“The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.’ Sort of a double negative,” Trump told reporters. “So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.”In other words, Donald Trump wants you to believe that what he meant to say was the exact opposite of what he actually said.
OK, let's give the man the benefit of the doubt. It's a high-pressure situation. He's old and has no stamina. The difference between "would" and "wouldn't" isn't all that big (except for, like, being antonyms, but why split hairs?)
So now he accepts that Russia might have interfered with the 2016 election.
So, um, what about the witch hunt?
Remember the witch hunt? Donald Trump has been tirelessly flogging two mantras since the day Robert Mueller was appointed in the wake of Trump's firing of James Comey: 1) there was no collusion between the campaign and the Russians, in no small measure because 2) the whole investigation was a witch hunt. There is nothing for Mueller to find, no wrong doing of any sort by any party. The whole investigation should be shut down with all deliberate speed.
I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place.That is a major concession. That is an acknowledgement that the investigation was not a "witch hunt", that we really were attacked by a foreign power. So does that mean that Trump is contrite for having made such an egregious mistake? Does that mean that he is now going to take the Russians to task for attacking us? Hell no.
"Could be other people also. A lot of people out there,” Trump said, reading mostly off a sheet of paper, before a meeting with Republican members of Congress at the White House.And of course, there is still Mantra #1:
“There was no collusion at all,” he added, dismissing the notion that his campaign coordinated with Moscow in 2016.So let's take stock. The President of the United States has now acknowledged that:
1. We were in fact attacked by Russia, and that therefore...
2. He was wrong when he repeatedly called the Mueller investigation a witch hunt. However...
3. He has not yet explicitly acknowledged #2. In fact, to the contrary, he is still trying to deflect attention away from Russia by suggesting on no evidence whatsoever that it "could be other people."
And yet, he still expects us to take him at his word that there was "no collusion" between the campaign and Russia. You know what? It's a moot point. There is open collaboration between the Trump administration and Russia!
Imagine if Hillary or Obama had done what Trump is doing.
The “Witch hunt” is the “collusion” accusation—and the witch hunt is still on.
The other activities — buying social media, organizing protests, and attempted penetration of political parties and voting machines — has been know for quite a while. The Mueller indictments are essentially indicting Russian spies for . . . spying on behalf of Russia. What a stunning discovery by the Mueller team.
> The “Witch hunt” is the “collusion” accusation
Then why are Trump and his supporters calling for the entire investigation to be shut down?
For that matter, what makes you think that Mueller is even investigating collusion? There hasn't been any collusion accusation from Mueller.
> The Mueller indictments are essentially indicting Russian spies for . . . spying on behalf of Russia.
That used to be considered a serious offense. (They actually did more than spy, by the way. They actively interfered in the election.)
Oh, and what you are referring to is just the most recent round of indictments. Have you forgotten Michael Flynn? George Papadopulous? Paul Manfort? Rick Gates? Some of them have actually pleaded guilty.
It's hard to sustain a charge of witch-huntery when people are actually pleading guilty to committing crimes.
>> The “Witch hunt” is the “collusion” accusation
>Then why are Trump and his supporters calling for the entire investigation to be shut down?
Because . . . there was no collusion.
It's a ludicris lie started by the democrats.
>For that matter, what makes you think that Mueller is even investigating collusion? There hasn't been any collusion accusation from Mueller.
Bloomberg: Robert Mueller To Zero In On Donald Trump-Russia Collusion Allegations | Hardball | MSNBC
>> The Mueller indictments are essentially indicting Russian spies for . . . spying on behalf of Russia.
>That used to be considered a serious offense. (They actually did more than spy, by the way. They actively interfered in the election.)
Yeah, their social media purchases received 58K views. Pathetic.
Rebecca Black received 30 million views her first time out.
They did get Michael Moore to march in an anti-Trump rally.
An anti-Trump rally? 58K social media views? What powerful enemies.
>Oh, and what you are referring to is just the most recent round of indictments. Have you forgotten Michael Flynn? George Papadopulous? Paul Manfort? Rick Gates? Some of them have actually pleaded guilty.
Yeah, General Michael Flynn was pressured into pleading guilty to "lying to the FBI."
Curiously, though, James Comey told lawmakers under oath that Flynn did not lie.
How did Flynn get charged with lying toh the FBI, then?
McCabe altered Strzok's 302 reports and deleted all the history of revisions.
What Real Collusion Looks Like
Take a look at this secret document.
You may wish the view the full text here.
> there was no collusion
That remains to be seen. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence on the record now that there was. (BTW, "collusion" is a red herring. The special counsel appointment letter says nothing about "collusion". Mueller's mandate is to investigate "links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump". There is a *lot* of evidence that there were "links and/or coordination" between the campaign and the Russians.)
But that doesn't answer my question: *even if* there was no collusion, there is now no question that the Russians did interfere in the election (and did so to help Trump). *That* is an attack on our country. What justifies shutting down *that* part of the investigation?
The only explanation I can see for Trump to compromise the integrity of the nation in this way is that he has a skeleton in his closet that he doesn't want found. (Could it be hidden in his tax returns?)
> It's a ludicris lie started by the democrats.
No, the "collusion" red herring was started by Trump. And the "links and/or coordination" mandate is the core of the special counsel's mandate, which was written by Rod Rosenstein, who is a Republican.
Post a Comment