5
5
0
"Nothing will come of the indictments because the indictments were not designed reveal the truth or bring the accused to justice. They were written to shape public perceptions and to persuade the American people that Trump cheated in the elections and that Russia poses a serious threat to US national security. The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and disinformation. The real target is the American people."
Did Trump cut a deal on the “collusion” charge?
Posted from unz.com
FBI
Election 2016
Russia
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Well, if they can't get an indictment, the Left will create the illusion of "a deal". Is anyone surprised?
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
If this guy is who I found when I looked him up, he's a landscape architect with a side gig as a freelance writer (and a contributor on a book scandalizing Obama). He also writes for Alternet. Too many non-facts to go into here, but a few: The author isn't a lawyer, so he doesn't know if they have legal merit. They are carefully worded so as to not convey disinformation or sway public perception, but only what they know. He's probably not even read them. Mueller (an R) is not a left-wing nut going after the Trump campaign, he's a special prosecutor appointed by the R's. He's probably as bi-partisan as we would get. We don't know who all he's interviewed, and we aren't supposed to know. The indictments are actually good that right out of the gate, they say what most of us already knew: Russia did interfere or attempted to interfere, and I resent his defense of the Russians in his article. No where does Mueller attempt to smear Trump, nor indicate his campaign was knowingly involved. The author seems to be indicating DT has made some kind of deal to hurt the Russians to keep himself out of it, and I think that's disingenuous toward the POTUS at this point. I know he's a freelance writer and got paid for this, but I think these part-time "journalists" who have their own axe to grind and no accountability helps sow disinformation and discord. I think I will write him and tell him so. Not that he will care, since I'm sure a paycheck was what he was after.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Susan Foster
SSG Diane R. - I did read about that. I can't say I'd call something that happened 40 years ago, when he was very junior, evidence of not being bipartisan. I didn't find anything from any trustworthy source that said otherwise. I am sure there is no one who is totally partisan--he's a registered R. But as far as working across both parties, I think he's as close as we could get. His background is so boring because of that. Here's an article that gives the broad brush. Comey was an R hero until he was fired, especially in Oct before the election when he came out with more Hillary emails. The fact that later it was said they didn't contain anything didn't matter--the damage was done. The R's were ecstatic. He only became the devil later because he didn't recommend prosecuting her and leaked a memo on what had transpired to protect himself. I had to put myself in his shoes (although I was not a Comey fan at the time): He was a longtime career agent who swore an oath to the Constitution, not to the President. He felt he was being pressured to do something unethical. He made notes and protected himself. If I were him at the time, I would have done the same thing. He was totally loyal to the POTUS and said nothing until he was fired, and I have no doubt had he not been fired, he would have continued to do so. I will promise you big bucks that 97% of the FBI are R's too. And everyone left is someone hired by this administration. So does that mean Mueller loves the POTUS? No, I have no way of knowing. And he shouldn't. His oath is not to him. But he's got a job to do, he's an R so there is loyalty there, he's under a microscope for fairness, he keeps his head down and he fired the people he caught saying something that sounded partisan (the emails and messages from the 2 having an affair). He went after campaign members and Russia, not the POTUS. I'm hoping what he's found is all he will find and I trust it is. But I must say the longer the POTUS tweets about it and pushes back, and refuses to condemn Russia, the more worried I get. I would never believe anything from those alternative publications without checking them out with pubs that have journalistic standards, look up the author to see their leaning, etc. When CNN screws up they have to admit it publicly and get called out on it. So what they write leans far to the left, but it cannot be a lie (and when they did, those guys got fired), unlike some of these with a wanna-be journalist with their own website. How long before they get you in their systems, and you can start feeling like a real VA employee? https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582358540/muellers-reputation-in-washington-is-stunningly-bipartisan-journalist-says
Mueller's Reputation In Washington Is 'Stunningly Bipartisan,' Journalist Says
Author Garrett Graff discusses the special counsel in charge of the Trump/Russia investigation: "Bob Mueller is probably about as apolitical and nonpartisan a figure as you could find in Washington."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google