Tags: George Soros | james comey | trump | russia | deep state

Trump-Russia Saga Not Going How Dems Hoped

Trump-Russia Saga Not Going How Dems Hoped
Former FBI Director James Comey leaves after testifing before a Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill June 8, 2017, in Washington, D.C. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

By
Tuesday, 13 June 2017 08:28 AM Current | Bio | Archive

The Democrats and #NeverTrumpers have been actively hunting Trump’s hide since the election last year. They are using the deep state that they still somewhat control to do it. This Trump hunt is ending and not as the president’s detractors had hoped.

When this all started last fall, the charge was that the Russians stole the election for Trump. Seeming possible at the time, investigations were started in Congress. Now, to believe this accusation you have to be so far in the "woods" that Hillary is the only person making any sense to you. It is sad, but there are still a few running with this — mostly people in Soros’ pay and on CNN.

The government — in every particular — states categorically that there was no interference with the election outcome by anyone, even the Russians.

In fact, the only evidence of Russia interfering with the election in even the slightest way (much less decisively giving it to Trump) lies in the increasingly hollow deep state testimony of Brennan, Comey, and Clapper – all of whom constantly and inaccurately intone that "all of the intelligence agencies agree . . . " yet never provide a shred of any evidence of any kind. Surely, there has to be some unclassified tidbits to share of the "mountains" that they say that they have. This is a dry hole, as they say in Texas.

Next, the focus turned to whether there was some collusion between Trump and the Russians to throw the election to him. If true, this collusion would still be a problem for Trump whether the Russians succeeded in decisively throwing the election to Trump or not.

This craziness went away with Comey’s testimony (and everyone else’s) that there is absolutely no evidence of collusion between Trump, the Trump Team the Republican Party or any others associated with beating Hillary and the Russians. An even dryer hole.

Then the focus turned to the FBI formally investigating Trump, Team Trump, the Republican Party, and various others concerning their interactions with the Russians. An official FBI investigation would be a quantum step forward for legitimacy of the otherwise evidence-free collusion theory.

We know now know that there is no FBI investigation of Trump and there never was. Trump said so when he fired Comey and Comey again told us so in his testimony. So dry I am getting thirsty just writing about it.

Next, the increasingly desperate focus turned to Trump firing Comey as an act of obstruction to the FBI investigation. The theory goes that the FBI was investigating Trump so Trump fired Comey thus, effectively scotching the investigation.

Comey testified that there was no investigation of Trump, Team Trump, and the Republicans et al regarding the Russians (or anything else). So it is a logical impossibility to obstruct justice by "interfering" with a non-existent investigation. We also know that firing an FBI Director would not impede the investigation in any way. In fact, it would accelerate it. The sands of Arabia dry hole.

At the hearings and having nothing left, the Democrats focused their most trenchant questioning on the last morsel of supposed Trump controversy, the Trump-Comey meeting where Flynn was mentioned by Trump. The focus of the questioning was on the hearsay statement by Comey that Trump "hoped that he could let the Mike Flynn thing go." That "quotation" of Trump provided solely by Comey.

If the quote is correct and that the interpretation is that Trump was "instructing" the FBI director not to investigate or prosecute Flynn for anything; one could make the argument that it smells bad — not criminal bad — but really embarrassing. If it is merely a "hope" that the president wanted this to pass away because Flynn is "a good guy" but was not instructing Comey to stop investigating then there is no "there there," as we say in Washington, D.C.

I really could go on and on about this but the fact that: 1. The subject investigation of Flynn was in fact not dropped and continues; 2. That it was never mentioned by the president again in any context; and, 3. That Trump has been cleared of absolutely everything else, I think we should give Trump the benefit of the doubt here.

Further, some of Comey’s "contemporaneous recollections" have come into question about their timing and accuracy. Also, Comey has admitted that he is a leaker of privileged if not classified information as well. This is not a guy who is entitled to the benefit of the doubt about his version of the meeting.

Last, Comey testified that he was so concerned and shocked that Trump was interfering in his investigation of Flynn that he,  for the first time ever, wrote a copy of what was said at that the meeting even went so far as to put the president’s statements into quotes.

If all of this is as Comey says, then why is there absolutely nothing in his notes about why he took the notes? 

If it were me, I would naturally enough state why I was writing a diary for the first time about a meeting with the President. Something like, "I was just asked by the president to interfere with an investigation of Gen. Flynn when the president told me .  . . . "

The absence of this statement in Comey’s contemporary recitation of the meeting with Trump is glaring. All we have from Comey is the president’s bald words. The context of Trump’s statement is only provided by Comey later, after he was fired.

After hearing Comey childishly whine in his opening statement about how much he hates Trump, his later-provided context to Trump’s statement is suspect in my opinion and hardly worth taking the time to consider it.

With all of his note taking and evidence collecting, Comey has failed to make his case. He incompetently accused the president last week and he should be ashamed — and maybe even investigated himself.

Michael Patrick Flanagan represented the 5th District of Illinois in the historic 104th Congress. Prior to his Congressional Service, Michael was commissioned in the United States Army Field Artillery. Michael and his firm, Flanagan Consulting LLC, have represented both large and small corporations, organizations, and associations. In 2009, Michael entered public service again with the United States Department of State in Iraq as the Senior Rule of Law Advisor on the Maysan Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Maysan, Iraq. For more of his reports — Click Here Now.

© 2018 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
MichaelFlanagan
The Democrats and #NeverTrumpers have been actively hunting Trump’s hide since the election last year. They are using the Deep State that they still somewhat control to do it. This Trump hunt is ending and not as the president’s detractors had hoped.
james comey, trump, russia, deep state
1080
2017-28-13
Tuesday, 13 June 2017 08:28 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved