Ask yourself: why is there any suspicion of Trump colluding with Russia in the first place? What spurred this question? What specific instance or incident gave rise to the question, “Is Trump in bed with the Russians?”
Was it when Trump publicly asked if “Russian hackers” could find Hillary’s missing emails? If you believe that you’re a fool. That was a joke told at a campaign event. If you honestly believe that constituted Russian collusion, you are too dumb to be allowed to vote. The belief that that remark, during a nationally-televised campaign rally, was the impetus for the entire Russian collusion investigation is too stupid for words.
No: the origin of the “Trump colluded with Russia” narrative was the Steele Dossier.
In other words, Trump’s political enemies invented the whole thing.
The Steele Dossier was commissioned and funded by the Clinton campaign and then passed to the Obama intelligence community, which began the investigation. It was political from the start.
And so this is why Mueller knows he’s not going to find any collusion. He’s known it all along. There is no uncertainty. It’s not an open question still yet to be answered. Mueller has known the answer from the beginning.
It was Mueller’s Deep state buddies like a Hillary, Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan that invented the “Trump Russia collusion” narrative from the very start. It was invented by the Uniparty elites.
They know it’s not true because they were the ones who started the rumor in the first place. When someone starts a false rumor about someone else, the only two people who know the truth are the victim and the person who started the rumor in the first place.
The whole point was never to get Trump for Russian collusion. Uniparty elites have known from the start that there was no Russian collusion because they were the ones who made up the narrative that there was. They never intended to get Trump on Russian collusion; that was always simply a pretext to turn his life upside down via the Special Counsel investigation. The “Russian collusion” narrative has always been a means to an end. Only a rube would believe it’s true or could possibly be true.
You have to be a cable news-watching misinformed NPC dummy to believe the “Russian collusion” narrative has not been a setup from the start.
Why do you think Mueller and the media moved off of the collusion question so quickly? Why do you think they’re trying to nail trump on process crimes like “obstruction of justice” or bullshit that has nothing to do with Russian collusion like “campaign finance violations”?
Why do you think that, in addition to finding absolutely zero evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia, nobody’s been able to find anything that Russian or “Russian hackers” even did to benefit Trump in the election? Last month, Google’s CEO went before Congress and informed the nation that Russia’s attempts to “influence the election” amounted to spending about $4,700 on Google ads in 2016. We’re supposed to believe insignificant stuff like this tipped the election to Trump.
Yes, Hillary Clinton spent $1.1 billion on the 2016 election, but it was a few thousand bucks of Google search ads bought by Russians that swayed the entire election.
We never hear about Russia collusion anymore because the Russia collusion narrative long ago served its purpose. The day Mueller was first appointed in May 2017, the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was no longer needed. It was the foot in the door, the pretext, the justification for a larger, more general investigation into every aspect of Donald Trump’s life.
The Mueller investigation is Peter Strzok’s “insurance policy.”
Mueller isn’t looking for Russian collusion because he has known from the start that there was none. It was his old protege James Comey, along with Clapper, Brennan, the Clinton Campaign and the Obama White House, that invented the Russian collusion narrative. Mueller is the fixer brought in to weaponize the Department of Justice against Donald Trump in order to find (or create, if need be) an impeachable offense.
People have got to understand this. It has been a set-up from the start. The Deep State needed a legitimate reason to launch a massive, endless investigation into Donald Trump, and that’s why they invented the Very Serious Question of whether or not Trump colluded with Russia. Their mouthpieces in the media have done a good job selling the story to the rubes and pretending it’s an open question, but it’s not.
There never was any collusion. The Obama FBI was not made aware of possible Trump-Russia collusion: they were the progenitors of the narrative themselves, along with the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The Deep State did not uncover a possible link between Trump and Russia; it invented the narrative that there was one.
When an enquiry is set up in the first place surely it is only set up if there is an evidence- based cause for enquiry. We are then obliged to wait until the enquiry is complete and we have read the report before we can determine whether or not the enquiry is justified.
All we have to go on thus far is that at least a number in the Trump campaign were sufficiently dishonest to be charged and subsequently found guilty of a number of quite serious examples of blatant dishonesty which went against Mr Trump’s original claims that they were blameless and had done nothing wrong.
Further there is now sufficient evidence to conclude that Russia was attempting to influence the outcome of the campaign which presumably is why one particular Russian agent confessed and was determined to be guilty. Independent judges concluded the charges against these Trump campaign officials thus far charged were justified – and certainly showed serious flaws in the reasoning that there was no case to answer. The report is still to come but I fail to understand why such a complex enquiry should not be allowed to run its course. If as you imply no further evidence will turn out to be of concern – surely that would help not hinder Mr Trump’s case that the enquiry is not worth pursuing.
When one sees what they want to see, because the created false narrative make them feel good, of course this makes sense. But, if one truly uses their very own powers of critical thinking, not lazily accepting the MSM’s version of reality, it becomes very apparent that this is a political hit job and witch hunt.
The “created false narrative” has thus far caught a surprising number of Trump staff and advisors doing seriously criminal things even in an administration where strange behaviour is surprising common. Unless of course you are telling us that the judges selected by approved methods for their trusted ability to administer the law according to trusted principles are nothing better than the naïve pawns of some banana republic.