Blog powered by Typepad

« Now read this and then read that! | Main | "The spy who came in from the Co-op" »

Friday, 19 April 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

To sort of paraphrase that bit from "Apocalypse Now" I do love the sound of lefty heads exploding".

However with a Federal Election just a month of down here there is a strong chance that we will have a lefty Federal Government whose leader cannot explain where all the money he is pledging to save the Lesser Crested Marsupial Titmouse and other absurd ideas is to come from.

At least in the UK you know what "Jezza" believes but with this bloke down here I am not sure he knows what he believe in himself other than himself.

Where are you Donald we need you.

But DD,

The headline in todays Graun is " Mueller links Trump and campaign to 11 instances of potential obstruction"

Shurely it's all over for The Don ???

I was on Carpenter's blog a couple of times yesterday. It is a totally different reality. Blind hatred and desperately searching empty boxes for the 'toys' the Mueller Report took away from them. Had there been a case to make, Mueller would have made it. "Potential obstruction". Now there is a legal concept. 'Of the five murders on 5th Avenue last year, we can't prove Trump didn't commit any of them.' Something like that.

Now the Dems, Deep State and the Media...but I repeat myself, will get it with both barrels from an unleashed Trump.

Yes, Whiters, I saw your commentary. Keep up the good work - although with the likes of 'PeterG' I doubt you will make much progress. What a chorus of ninnies they are!

Thanks! I was just there 5 minutes ago and left a reply to a always nice lady 'Mary'. I like her style.

Denial. Not only a river in Egypt.

Making mischief on PC's blog is great fun, I'd forgotten.

Keep up the good work whiters you're doing a fantastic job there!

Back in the 1990's PM was one of the most underrated opinion writers in America. Unfortunately, since then he's had some serious personal setbacks that no one deserves. Still, David, you have to admit that until just recently he's been a technically excellent writer.

By the way, if PM represents Democratic thinking, it's the thinking of the establishment types. He hates the lefties like Bernie Sanders. And before you claim it, no, they're not all like Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the other side of the Trump coin. There continues to be an overlap of their supporters.

Er, no, Bob, I do not admit that he is a 'technically excellent writer'. His grammar is tendentious and the content renders his scripts as mostly silly!

David, let me remind you that you have complimented PM on his writing on more than one occasion. I won't bother to search it out, but from memory it was something like: What you write is a lot of tosh, but it is exceedingly well written.

So you think there's nothing to see in the Mueller report and we should all move along? I dare say it probably won't work out that way. Even the stolid Associated Press doesn't buy it:

"Analysis: Mueller paints a damning portrait of the president"


Over here on a blog the host of which posts here occasionally one of his commentors, one Mr. Geo. W. Potts placed a comment which, to me, described 'the portrait' most accurately:

"We can’t prove that Trump murdered someone on Fifth Avenue ... nor can we prove that he didn’t kill someone on Fifth Avenue. But here is a list of ten people who have died on Fifth Avenue over the last two years. — Robert Mueller"

Mind I haven't closely approached my own study of the report to the level of familiarity I demand of myself before I take to authoritatively offering comment - However I have paid close attention to the analyses of two generally acknowledged legal authorities (meaning the one 'liberal' guy though sufficiently recognized by the Scotus clerks who seek and accept his advise & consent, he'll nonetheless never be invited to sit on either a MSDNC or even a CNN 'news-talker' panel; and the conservative guy tho' 'more acceptable' both sit on the same 'elected to panel of their peers').

At any rate, each & both of those legal eagles have placed on the record analysis though more wordy essentially state the same thing Mr. Potts states succinctly.

Good grief Dear Duffers, I do wish you would give Bob the PeterG treatment. He isn't even entertaining. Enough already, it is extremely inadequate.
There, I finally typed it!


At this point the legalities only matter in that they've either been passed on to other jurisdictions or Congress to consider. Trump defenders will continue variations on "nothing to see here". The House will hold some high-profile hearings to score political points.

According to the legal eagles I've read the bigger dangers for Trump are in state investigations and lawsuits against him, especially the one by Summer Zervos, who might turn out to be Trump's Paula Jones. And that's only while he's in office. Once he's out, he'll likely be in a world of hurt.


Isn't the "he'll likely be" a tributary stream to a river in Egypt?

Far as "the legalities & Congress" is concerned the House could easily fix the problem that bedevils them. And that remedy is easily within their grasp. All it would take would be to amend current statute to read, "Special Counsel exacted 6(e) material shall be subject to the body [House of Representatives] which enacted the special counsel powers."

That part would be easy peasy. (Of course there'd be the complication of any investigations levied upon the individual Members being subject to being open to Congress wholly - But I strongly suspect the motive behind not simply enacting is because they'd lose "the issue" which is Trump simply put.)

Far as the IC produced material given our recent experience of the deluge of leaks all we await is Intel Chair Schiff and Judiciary Chair Nadler agreeing to their script before that's front-paged in the New York Times.

And as to the last tranche currently unavailable for all those 'private citizens' reputations' to be duly & thoroughly trashed all we await is Schiff's and Susan Rice's confab discussing unmasking. And of course Schiff sending himself a covering email.

I'm figuring about two weeks.

Bob, a simple question for you: was there or was there not Trumpian collusion with Russia?


I think we agree the matter is in the realm of politics for now.


"Collusion" is still not a legal term. However, if you mean did the Trump campaign attempt to cooperate with Russia then yes, through Don Jr., Roger Stone, and others.

If you mean Trump himself:

Well, Bob, given your certainty I am amazed your expertise was not called for by Mr. Mueller who after two years found diddly-squat!

David, Mueller wasn't looking for diddly-squat, which is also not a legal term. Try to be more precise in your meaning, sir.


If you'll allow me to interject a definition of 'diddly-squat' where concerns accrue as a result of the release of Mr. Mueller's Report?

As it happens Mr. Mueller himself provided that very definition on March 22nd; "no additional indictments."

How we got Trump:

Same day: WaPo Worries: Is The Success Of Notre Dame Fundraising “White Privilege”?

AP Top News:
"Tourist mecca Notre Dame also revered as place of worship". Also?

Our rotten political class still persists.

Right, JK, you can be sure you're winning when the indictments in one investigation stop at 34 people and 3 companies. Only about 9 more investigations and some law suits to go:

SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “Democrats lost an election they rigged, and now Democrats
have lost an investigation they rigged.” Karma.

Russia! Russia! Russia!

Collusion! Collusion! Vladimir's Puppet! Trump's Treasonous!

34 Indictments! NINE Guilty Pleas!

Manafort - 22 U.S.C. § 611 violation: 7.5 years in a Federal institution. Credited time served.

Richard Pinedo – Identity Fraud: 6 months Federal incarceration & 6 months home confinement.

Alex van der Zwaan § 1001 violation: sentenced to 30 days low security Federal institution then deported.

George Papadopoulos § 1001 violation: sentenced to 14 days low security Federal institution.

Michael Flynn § 1001 violation – Mueller sentence recommendation “little to no time.”

W. Samuel Patten – Pled to 22 U.S.C. § 611 violation: Sentence to be determined.

Rick Gates – Pled to § 1001 violation: Sentence to be determined.

Michael Cohen – Pled to § 1001 violation: Sentence to be determined.

Roger Stone – Indicted: Presumption of Innocence.

Various Russian Nationals – Indicted: Presumption of Innocence.

Three Russia based commercial entities – Indicted: Presumption of Innocence.

You'll have certainly read the report Bob have you not?

Did you note Rosenstein's 'Scope of Investigation' addressed to Mueller at the very beginning? Where the statutory investigative aim was for charges to be made under 18 U.S.C. §371; §462; §953?

You happen to see ANYBODY charged under those authorities?

Heck Bob for that matter, you notice ANYTHING pertaining to Julian Assange WHATSOEVER in the Mueller Report?

Hell Bob, Mueller couldn't even manage a charge on Trump for jaywalking.

"The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it.
The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to "stand down" and "knock it off" as they drew up plans to "strike back" against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book "Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump"."

And that is NOT a quote from The National Review or The American Spectator but from CNN!!!!!!! Eh? What? CNN? Heavens to Betsy!


The Mueller investigation had a narrow focus (the Russian attack on our democratic system) and wasn't the end-all. In the course of that investigation at least a dozen others were spun off, most of them with Trump as the focus. Trying to downplay the situation will just be a disappointment eventually.


"The Mueller investigation had a narrow focus"

You'll not realize the depth of my gratitude Bob for your putting it that way. I thank you sincerely for putting it so simply. 'The solution' if solution is the exact term for the dilemma that was set for us by the way Mueller, in abdicating that which the Congress; in enacting precisely the language the special counsel statute that it did (that any report produced lacking recommendation to indict, be delivered to the AG confidentially and not to be publicly disclosed) leads it to dawn on me that I've allowed people vested in lynching Trump to overcomplicate this entire matter.

That I actually solved the dilemma a number of David's posts back (ironically Bob, in a comment thread engaged with none other than yourself) dazzles me at the degree to which I'd been blinded.

Amazingly the solution is openly apparent, totally undisguised and available to all who would but drop the veil of their hatred of Trump and see. Simply see.

Mueller's focus was indeed narrow. That focus being to determine whether Trump and by extension any member of the Trump campaign team had colluded [cooperated, conspired] with the Russians to "hack the election."

Having determined conclusively as the Mueller team did in its Part I that, "No, no crime was committed by Trump himself or, any member of his campaign team" leads only to the simply elegant solution.

Forgive me Bob if I resort to the Socratic Method as my means of illustrating for you what you've yourself pointed out for me and thereby saving myself from a lifetime of despair:

How does one obstruct the investigation of a crime that did not happen?

Thank you Bob.

You've saved me from eventual disappointment.

Oh and Bob,

"... In the course of that investigation at least a dozen others were spun off, most of them with Trump as the focus. Trying to downplay the situation ..."

I'm not overly concerned - well to be brutally honest, I don't give a shit about what may, may not befall Trump 'after' - with what "at least a dozen investigations" maybe will, maybe will not reveal (after all, as has been revealed to us quite recently, just because there's been an investigation it does not necessarily follow ...).

I realize Bob you were cooped up at NASA for an extended period and have marinated since in the salons but I am curious that you've never, apparently, acquainted yourself with the first rule of poultry husbandry.


You're not exactly wrong. Here's the authorizing document:

However, to concentrate only on "collusion" and ignore "any matters that arose or may arise" from the investigation is just denial. And really, the idea that anyone who thinks Trump is suspect just "hates" him is a particularly silly rationalization.

"Hates" is just a handy shorthand Bob.

Thanks again.

The comments to this entry are closed.