Posted on 07/27/2019 4:41:01 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks reacted to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress by stating that “There was no collusion” and this “makes it much less likely that we move forward with an impeachment process.”
Brooks said, “Russian interference, he certainly made that case very compellingly. … There was no collusion. And I think the headline on that front is that it makes it much less likely that we move forward with an impeachment process. There are still people in the House who are sort of angling in that direction. And there’s been a lot of fantasy that we’d get what they call a Deus ex Mueller, a hidden hand to remove Donald Trump. But it’s looking much more likely that’s going to be the work of the election.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The fantasy created by the MSM and the DEMS is stunning. It truly is something out of Orwell and Kafka. Scary.
Except for a HUGE difference.
We get to vote and Trump will win easily.
And my gut tells me Barr is gonna bust up some monopolies.
Hmm. And who might this "we" be, Bob?
A compelling case for Russian interference? I have yet to see a scrap of proof. Only the word of the people who spy on Americans, and launched a coup attempt.
Completely made up
Oops! I meant Dave! ... But I’m sure Bob is in this “we” somewhere.
One of the two major candidates and her spouse took money from the Russians. One of the two major candidates used a foreign intelligence source to inject a fictional document into the campaign. Yes, there was all sorts of fordign collusion in 2016 but it was all by Hillary Clinton.
FUDB !
Fake phony “Conservative”
Sane Democrats like Brooks know that if there is no there there, they should not go there.
I question whether Brooks has it half right, there was clearly no collusion but I question whether the extent of Russian interference is, if not also a fantasy, at least a gross exaggeration?
We know that the claim that all intelligence agencies agreed on the interference had to be retracted. That the DNC computer was never examined by the FBI. That no voting machines were hacked. The allegations of meddling seemed to revolve mostly around social media. Social media?
I found the firm conclusion by Muller in the hearing asserting extensive Russian interference to be of dubious credibility because it seemed to be unsupported. Did I miss something? Is he asserting that there is technical surveillance of Russian activities which confirm Russian interference and confirms it to have been done at great extent?
Why should we believe anything Muller, James Comey, Brendan, Clapper or any of the rest of this gang profess? Have the data been laid out? Please advise if I have missed them.
The “collusion delusion” lives on.
Trust the gut. 8>)
It’s certainly big enough to trust :)
Telling, isn't it?
That makes 2 of us. We both must have wives who are good cooks. 8>)
You forgot the Concord LLC case. The judge ordered the prosecutors about making the claim that Russia, (the country), paid for and controlled the troll farms, (Concord), which has not been alleged in the indictments.
This has been a farce. There has never been any credible proof that Russia, (the county), was behind any attempts to sow discord in our election and NEVER any proof that Russia hacked, (maybe), the DNC computer/s.
Being a glutton for punishment I read the hearing that the Judge in the Russia case had. He found that the Mueller prosecution team had violated Federal procedure by making a long string of accusations and characterizations in the press.
One of the most amusing ones is that the head of Concord Consulting is “Putin’s chef”. There defense attorney said that Putin has dined several times at a restaurant his client owns, but that is client is not a chef, and in fact “can not cook”.
He also pointed out that the basis for the false claim was a New York Times article.
Just like much of the Mueller report.
The attorneys are working on submitting briefs about the remedy the judge should impose to address the prosecutorial violation of the defendants rights
OK so there was no collusion with Trump or any of his people, BUT, Obama was briefed that it was going on a and chose to do nothing about it.
Why do the libs keep forgetting this part of the story?
Obama needs to be investigated as to why he did nothing to stop the Russians from screwing with the election.
If there was “obstruction”, where in the hell did the best-seller, “Mueller Report” come from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.