street Journal
From the WALL STREET JOURNAL
US media froths over red herring as real story ignoredHOLMAN W. JENKINS
US Attorney-General William Barr arrives at his home in McLean, Virginia, yesterday as he weighs how much of the Mueller inquiry will be disclosed. Picture: AP
While Washington sizzles over news that the Mueller report is now in the hands of Attorney-General William Barr, it pays to remember the other big intrigue from the 2016 election. You won’t hear me arguing it was ever realistic that Hillary Clinton might be charged for email-related crimes. It was even less likely when her opponent became Donald Trump. Still, the inner workings of the project of finessing Clinton’s email vulnerability should be especially resonant now.
- THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
- 12:00AM MARCH 25, 2019
- 10
The man who deliberately sought the Mueller investigation, then FBI director James Comey, was key to that finessing and also had every reason to want to change the subject from his own role in the 2016 race. And we know that the same small circle of FBI headquarters personnel who worked on the Clinton investigation also gave birth to the Trump investigation that would be handed over to special counsel Robert Mueller.
So what have we learned that’s new? In just the past few weeks, the release of a congressional interview with FBI lawyer Lisa Page revealed two ways the FBI tried unsuccessfully to resist attempts by the Obama administration to influence its questioning of Clinton.
We also know, thanks to a combination of press reporting and public disclosure, that Comey himself possessed what appeared to be direct evidence, from a Russian source, of a scheme to fix the Clinton investigation involving Obama attorney-general Loretta Lynch. What also seems clear from the public record, including the public report of the Justice Department’s own inspector-general, is that the FBI had little interest in finding out if the information was true, false or a Russian plant.
Instead Comey, as he told us himself, seized on it as a justification for his protocol-busting intrusion into the Clinton case to convince the American people that the investigation was not fixed.
Robert Muller arrives at work in Washington last week. Picture: AP
His first intervention led to his second intervention, in some ways the weirdest, in which Comey reopened the Clinton case just before election day, believing Clinton was certain to win. Now pollsters tell us this action may have inadvertently tilted the race to Trump.
The press is not interested in this story, thanks in no small part to the Mueller-Russia distraction.
The Mueller report itself is not likely to say anything about any of this, though it represents the most consequential if indirect way Russian intelligence activities influenced the election.
The Justice Department’s own inspector-general, Michael Horowitz, author of a secret report on these matters, told congress that it was not his decision to classify the information at “such a high level”. “We very much want the committee to see this information,” he testified. His comment has gone virtually unreported in the US media.
This is not the place to trace how the Steele dossier begat the Mueller investigation, but it clearly did, as well as the previous FBI “counter-intelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign, which Mueller inherited.
Because the dossier spells the names of some of Trump’s associates correctly, to this day some in the press insist on writing that “many of the allegations in the Steele dossier have been corroborated”. They haven’t been. The dossier remains one of the biggest red herrings in American history, a thing that had no provenance that the US press should have respected. Whether by accident or design, it has occluded this more important story.
The US media continues to obsess over a document any nine-year-old with Google and an inkjet printer could have created. Yet the press has no interest in a secret government report that details how a piece of dubious Russian intelligence was used by the FBI to meddle ineptly in a US presidential election.
At this late hour, reporters even now cling to the hope that Mueller will validate the improbable Steele allegations.
Our language casually refers to the “news media”, but many in the media wouldn’t know news if it bit them in the rear end. That’s not their job. To them, the “story” is whatever the social animals in their milieu say it is, even if it rests on something as fundamentally flimsy and anonymous as the Steele dossier (notice even its putative author has no interest in making the rounds to defend his work).
I am not alleging partisan bias here, partly because portraying Trump’s victory as a fluke occasioned by the actions of Comey fits neither side’s preferred narrative. I am alleging a media groupthink that has many reporters falling-down drunk with credulity for the Steele allegations even as the real story passes them by.
Let’s hope once the Mueller red herring has been reeled in, the press will start doing its job again and get to the bottom of the FBI’s deranged actions in the 2016 race.
The Wall Street Journal
Lot to unpack there.
Guess we will just have to appoint a special prosecutor to look at it.
Let the investigation run 2 years, 6 years, whatever. No one is above the law.
