Undemocratic Dems, Major Media Chargrined Over Mueller Report
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)
Upset Dems called for blocking any attempt by Trump to prevent full disclosure of Mueller's report, House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler, saying he'll go to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to get it all.
Other Dems made similar comments, in mourning over not getting from Mueller what they hoped for - knowing it wouldn't be forthcoming, short of manufacturing evidence that doesn't exist.
From its onset, Mueller's probe was much ado about nothing, a nearly two-year-long colossal hoax. Dems and anti-Trump media wanting blood didn't get it to their great dismay.
There was no just cause for the probe in the first place, nor by House and Senate committees, the politicized business one of the most shameful chapters in US history - continuing by a reopened House probe, likely to continue as long as Trump remains in office.
With few exceptions, postmortem media reports reflected similar sour grapes disappointment, wanting revenge for Trump's triumph over Hillary, chagrined over not getting it, notably NYT remarks.
Its editors are some of Trump's most unforgiving enemies, nonplussed for his triumph over media darling Hillary, yearning for revenge.
Their postmortem editorial lied, claiming while Mueller didn't accuse Trump of collusion, he didn't exonerate him - based on one remark in the report, saying while it "does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
It was an uncalled for remark. The same thing can be said about virtually everyone everywhere - or could it, according to the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE), saying the following:
Exoneration applies to someone convicted of a crime, then declared innocent based on new evidence. So far at least, Trump has not been charged with or convicted of a criminal offense. So according to the NRE, exoneration doesn't apply in his case, or for anyone else not convicted of criminality or charged with offenses.
Since announcing his intention to run for president in June 2015, especially after triumphing over Hillary, the Times and other major media have conducted a jihad against him, largely for wrong reasons, ignoring the most important right ones.
Times editors distorted the letter and spirit of Mueller's report, saying its "outcome (was) not…"Complete and Total EXONERATION."
The legal definition of exoneration aside, it was close enough. Trump is uncharged on colluding with Russia to defeat Hillary, and likely will remain so no matter how much longer the House and any other probes into this issue continue.
There's no evidence to charge him, nor for obstruction of justice, nor any to claim Russian US election interference - no matter how much the Times and other media scoundrels wish it wasn't so - or believe with enough digging, dirt on this issue will come out, incriminating Trump.
Collectively on this issue and many others where hard truths are suppressed, US media operate like a washed up/punch drunk boxer, getting pummeled in each fight, refusing to go down, ending up with his brains scrambled.
I agree with the Times, other media, and Dems calling for release of the full Mueller report. What AG Barr used from it in his summary is woefully inadequate.
Times editors compounded their shame, saying the following:
"That Mr. Mueller couldn't find sufficient evidence that Mr. Trump or anyone involved in his campaign had coordinated directly with the Russians may be explained by the fact that they didn't need to," adding:
"They were already getting that help…because Mr. Trump surrounded himself with criminals."
The Times referred to Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, and others. They're either charged with federal offenses, pleaded guilty, or were convicted.
The self-styled newspaper conveniently omitted what's most important. Charges against them are unrelated to Mueller's mandate, nothing connected to phony allegations of possible Trump team/Russia collusion.
His report clearly said: "(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities (sic)."
No collusion, no obstruction of justice, no Russian election meddling - nothing because no evidence suggests any of it.
Times editors aren't about to quit. They repeated the long ago discredited Big Lie about (nonexistent) Russian US election meddling, saying:
"Mr. Putin did have a clear favorite. He interfered on his behalf, and his favorite was elected president" - a bald-faced Big Lie.
The Times: "Trump campaign officials knew about this and were more than happy for the help. Then they lied about receiving that help" - more bald-faced Big Lies.
The Times: "This isn't so complicated. And while Mr. Mueller may not be able to do anything about it, Congress, and the American people, certainly can."
Are Times editors lobbying for impeaching Trump and removing him from office for the wrong reasons, ignoring plenty of justifiable ones?
Clearly they're encouraging US voters to defeat his 2020 reelection bid.
One thing is certain. Whether he wins another term or is defeated by an undemocratic Dem, dirty business as usual will triumph like it always does - special interests served exclusively at the expense of ordinary Americans.
It's the American way under duopoly rule with two extremist right wings running things.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at email@example.com.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."