US Attorney General’s letter to Congress on Mueller report

The US Attorney General William Barr’s summary letter to Congress on the Mueller investigation has been released.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it’s election interference activities”.

Mueller handed responsibility on whether to proceed on possible obstruction of justice to the Attorney General.

The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”.

 

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/AG%20March%2024%202019%20Letter%20to%20House%20and%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf

Leave a comment

88 Comments

  1. High Flying Duck

     /  March 25, 2019

    The main point in finding a prosecution untenable on the obstruction charge – as there was no underlying offence (collusion) it would be very difficult to prove corrupt and willful intent on behalf of the President in taking the actions he did
    This is a complete refutation of the media’s 2 year jihad against the President. The fallout will be fascinating.

    Reply
    • Joe Bloggs

       /  March 25, 2019

      The Barr Letter says Mueller did not make a determination of whether trump obstructed justice. It sets out both sides. But Barr concludes— on his determination — that there was no obstruction. Barr weighed in & cleared trump of obstruction after 48 hours’ review, when Mueller declined to make a judgment, in essence, leaving it to Congress to do so.

      Barr’s letter doesn’t even clear Trump of “collusion,” or even “conspiracy.”

      FAR from it.

      Here’s how Barr avoided charging the President, which Mueller did not decide:
      1) Treated the underlying crime as the 2 Russian interference operations, not other potential crimes (like quid pro quo there’s tons of evidence for)

      2) Having defined the underlying crime as JUST the hack-and-leak and trolling, and not quid pro quo, but also having Mueller submit a legit case for obstruction, they said, “if not hack-and-leak, then not obstruction.”

      in other words, we got the Cliff Notes version from the guy who covered up Iran-contra.

      Reply
      • The Consultant

         /  March 25, 2019

        HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHHHAH.

        Reply
      • David

         /  March 25, 2019

        Gee whizz Joe you have it bad dont you. No finding of any any American colluding with any Russian seems like a great day for democracy and you should probably cop to that given your posts that it definitely happened.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  March 25, 2019

          No Collusion ?

          “In that Trump Tower meeting, we know that Trump Jr. got an email from his friend Rob Goldstone stating that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia”[aka Prosecutor General had “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.” This “high level and sensitive information” was being presented as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. replied almost immediately: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 25, 2019

            Jeez those Meuller people must be incompetent to have missed something so darned obvious!

            Reply
          • David

             /  March 25, 2019

            Sorry Duker you are just going to have to live with fact that you have been misled by a biased media who colluded with the Democrats to lie to the people. The house inquiry and the senate inquiry reached the same conclusion and as revealed by the FBI lovers texts there was no “there there”.
            I doubt it will make a jot of difference as who likes or hates Trump but after Covington, Smollett et al that fake news moniker is looking pretty apt.

            Reply
  2. FarmerPete

     /  March 25, 2019

    Remember this investigation was staffed with highly partisan democrat leaning prosecutors. News outlets reporting it as a major win for Trump.

    Reply
  3. Duker

     /  March 25, 2019

    Doesn’t exonerate Trump and leaves it up to AG Barr wheter Trump should be prosecuted for obstruction of Justice.
    Interesting side news is that in the DC courts in the last year dozens of sealed indictments have been made, we know from an inadvertant leak that WikiLeaks was one of those done by Mueller. Could there be others, including Trump’s son and son in law?

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 25, 2019

      The report fully exonerates Trump & his campaiong on the charge of Collusion. Completely and unequivocally. Same on the hacking of the DNC emails.
      Sealed warrants are generally for flight risks, so almost certainly not any Trump family or associates.
      “The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special
      Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.”
      Barr’s reasoning for deciding no obstruction charge could succeed is compelling.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  March 25, 2019

        You wouldnt know if any sealed indictments were issued by Mueller- thats why they are called sealed.
        There is likely ongoing legal action in the Courts as Mueller has been busy in very secret court actions.

        As for your claim Barr said “nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public”
        this is what he did say

        Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

        I write to notify you pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 8 600.9(a)(3) that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. In addition to this notification, the Special Counsel regulations require that I provide you with “a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General” or acting Attorney General “concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” 28 C.F.R. 8 600.9(a)(3) 9. There were no such instances during the Special Counsel’s investigation

        The Special Counsel has submitted to me today a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 8 600.8(c). I am reviewing the report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.

        Separately, I intend to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department’s long-standing practices and policies. I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and I will keep you informed as to the status of my review.

        Finally, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” this notification “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. { 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

        Sincerely,

        William P. Barr

        Attorney General

        feel free to point out the words you claim ” Barr said”

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  March 25, 2019

          Pete has missed out the start of the letter Barr sent.

          Here’s the link to the letter itself:
          https://t.co/etLyqkoOwm

          My quote was a direct cut and paste. In the pdf document, top of page 2 it reads:

          “The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.”

          Feel free to get your facts straight,

          Reply
  4. Duker

     /  March 25, 2019

    Mueller is a republican and had been appointed to major jobs by republican presidents. He doesn’t let his staff push him around.

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 25, 2019

      “Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, “Former Director Mueller is exactly the right kind of individual for this job. I now have significantly greater confidence that the investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead.””
      And the enquiry staff were sourced from Democrat associated law firms.

      Reply
    • David

       /  March 25, 2019

      Clutching a bit there given his team had members who attended the Clinton party after the election and they pretty much all donated to her campaign. Trump has attacked Mueller constantly they are hardly supporters of each other.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  March 25, 2019

        Attended Clintons party ?
        They have names?I thought not

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  March 25, 2019

          I have some names for you.

          feel free to point out the democratic hacks

          Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  March 25, 2019

          PolitiFact:

          “Through public records, we were able to independently confirm that at least 12 people on Mueller’s staff are registered Democrats.

          The ones we confirmed are Greg Andres, Rush Atkinson, Ryan Dickey, Michael Dreeben, Kyle Freeny, Andrew Goldstein, Adam Jed, Elizabeth Prelogar, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee, Brandon Van Grack, and Andrew Weissmann.

          We were able to independently confirm that two other members of Mueller’s staff — Scott Meisler and Aaron Zebley — are registered to vote but have not chosen a party affiliation. We were unable to independently confirm the status of two other staff members, Zainab Ahmad and Brian M. Richardson. According to the Daily Caller, Ahmad “appears to have registered as a Republican at the age of 18, but has since changed her registration status to unaffiliated.”

          We’ll also note that in the jurisdictions in which the Mueller lawyers live — primarily the District of Columbia, Maryland and New York — the Democrats are the dominant party, meaning that many races are effectively decided in Democratic primaries rather than in the general election.

          Two of the 13 publicly known Mueller staffers donated what might be characterized as “big” sums to Clinton’s 2016 campaign — Quarles, with $2,700, and Rhee, with $5,400. During the 2016 campaign cycle, $2,700 was the maximum donation an individual could make to a campaign. Such a donation could be made twice — once for the primary campaign and then again for the general election.

          A third member of the team, Weissmann, donated $2,300 to Clinton, but that was in 2007, when she was making her first presidential run. (The Daily Caller separately reported that he attended Clinton’s election-night party in 2016.)

          Three other team members donated smaller amounts: $250 by Freeny and Prelogar, and $200 by Atkinson.

          Reply
  5. High Flying Duck

     /  March 25, 2019

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  March 25, 2019

      Damn..I tried telling Joe Bloggs he was wasting his time writing screeds of crap about Trumpy’s guilt. I told him he doesn’t understand power. CNN will be in meltdown today.
      They have a history of meltdowns.

      https://www.infowars.com/cnn-host-has-meltdown-on-air-you-cannot-attack-the-stellar-reporters-of-cnn/

      God speed, Mr President. Take the garbage out.

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  March 25, 2019

        Infowars and credibilty do not go hand in hand Corky. They are nutbars at that site. Like a stopped clock they may be right once or twice on occasion, but for your sanity do not go there unless it is to laugh at them.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  March 25, 2019

          I don’t go there. But unless they are good actors then the video clip is kosher..regardless of what site it’s on.

          Besides, I think they would have more credibility than Bloggs.

          Reply
  6. Joe Bloggs

     /  March 25, 2019

    Barr seems to suggest that trump may have done impeachment-worthy things, but not prosecution related things.

    I say that because:
    – Mueller found that no trump flunkie took part in either of the two main Russian interference attempts (which surprises me given what Mueller’s own prosecutors tabled at Manafort’s hearings)
    – Mueller laid out the case for and against prosecution of trump for obstruction
    – Barr and Rosenstein, together, decided because rump did not take part in those two interference attempts, he could be not charged with obstruction

    And Mueller says “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Does that mean there is evidence he committed a crime just not enough to prosecute or convict him?

    What Barr appears not to have done is review whether trump was trying to cover up some other crime, like a quid pro quo, which would still merit prosecution.

    In the space between Mueller’s conclusion that the report does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice and Barr/Rosenstein’s decision to not indict lies the imperative to release the full report.

    “If a President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
    Richard Nixon

    C’est la vie… on to the SDNY and the Congressional hearings

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  March 25, 2019

      All it means is that in order for certain people/MSM outlets to at least save some face they have left a ‘might have but unproven’ dangling out there for people like yourself to cling on to.

      This has been a textbook case of strong dislike for a person getting in the way of common sense & known fact.

      Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 25, 2019

      The “does not exonerate” comment is specific to the obstruction charge only.
      The letter uses a direct quote from the Meuller report to clear trump of the collusion charges.
      The main thrust of the last two year campaign against Trump is a complete bust.
      The only thing the Democrats are hanging on to now is how he behaved during the enquiry.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 25, 2019

        It is absurd that Mueller rules on an obstruction claim against his own investigation.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  March 25, 2019

          Which is probably why he put forward the points without making any determination. On the bright side it has given the ferals something to cling on to.

          Reply
          • MaureenW

             /  March 25, 2019

            Also, it should make for some great debate material for Trump, especially now that Hillary has said she is running

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  March 25, 2019

              Clinton hasnt said she is running- the complete opposite

              Her WORDS
              “Hillary Clinton said Monday that she is not running for president in 2020 but will continue to speak out about politics, saying, “I’m not going anywhere.”

              “I’m not running, but I’m going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe,”
              What part of NOT dont you understand. But you of course believe what other people say they think what Clinton will do.

            • MaureenW

               /  March 25, 2019

              A day is a long time in politics. Yes you are correct she did state she wasn’t running, while Maggie Haberman of the NYT yesterday states that someone close to Clinton advised that she hasn’t shut the door on running, and is waiting to see the Mueller Report – but unlikely to run.

            • Blazer

               /  March 25, 2019

              onya Maureen…’someone told me’….Shipley defence.

            • MaureenW

               /  March 25, 2019

              Not a Shipley defence – a backdown at this point.

  7. PDB

     /  March 25, 2019

    I don’t like Trump (& like Hillary even less) but this witch-hunt regarding ‘Russian collusion’ has always been so preposterous that much of the MSM (and some on here) need to take a good hard look at themselves. Those that continue to suggest it still isn’t over even more so.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  March 25, 2019

      because trumps AG has released his ‘summary’ means its all cleared up.

      if it really cleared Trump and his associates in the campaign it could all be released …No?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 25, 2019

        As noted yesterday that would depend on security considerations and also whether it could compromise current court actions.

        Reply
  8. duperez

     /  March 25, 2019

    The release of the Mueller report simply reinforces what we already knew – that Trump is surely the greatest President ever. Didn’t it?

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12215853

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  March 25, 2019

      Or merely that Trump was right and all the Lefties wrong?

      Reply
    • PDB

       /  March 25, 2019

      What you have confirmed is that straw man arguments are still in vogue.

      Reply
  9. MaureenW

     /  March 25, 2019

    Bet James Comey is feeling a bit queasy today

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  March 25, 2019

      Bet he already knew what was in it.

      Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  March 25, 2019

        Probably knew what was in it before the Special Counsel was appointed.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  March 25, 2019

          He did an interview last week that suggests he had inside info on the negative findings.

          Reply
  10. Does it clear his team of being unwitting accomplices? the summary only mentions “conspired or knowingly coordinated”

    NOT being an unwitting dunce is in the realms of possibility, but is improbable….

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  March 25, 2019

      Does it clear the Obama administration of letting the Russians interfere?

      Reply
  11. Zedd

     /  March 25, 2019

    MrT is reportedly blowing his TRUMPet; that he IS exonerated.. BUT; thats not what the AlJz are saying though.. :/

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  March 25, 2019

      Remember Nixon’s famous last words ‘I am not a crook’.. then what happened ?

      Reply
  12. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 25, 2019

    Did Mueller’s investigation create more crimes than it discovered?

    If you include dredging up an ignored foreign lobbying law and discount the PR exercise of charging Russians already well-known to the intelligence agencies the answer is almost certainly yes.

    Reply
  13. Blazer

     /  March 25, 2019

    Reply
  14. David

     /  March 25, 2019

    I must say I couldnt be happier, man have I had some abuse and verbiage thrown at me for saying there was no Trump/Russia collusion, it was ridiculous to think that Russians would have any influence over an election by messing around on Facebook.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  March 25, 2019

      Yes in Donald you trust…collusion!!…as if…!

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  March 25, 2019

      doing a great job…just like the Key Govt…blowout debt…let others worry about paying..it.

      https://au.yahoo.com/news/u-posts-biggest-monthly-budget-030432656.html

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  March 25, 2019

        You do realise the Key government left large and growing surpluses for Labour to work with? And one of the lowest debt levels in the western world?
        At a level Grant Robertson praised and said he was grateful for?

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  March 25, 2019

          so not being as deep in shit as some other western countries is a big deal!

          The reality is world debt is unpayable.
          Continuous Q.E and deflation with ultra low interest rates is not sustainable.

          It will blow up…its a question of…when.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 25, 2019

            Squirrel there Blazer – NZ’s position is not just the best of a bad lot or in less deep shit – It is in an objectively very solid financial position under any circumstance.

            Reply
        • Blazer

           /  March 25, 2019

          Bloomberg…

          ‘just months after rising bond yields spooked markets, they’re now tumbling to the lowest levels in years to underscore concerns about slowing global growth.

          Bond yields in Australia and New Zealand dropped to record lows on Monday, after a closely-watched part of the U.S. curve inverted for the first time since 2007 on global growth woes. Trading volumes in Treasury future were more than double the norm in the Asian morning, while Japanese sovereign bonds rallied.’

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 25, 2019

            Great post there Blaze. Top notch. Nothing to do with your swipe at Key’s Government but hey – thanks for participating champ.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  March 25, 2019

              join the dots…debt..U.S $ DENOMINATED-NZ…bond yields…absolutely pertinent.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  March 25, 2019

              The only dots to join show that debt is getting cheaper.
              If NZ was so precarious because of the Key government, why did Labour campaign on borrowing more than National was going to over the next 3 years and delaying debt repayment? Why have they told us this is entirely reasonable given our excellent financial position?
              Why have many “experts” said we should, in fact, borrow significantly more to deal with infrastructure and growth while the going is good and our financial position so strong?
              You may very well be right about world markets and impending financial Armageddon, although it has been predicted many times before. But that is a different topic to the financial management of the country by National, which despite the strange misguided fixations of some, was superb in a time of global recession.

        • Duker

           /  March 25, 2019

          Hilarious.
          “Key government left large and growing surpluses for Labour to work with”

          The Key government borrowed around $20 bill in it’s last 3 years. That’s because suplus is accrual basis, when you look at cash basis , which most people are familiar with it was blowing like hell.
          Cullen actually did leave ‘money in the kitty’ as debt was paid down and money put into Cullen fund now worth$40 bill. Nothing like that from Key/English.
          Too funny the absurd nonsense national supporters believe

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 25, 2019

            What’s genuinely hilarious are your stream of Comical Ali like pronouncements about how you think the world should be, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

            Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 25, 2019

            You think we should have been putting funds into the Cullen fund while it was necessary to borrow – so we should have borrowed more?
            Cullen left money in the kitty and spent it all to leave a “decade of deficits” that he was more than a little proud of, and boasted of.
            Accrual is far more accurate. Cash basis shows cashflow not financial position. Most people can understand cash basis better, but that’s because most people don’t understand finance.

            NZ debt in historical context:

            https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/new-zealand-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=nzldebt2gdp&v=201807251513a1&d1=19190101&d2=20191231

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  March 25, 2019

              ‘ Most people ‘…understand SFA when it comes to economics…fractional reserve banking or ‘cash basis’…if they did ..National would never ,ever get elected.

              Why do you think real economics micro and macro ,money supply and money creation is never part of the basic curriculum at schools!

    • Duker

       /  March 25, 2019

      “Russians would have any influence over an election by messing around on Facebook.”

      So the Russians didnt hack Clintons campaign AND the DNC to steal emails to help Trump ( which they told his campaign about)

      gee , you are really uninformed

      Reply
      • MaureenW

         /  March 25, 2019

        You have that story wrong. Russians didn’t hack the DNC servers. Wikileaks and Assange have stated this. Meuller didn’t interview either to ascertain where the emails came from.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  March 25, 2019

          From the Barr letter:

          “The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.”

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  March 25, 2019

            Russian GOVERNMENT…… Doesn’t mean that plenty of Russians werent helping Trump by offering him help, which Donald Jnr ‘couldnt wait to get hold of’

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  March 25, 2019

              I was agreeing with you on the Russian hacking of the DNC servers.
              But you ruined it all with the comment about Trump.

              Once again from the Barr letter:

              “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

        • Duker

           /  March 25, 2019

          US intelligence agencies have better proof than Assange who has a sealed Mueller indictment to look forward to

          Reply
          • MaureenW

             /  March 25, 2019

            The same US intelligence services who didn’t look at the DNC servers?

            Reply
  15. Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 25, 2019

      CNN Contributor…

      Reply
      • White House counsel for Richard Nixon.

        What are you suggesting re CNN? This was a tweet directly from Dean.

        Reply
        • David

           /  March 25, 2019

          Rosenstein was also in agreement with Barr and he supervised the investigation from day 1.

          Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  March 25, 2019

          CNN have been reporting around the clock about how Mueller would lead to a raft of charges against Trump, his family and associates.
          Their credibility has been decimated (unless Barr is grossly mis-stating the contents of the report).

          This is Dean 2 days before the Barr memo. Bias writ large:

          Reply
          • It remains to be seen whether the report will be made public. I suspect that some of it will be made public only, which is likely to keep the questions coming about what is suppressed.

            One thing that puzzles me is why the obstruction of justice and lying that got a number of Trump’s campaign team prosecuted. They may have simply been trying to avoid unrelated illegal activities being discovered.

            It sounds to me that Russia tried to collude, or at least floated business favours to try and suck the Trump team into being compromised. And some in the Trump campaign team tried to leverage their political ties to benefit them in business deals. Messy, time to move on apart from those who were caught lying and obstructing justice.

            It isn’t surprising that the inquiry didn’t go as far as talking legal action over Trump obstructing – from what I’ve seen (a limited amount) there may be some evidence but insufficient to take a President to court over.

            Trump is justified in claiming a win from the outcome, but it seems he has already made a false claim, that he was exonerated. Barr’s letter makes it clear that isn’t the case.

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  March 25, 2019

              Why would Trump obstruct by firing Comey when the collusion accusations were fake in the first place?

            • Very good question. Why would he?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  March 25, 2019

              Barr answered that question Pete – he wouldn’t. Which is why he determined it was not prosecutable as obstruction. Rather it was ongoing frustration from Trump that his Presidency was being overshadowed by a frivolous and pointless side show that he knew to be false.

            • The Consultant

               /  March 25, 2019

              Oh Gaaawwwdd….

              Because Rosenstein, the Deputy AG who’d stepped into the issue when AG Sessions recused himself (stupidly in my opinion), wrote an official recommendation that Comey be fired!.

              And the firing was for the very sound reason that Comey had exceeded his authority and took on a DOJ role in mid-2016 when he said that Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted for “careless” mishandling of classified emails. Wasn’t his call. He should have been fired by Obama back then. Trump should have fired him on Jan 20, 2017.

              And this was the same Rosenstein who then set up this entire Special Prosecutor screwup and appointed Mueller, because as AG he felt that the DOJ/FBI could no longer do such an investigation without charges of corrupt influence.

              Had Rosenstein not recommended Comey being fired, the DOJ/FBI would have continued to trundle along investigating charges of collusion.

              Amazing that that was continously overlooked in the whole, Trump-fired-Comey screamfest, but hey – maybe there’s another conspiracy theory in the making? Trump, Rosenstein and Mueller are, after all, all Republicans….

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  March 25, 2019

          A bitter ex convict with a mountain of chips on his shoulder and a long history of calling for Republican Presidents and Vice-Presidents to be impeached:
          https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Wesley-Dean-III

          Reply
  16. The Consultant

     /  March 25, 2019

    Attention Joe Bloggs and Blazer! Attention

    Would Joe Bloggs and Blazer please come to the phone. Alan Jones is seeking interviews with them.

    🙂

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  March 25, 2019

      do you believe Trump is honest?

      do you think Trump tells lies?

      do you think Trump is respected internationally?

      do you think Trump is the best they have got?

      do you think Trump will build the wall and get Mexico to pay for it?

      Reply
  17. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 25, 2019

    So what happened to all those Trump insiders that Mueller was turning against Trump by plea bargaining on other charges? The ones who knew all Trump’s secrets?

    Apparently they all knew there was nothing there. Even Cohen who was spitting tacks at Trump by then.

    What a farce the Lefty media coverage and analysis has been. Let alone its tame supplicants like our very own Joe Bloggs.

    Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  March 25, 2019

      Poor Joe, probably off reading John Brennan’s tweets, watching Colbert, Morning Joe and all the other repeater losers.
      Wouldn’t be surprised to see an investigation into the Russia collusion fairytale now Trump’s free of Meuller. Just have to wait and see.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  March 25, 2019

        Joe has put the boot into many of us over this issue. Maureen. A Trump sycophant is what he called me. That hurt. I’m a Trump supporter. There’s nothing like putting the boot into a non repentant Trumpy hater. Today Joe was given his lumps. ✔

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s