That’s all there is, and that’s all, folks

0 4,376

“Is that all there is? Is that all there is? If that’s all there is my friends, then let’s keep dancing.”

No collusion, no collusion, no collusion. The report just confirmed what crooked FBI agent Peter Strzok told his paramour two years ago, that when it comes to the Russian collusion delusion, there is no big there there.

The Mueller report doesn’t just speak for itself, it repeats itself, over and over again. Take, for example, the phrase “the investigation did not establish.”

That phrase appears 19 times.

Carter Page, the original patsy: “The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government.”

Computer hacking, on page 76: “The investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved….”

Here’s a few more: “The evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference…. The investigation did not establish any agreement among campaign officials to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function…. The investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated with the Russian government…. The investigation did not establish that these efforts reflected or constituted coordination…. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination….”

And so forth. All the big “bombshells” turned out to be duds. The walls weren’t closing in on Trump, the noose wasn’t tightening.

There was no “collusion,” and as for obstruction of justice, why does the president of the United States have to “attempt” to obstruct the investigation when he could have just fired Mueller and his 13 (or is it 18?) angry Democrats?

But it does appear that Trump was angry… about being investigated for crimes he didn’t commit. Imagine that! Apparently, complaining to your aides that some bent feds are trying to frame you is now considered… obstruction of justice.

Actually, what Trump was engaged in was obstruction of injustice.

Suppose you were a mayor, and the police chief of your city publicly announced that you, the mayor, had robbed a bank. You know you did nothing of the sort, and when you check out the story, you find out that the bank in question wasn’t even robbed.

But it also turns out the police chief had in fact gotten some of his pals to case the joint, you know, kind of like Hillary hired some Democrat smear outfit to fabricate the fake dossier with help from the same Russians Trump was accused of “colluding” with.

So you, the mayor, privately mention to your chief of staff that you might just fire the police chief for trying to frame you, and the chief goes out and holds a press conference to say that if he’s canned, it will be obstruction of justice of his ongoing investigation of the bank robbery that never happened.

In America isn’t a defendant considered innocent until proven guilty? And the alleged perp has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

At the end of every press release from the Department of Justice about indictments, the feds always mention that you’re innocent until proven guilty. It just seems like the right thing to say.

Unless you’re the president apparently. Mueller huffs and puffs that he couldn’t “exonerate” Trump on obstruction. That’s not your job, G-man. You indict or you pack up and go on to the next case. And I also thought that if a prosecutor wasn’t filing charges, he wasn’t supposed to say anything.

At least that’s what I’ve been told, most recently in the case of Gov. Baker’s son, A.J. His groping case seems to have been broomed, but the feds won’t admit it. Departmental policy, you know. You only go public if you indict.  Except of course for Donald Trump.

Mueller also complained that the president’s answers were “inadequate.”  Inadequate to whom? Whatever the Democrats call it now, the president was the target of a criminal investigation, a frame-up as we always knew and have now confirmed, but a criminal investigation nonetheless.

The only “adequate” answers for Mueller’s angry Democrats would have been perjury.

Trump was also slammed for saying in his written answers that he didn’t recall 30-odd times. Of course, when crooked cop James Comey to the best of his recollection couldn’t recall 245 or so times under oath – nothing to see here folks, move along.

Is that all there is?

Yes Peggy, that’s all there is. But the best thing is, after all is said and done, as hard as the Democrats all try to put a shine on this dirty sneaker, Hillary Clinton is still not the president of the United States. And she never will be.

That’s all there is.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

WordPress Lightbox Plugin