ORANGE ALERT: The (almost) daily outrage
More InfoTrump did try to sabotage the investigation. His staff defied him. Mr. Trump began trying to get rid of Mr. Mueller, only to be thwarted by his staff. In instance after instance, his staff acted as a bulwark against Mr. Trump’s most destructive impulses.
More by Ben Hillman »
« Previous
Medical examiner identifies body of woman discovered Tuesday in Peru
Despite concerns, cannabis could be an economic driver for Berkshire County
That’s all there is, and that’s all, folks
Is that all there is?
That song was a huge hit for Peggy Lee in 1969, and I couldn’t get it out of my head Thursday as I was reading the Mueller report.
“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 if Hillary Clinton 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.
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.
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.
By Howie Carr | Boston Herald
If The Berkshire Edge wanted to publish the rantings of Howie Carr, it could have asked him to become a columnist. The people who are interested in seeing what Mr. Carr has to say can subscribe to The Boston Herald or one of the other journals in which Carr’s column is carried. But the real sadness in the repeated fevered postings by Mr. Balfanz is how clear it is that he is the real victim of the so-called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Regardless of whether or not Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for any crime…and it certainly is not a foregone conclusion that he will not be, because the questionable Department of Justice guideline prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president will no longer have any force when Mr. Trump is no longer in office…it must be crystal-clear to any clear thinking person that he (Trump) has brought disgrace upon the office. People who support him and who oppose the right of a woman to choose can point to the appointment of two retrograde thinkers to the Supreme Court, but any Republican president would have made the same or similar judicial appointments. People who support the increased disparity of means between the uber-wealthy and the other 98% can point to the new tax law, but any Republican president would have done the same or similar. The list of serious character flaws of Mr. Trump is quite long but my principal way of judging his character is the fact that no one alive can point to any president prior to Trump who did not have a pet.
What happened to your revered Democrat and my former Democrat party, Carl? You criticize all Republicans, but fail to mention that there are some anit-Trumpers and Republicans In Name Only, which when added to the liberal, leftist leaning Democrat “Progressive” party, comprise those whom you should be attacking.
It is truly laughable what you consider to be worth of “judging his character.” Correction; It is truly SICK.
Better yet, Carl,
If people want to read the NY Times they can do so and not have Ben Hillman and others continue to post links to their biased articles… Perhaps some readers would like to see some “balance” to what is posted on the Anti side of this situation….
Ask yourself a simple question: At what point during a 2 plus year “investigation” that had you accused of ANY crime, let alone one that would destroy your life, would you not get upset – KNOWING you had done absolutely nothing wrong?
Would you not be upset? Would you not cry out in anger?
Now that the fraud has been totally exposed, you, with Trump Derangement Syndrome, cannot accept the simple truth that the duly elected President actually kicked Hillary Clinton “to the curb,” by exposing her corruption.
He actually campaigned on an agenda, and won by doing so. And, he is simply doing his best – in the face of TDSer’s opposition – to keep the promises he made.
You may not like it, or him for that matter, but to continue to accuse him of criminal wrong doing is simply wrong.
What is even worse is to work for over 2 years trying to frame him for something he never did, and then call it Obstruction.
How does one commit obstruction, IF THERE WAS NO CRIME?
It is time to grow up…..
Read the report, especially the last paragraph.
Since December24, 2016, Ben Hillman has posted a total of 119 “ORANGE ALERTS.” 4 IN 2016; 59 IN 17; 39 IN 18; and as of this post, 17 in 2019. He, and others – including Stephen Cohen are so filled with rage that a non-politician, was able to defeat possibly the most corrupt politician in American history, that they and the rest of those affected by Trump Derangement Syndrome, simply cannot accept the simple fact that there was no collusion on the part of ANY member of the Trump election “team.” Period. Notta, Zip, Zilch.
No collusion, zero obstruction of justice, but “the beat goes on” with regard to the lack of acceptance of a simple fact that the entire Russia/Trump collusion was developed by his POLITICAL opponent, with aid from the then current President, and the members of what is now known as the DEEP STATE.
What will go on now, will be the EXTREME effort to keep everyone involved with the criminal activity on the part of those involved with this bogus attempt, out of prison.
Let the investigation REALLY begin as to the What, When, how, and Whom was involved in what history will show as the worst political scandal in American history.
What was attempted (and thankfully failed), were crimes – but not a single one on the part of the Trump election team, except for “process” crimes “discovered” when the Special Prosecutor’s DEEP STATE members did what they did to gain guilty verdicts for NOTHING involving Russian/Collusion. IF prosecutors will now turn their attention to the actual crimes committed in developing, and proceeding with the corrupt attempt to destroy the 45th President of the U.S., you will see that more people will plead guilty, or be convicted of crimes than that of the REAL crimes committed by the Nixon and Clinton “teams.”
Many well respected criminal prosecutors have pointed out the simple FACT, that since no indictment was issued, there should not even have been a “Mueller Report.” That report is merely giving politicians additional “cover” to drag things out in hopes that their involvement with the actual crimes perpetrated on innocent individuals will not be prosecuted.
Hopefully, this will be the beginning of eliminating the “TWO SETS OF LAWS” that have become prevalent in American politics, and that everyone will actually be treated equally as to prosecution…
Keep up the Orange Alerts, and keep proving your Trump Derangement Syndrome has not been cured. The majority of Americans now know the truth. NO COLLUSION. NO OBSTRUCTION. (How can you have obstruction when there was no crime to begin with?)
Could you name the “many” prosecutors who have said that because no indictment of Trump resulted from the office of the Special Counsrl that no report should have been issued? You do know, i assume, that the statute requires that there be a report regardless of whether the probe results in indictments? And there were quite a few indictments. The reasons for the non-indictment of Mr Trump was complex and not because he did nothing that violated Federal criminal statutes.
[By the way, Mr. Balfanz, I know that you’ve never been in a voting booth with me so you are simply guessing my political party allegiance.]
Keep trying, Carl…..