Replies

"The special counsel is expected to reach a conclusion—and produce possible indictments—right around the midterm elections this fall."

And as the tone of the article demonstrates, They Are Damn Excited About It !!!

______________________________________________________

I think you are pretty excited about it too, Jack, only lately you've been more subtle about expressing your excitement.

I believe the Vanity Fair writer, whom you cite with approval, and other Mockingbirds are laboring to raise false hopes that the failed Mueller witch hunt is JUST ABOUT TO FILE indictments so that any exposure or possible removal of Mueller can be portrayed as an attempt to "silence" him. It hasn't been going well for Mueller - months have transpired, he's got nothing, and he's become an embarrassing laughing stock; you can't get a good riot going based on the exposure/removal of an embarrassing laughing stock.

Time to gin up the excitement and make a valiant hero out of Mueller. But that's what I'd expect from Mockingbird publications like Vanity Fair and Bloomberg.

Ransomnote - you write:
I think you are pretty excited about it too, Jack, only lately you've been more subtle about expressing your excitement.

I believe the Vanity Fair writer, whom you cite with approval ...

No, you are absolutely wrong about that.

I have total contempt for Mueller and his whole team. This post (#837) was a addendum to the one right before (#821) it where I spent time expressing my contempt for Mueller. I quote (myself) in #821:

That's sort of laughable, [claims of indictments soon] given that he's been at it for 15 months and hasn't bought one charge that has anything to do with either collusion (not a crime) nor obstruction (as construed (ie: firing James Comey), not a crime).
And after the OIG report that showed that Comey was, at best a boob, it seems completely untenable to try to put Trump on trial for obstruction for firing an incompetent. But, it's Mueller who has already indicted a ham sandwich [link in original], so who knows?
And ... The article then degenerates into a list of every Trump associate who has ever spoken to any Russian in any context, which totals 13. Not any new news in that, and they are (of course) ignoring the news since they first reported the story that most of the contacts appear to have been instigated as a counter-intel operation by the FBI for the purpose of entrapping them.
And ... I think Mueller's investigation is a witch hunt,
And ... this remains worrisome to me, regardless of how low my opinion is of Mueller or the veracity of the claims being made by he and his minions, which I rate as also low.
And conclude ... Lies can harm Trump, just as fake witch hunts can hurt those "witches", even if when they are just ordinary women.

That is my clear expression of my opinions on Mueller, which has never varied from the beginning of his ridiculous crusade.

You continue:
Time to gin up the excitement and make a valiant hero out of Mueller. But that's what I'd expect from Mockingbird publications like Vanity Fair and Bloomberg.

Yes, I expect also more puff pieces. The New Yorker seems to be the favored publications for those. They did I long one on MI6 Agent Steele, author of the discredited dossier. I think they did one on Comey too. Pure puff pieces.

A big part of counter-intelligence is reading what the opposition is saying. It's certainly interesting that Mueller's team is now finding it necessary to leak this sort of thing to the press.

Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is an enemy action.-Ian Flemming's 'James Bond', Goldfinger.

I felt it worthwhile to append the Vanity Fair article because it shows it's not an accident, but enemy action.

Thanks for all you do.

-JB