“An economic miracle is taking place in the United States, and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation.”

So said President Trump in his magnificent State Of The Union Address Tuesday night. And after two years of partisan warfare and an investigation that we now know was based on an “insurance policy” created within the FBI and based on a politically-motivated piece of fiction, we can say that he’s right.

Democrats wasted no time, though, in comparing this address to President Nixon’s SOTU in 1974, in which Nixon called for an end to the Watergate investigation.

It might make some sense to compare the two –- the Nixon/Watergate investigation and the “Trump/Russia” probe –- if they were alike. The Watergate break-in was a crime that actually took place –- the breaking and entering of the Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel –- and then there was a cover-up of that very real crime in which Nixon was personally involved. There was hard evidence found of both the crime and the cover-up. But with Trump, the FBI began an investigation when there was no evidence of a crime. In fact, they knew –- because Bruce Ohr at the DOJ had made a point of telling them –- that the “dossier” was actually political opposition research paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and created by someone who desperately wanted Trump to lose. They fraudulently used this information to mislead a court to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, and FBI Director James Comey succeeded in getting a special counsel appointed after he was (deservedly) fired by leaking his personal notes of a conversation with the President touching on Michael Flynn (which he appears to have misinterpreted) to the New York Times.


Commentary continues below advertisement


Very different. In this case, it’s the FBI that deserves to be investigated by a special counsel.

Democrats have been so desperate to get rid of Trump that they’ve stretched the concept of “cover-up” or “obstruction” to include just about anything the President says or does. Firing Comey was well within his authority, and both Republicans and Democrats really wanted him gone, albeit for different reasons. It was not part of any cover-up. In fact, it’s what escalated the partisan warfare.

The backstory of this special counsel investigation, a rabidly anti-Trump team which has been at it for 21 months, is so outrageous that it simply needs to end. A majority of Americans want it over and do not see it as credible, even though most of them haven’t even been following it as closely as you and I have. No one can say with certainty when Mueller will decide he’s done, but Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said Tuesday that he thinks the investigation will be finished within a month. Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker said he thinks it’s in its final stages and “close to being completed.”

The only thing that makes me wonder about that is the Roger Stone indictment, as his case may take up to a year to come to trial, and it’s hard to imagine the special counsel wrapping up before then. But I imagine Whitaker is in a position to know more about that than I do.

William Barr, Trump’s nominee for AG, is anticipating the end and told senators last month that he wants as much of the report to be released as possible. In fact, the desire for transparency is so great that Sens. Grassley and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) are actually working together to co-sponsor a bill that would require the Justice Department to hand the report over. (As of now, how much to reveal is completely up to the AG.) “Here’s where Blumenthal and I are on the same page, maybe for different reasons,” Grassley said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. “Blumenthal is on a bill with me, because he wants this report out, I suppose, because it’s going to make Trump look bad.”

Recall that this all started with the idea that Russians had interfered (“meddled”) with our elections in 2016. On Monday, Whitaker and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen submitted a classified report to the President that concluded foreign powers had no “material impact on the integrity or security of election infrastructure or political/campaign infrastructure” of the 2018 midterm elections. But apparently we’re still assessing the effect Russia had in 2016, and there are some Democrats who insist we must NEVER accept that result. It had to be Russia!


Commentary continues below advertisement


So, yes, the Mueller report will no doubt make Trump look bad, not because of any evidence that’s been found against him, but because the report is allowed to be a one-sided narrative without any evidence. “I look at it from this standpoint,” Grassley said. “I don’t care what the report says. We paid $25 million, maybe $30 million to do it, and the public ought to know what their $25 or $30 million bought.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6670771/Republican-senator-says-expects-Mueller-report-month.html

But no matter how scathing the “Trump Report” turns out to be, the important thing to look for will be what it DOESN’T say. As a preview, Andrew C. McCarthy at NATIONAL REVIEW offers a great analysis of the Roger Stone indictment to show where it slips up. For drama, the document gets five stars, by presenting a hot-and-heavy 20-page narrative of Russian cyber spies in an anti-American conspiracy with WikiLeaks, along with an inflated portrait of Stone that makes him look like a major criminal (reinforced by that full-on SWAT-team arrest), and, of course, the Big Collusion Scheme, in which Trump instructs Stone to coordinate with WikiLeaks on the dissemination of Clinton dirt stolen by Russia.

McCarthy spells out the details of the narrative at the link. Trump, Stone, Corsi, Julian Assange, Ted Malloch (Corsi’s contact in London)...what a story! But that’s all it is, a story. As McCarthy says, Mueller doesn’t even pretend he can prove it. There’s no link to Trump other than conjecture. To me, Mueller’s story falls into the same category as the Steele “dossier,” as both were made up for political purposes and offer no proof.

When reality gets in the way of the story, McCarthy says, “the prosecutors float suggestions they cannot prove or leave out key details that blow up the narrative.” They add threads as “pretext for weaving the collusion narrative without having to prove it.” For example, the narrative involves Stone learning about WikiLeaks’ possession of Clinton Foundation emails from an intermediary (whom they say is Corsi), so Mueller conveniently leaves out the fact that Assange had already announced it in a widely-reported interview. Stone didn’t need an intermediary. He may also have heard about the emails from an acquaintance named Charles Ortel, who had learned from then-FOX News reporter James Rosen that WikiLeaks would be dumping the Hillary emails in September. Nothing underhanded.

There’s much more to it. (If you’re keeping up with it all, details are at the link; you will not be tested.) The point of all this is that Mueller is presenting a sensational story that he doesn’t have to prove. We learn from Roger Stone’s indictment that the “intermediary” is just a plot device for the Trump---Russia---Wikileaks “collusion yarn.” But, as McCarthy explains, if Stone pleads guilty to the charges in the indictment, the entire narrative will stand “as the government’s unrebutted version of events.”

This stinks. Anyone who compares it to Watergate is either blinded by partisanship and/or ignorance or is being paid to lie. Trump was right in his State Of The Union speech: This interminable investigation is gumming up the works in Washington and needs to end. It’s amazing how much the President has been able to accomplish in spite of it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/roger-stone-indictment-proves-no-evidence-of-collusion/

 

 

 LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!

 

 

 

More Stories

Jussie Smollett Update

Our National Emergency

Comments 1-11 of 11

  • rodney Burke

    02/08/2019 12:58 PM

    investigations should stop. They should have never started. Mueller is NOT doing his job. Rosenstein is another one who should be in GITMO for so many crimes going back to Uranium 1. He like Mueller is a prosecutorial failure.

  • Tresa L Ames

    02/07/2019 01:00 PM

    Trumps comment about war and investigations is prominent in my recollection of the whole speech. And haven't seen replay or discussion about it since. It was spot on and met with an unusual sound from the left side of the house. Wish I could see their response at that moment.

  • Debbie Gales

    02/07/2019 11:39 AM

    I hear that RGB is doing well. Seems odd that there are no pictures of her at the event she attended that was in her honor. Only ‘select’ people seem to be saying she is alive and well. I have a strong suspicion that things are not as good as being reported. Have seen nothing but dirty tricks from Democrats and wouldn’t be surprised if this is another one because they are desperate to keep President Trump from appointing her replacement. I am hearing the same thoughts from others. How do we know she is truly alive and well? A simple FaceTime to the President with a newspaper of the day would do.

  • Carol MacMillan Godsey

    02/06/2019 07:05 PM

    Loved our Prez speech - first one in decades that didn't put me to sleep. Re the endless investigations, can you put a dollar figure on it, Mike? Sure would love to know how much taxpayer money the Dems are wasting - think of how many illegals they could feed. . .

  • Donna Yates

    02/06/2019 06:38 PM

    Mike, President Trump made an excellent speech last night. Chalk another good point up for him. The media can only talk about how Pelosi stole the thunder from the President. If her mouth movements were any indication of steeling Trump's thunder then I like to know how she did that.
    The most disgusting moment of that speech was seeing most not all of the Democrat Handmaid's in their white outfits just sitting there with sour faces and refusing to acknowledge Trump's words of the right to rip a baby from the womb of a woman. Or the right to kill a child at or after the moment of birth. They just sat there with no expressions. The camera zoned in on Kamala Harris as she made a face of disgust rolling her eyes and grumbling something.
    Women have been granted the rights to make decisions for their own bodies. That's fine but that right doesn't include the murdering of unborn and born children.
    Where are the babies' rights to live? A woman spends 9 months carrying a child to full term. She has a choice to either keep that child or to give it up for adoption. What is the problem with that choice?
    Most of those Democrat Handmaid's have children of their own. As a woman and a mother how can you even consider the murdering of innocent babies.
    I loved it when Trump said there would never be socialism in the US. The camera panned in on good old Bernie and the look on his face was priceless. Kudos to all the veterans and the angel families for coming and supporting our president.
    President Trump had this very well thought out. I hope he has been able to pull more citizens to his side to win in 2020.

  • Donna Yates

    02/06/2019 06:34 PM

    Mike, President Trump made an excellent speech last night. Chalk another good point up for him. The media can only talk about how Products stole the thunder from the President. If her mouth movements were any indication of steeling Trump's thunder then I like to know how she did that.
    The most disgusting moment of that speech was seeing most not all of the Democrat Handmaid's in their white outfits just sitting there with sour faces and refusing to acknowledge Trump's words of the right to rip a baby from the womb of a woman. Or the right to kill a child at or after the moment of birth. They just sat there with no expressions. The camera zoned in on Kamala Harris as she made a face of disgust rolling her eyes and grumbling something.
    Women have been granted the rights to make decisions for their own bodies. That's fine but that right doesn't include the murdering of unborn and born children.
    Where are the babies' rights to live? A woman spends 9 months carrying a child to full term. She has a choice to either keep that child or to give it up for adoption. What is the problem with that choice?
    Most of those Democrat Handmaid's have children of their own. As a woman and a mother how can you even consider the murdering of innocent babies.
    I loved it when Trump said there would never be socialism in the US. The camera panned in on good old Bernie and the look on his face was priceless. Kudos to all the veterans and the angel families for coming and supporting our president.
    President Trump had this very well thought out. I hope he has been able to pull more citizens to his side to win in 2020.

  • Claudia Vogel

    02/06/2019 03:57 PM

    That was an amazing speech! The best Trump speech I have seen! Am I the only one who noticed how many times Nancy Polosi picked up papers, and appeared to read them? Was she sending the message that she was bored? Or, was she just being rude? My husband thought it was a copy of his speech. If it was, why did she need to read it, if he was right in front of her, giving the speech?

  • Thomas Rouse

    02/06/2019 02:26 PM

    I believe the success of President Trump’s SOTU speech will result in Muller dragging this whole investigation out longer. After all, there must not be favorable results for him. Dragging it out could then cast more negativity for our President’s 2020 run for re-election. I would hazard a guess that this is their plan.

  • Lisa Ford

    02/06/2019 01:23 PM

    This whole investigation proves very big points, that no one is mentioning. President Trump is very patient & confident that truth will prevail. And is not letting it get in his way of serving the American people. We have a very strong & good President. The likes we have never seen before. God put him there, for His purpose. When God wants to get stuff done, He will get it done. Maybe the devil needs to be reminded, his but got nailed in Hell. Jesus won that war! It's just not Republicans that need to unite behind our President. Christians everywhere, unite behind him. He needs every prayer we can pray!

  • Wayne McKinney

    02/06/2019 12:05 PM

    Hi Governor,
    I am exhausted with the investigations and the feeling that there are two separate paths based on who you are or who you are aligned with.
    What troubles me is that we, the Citizens, are not able to see what is going on behind the veil. That veil of classifications does not appear to be functioning as it was intended. I believe it was intended to protect this country and this country's secrets but it was not intended to shield individuals or their actions from view.
    I heard that the ultimate custobian of the classifications is the President and that he can remove or alter those classifications.
    My question and/or suggestion is that except for our dealing as a country with other countries, or national defense secrets and the private conversations the President has with his cabinet or the leaders of Congress that the President should lift the veil of classifications from documents and let the machinations of our politicians be revealed to the Citizens of this country.
    On another issue, we see an attorney ad litem in juvenile court cases that is appointed to represent the child. Should we not see a similar legal vehicle who would represent our Citizens in the FISA court? As I understand it, the is a judge and the prosecutor with no representative standing for the accused or the suspect.
    I enjoy your newsletter and I have pared down my political emails to just your newsletter. I have found that you report on the issues that I believe relevant.
    Thanks for any attention you might give to my thoughts.
    Wayne McKinney

  • Stephen Russell

    02/06/2019 10:56 AM

    Probe: id name some key names in speech IF I had 2 to end probes.
    Make some Dems squirm in audience etc.
    Name names, addresses.