![]() ![]() © 2023 NYP Holdings, Inc.Rachel Maddow lost to a dozen Fox News programs in the key category, (Photo by Virginia Sherwood/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images)Īfter referring to the prior Durham indictment of Democratic attorney Michael Sussmann "weird" and "problematic," Maddow insisted the indictment of Danchenko offers an "unmistakable impression" that it is "designed to smear Christopher Steele's intelligence reports as things that were deliberately made up and concocted by rascally Democrats." The Steele Dossier was bunk based on nothing but speculative gossip among a “researcher” and his pals. Recent months have brought an avalanche of revelations wrecking every major prop of the RussiaGate claims. ![]() Out the door went the normal rules of journalism and justice, as insiders leaked “scoop” after empty scoop to eagerly gullible “news” outlets - only for all of it to evaporate on contact with reality. The newly released memo reveals that the whole investigation was utterly weaponized against Trump: Mueller’s minions came up empty-handed, yet still tried to paint him as a crook.Īll part and parcel of the overall RussiaGate insanity, where democracy, we were told, was at stake. And that delay, too, fed the “Barr coverup” hysteria. Mueller’s staff delivered their report to Barr (contrary to his request) in such a way that he couldn’t immediately release it to the public he had to have his staff take days to redact various confidential information. Then-Attorney General Bill Barr duly announced as much, and was pilloried by the Trump-hating press as covering for Orange Man.ĭems hold their ears as Durham exposes FBI’s partisan corruptionĭurham hearing shows Democrats don’t care about democracy after allįarewell, FBI: The bureau I once knew and loved is gone And that’s basically what the 2019 memo said: Mueller’s minions not only didn’t have evidence to support obstruction charges, but “certain of the conduct examined by the Special Counsel could not, as a matter of law, support an obstruction charge” - meaning they were trying to treat completely legal Trump actions as obstruction. In other words, they couldn’t prove a negative (not that they wanted to). It was evident he’d simply served as a figurehead for the partisan Democrats who actually did the investigation - which, he admitted, found zero serious evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.īut he still hedged, saying that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.” When Mueller finally testified publicly about his findings, he turned out to be sadly diminished from his salad days, enormously challenged in even explaining the work he’d supposedly supervised for nearly two years. Dems’ war on ex-President Donald Trump is without precedent ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |