Per today’s WSJ: “Special Counsel Mueller has dispatched the Russia collusion theories to the land of cranks and bitter-enders, but there are still some loose ends. To wit, how did the partisan propaganda known as the Steele dossier become the basis for an unprecedented FBI probe of a presidential campaign, an abuse of law enforcement, and two years of media and political hysteria?” Yes, the next phase will be pay-back to — not Trump — but to the criminals who started this nightmare.
Barr’s silly little letter purporting to summarize the extremely lengthy Mueller Report reminded me of the old Woody Allen joke: “I’ve learned to speed read, and I just finished ‘War and Peace.’ It involves Russia.” (An unintended bonus joke in this instance!)
Barr’s summary is not the report itself. Okay, speaking as an INDEPENDENT:
Given the bases of several convictions and confessions there were attempts at collusion (which is itself a crime) by multiple members of the campaign, and at least one (Manafort) was in a situation in which his laundered money and tax scam could be held over him by the Russians and Russian allies who helped him do it (which is why the trial about his finances was held first).
Now some might say that despite multiple attempts at collusion that the campaign would not have done it if the opportunity arose. To that my response is “Huh? Then why so many people spending time trying?”.
The current interesting questions are these:
Is an employer responsible for the actions of his employees that were taken for his campaign, business, mob, drug cartel, whichever-type-of-entity when they were employees with whom he met?
If an employer (or mob boss if someone then uses it as a precedent) is not responsible for the actions of those he employs then is it collusion if he attempts to obstruct them talking about their own crimes, or is it obstruction only if he himself is charged with the crimes that were related to the obstruction attempts no matter how public those attempts were?
We might soon get courts creating some strange precedents which might be expanded in defenses by drug lords, CEOs of companies which endanger employees or pollute badly, and heads of mobs.
NeoconMan about 5 years ago
The Mueller investigation was illegal and a disgrace, and we accept and respect all their findings.
newyorkslim about 5 years ago
Per today’s WSJ: “Special Counsel Mueller has dispatched the Russia collusion theories to the land of cranks and bitter-enders, but there are still some loose ends. To wit, how did the partisan propaganda known as the Steele dossier become the basis for an unprecedented FBI probe of a presidential campaign, an abuse of law enforcement, and two years of media and political hysteria?” Yes, the next phase will be pay-back to — not Trump — but to the criminals who started this nightmare.
brwydave Premium Member about 5 years ago
Watch out Tiny, the fuze is still smoldering. Duds sometimes explode right in your face.
streetbeater about 5 years ago
So true! Cartoon of the day!
jvscanlan Premium Member about 5 years ago
Steve Bannon: They’ll get Trump for money laundering
Godfreydaniel about 5 years ago
Barr’s silly little letter purporting to summarize the extremely lengthy Mueller Report reminded me of the old Woody Allen joke: “I’ve learned to speed read, and I just finished ‘War and Peace.’ It involves Russia.” (An unintended bonus joke in this instance!)
wiatr about 5 years ago
Thank heavens it isn’t being done by the Illinois AG. tRump would still get off.
Dtroutma about 5 years ago
Don’t need a bomb when lots of folks are out there with quite sufficient small arms.
SukieCrandall Premium Member about 5 years ago
Barr’s summary is not the report itself. Okay, speaking as an INDEPENDENT:
Given the bases of several convictions and confessions there were attempts at collusion (which is itself a crime) by multiple members of the campaign, and at least one (Manafort) was in a situation in which his laundered money and tax scam could be held over him by the Russians and Russian allies who helped him do it (which is why the trial about his finances was held first).
Now some might say that despite multiple attempts at collusion that the campaign would not have done it if the opportunity arose. To that my response is “Huh? Then why so many people spending time trying?”.
The current interesting questions are these:
Is an employer responsible for the actions of his employees that were taken for his campaign, business, mob, drug cartel, whichever-type-of-entity when they were employees with whom he met?
If an employer (or mob boss if someone then uses it as a precedent) is not responsible for the actions of those he employs then is it collusion if he attempts to obstruct them talking about their own crimes, or is it obstruction only if he himself is charged with the crimes that were related to the obstruction attempts no matter how public those attempts were?
We might soon get courts creating some strange precedents which might be expanded in defenses by drug lords, CEOs of companies which endanger employees or pollute badly, and heads of mobs.