Why Do They Grieve?

What were you hoping the result of the Mueller investigation would be?

Were you hoping that the Special Counsel would find evidence of Russian collusion on the part of the Trump campaign sufficient to convince the Senate that the President should be removed from office? Many partisan Democrats, celebrities and members of the press – groups with nearly complete overlap – were clearly hoping for just that. They wanted – and no doubt still want – to believe that that President Trump was, to quote Stephen Colbert’s (homophobic, FWIW) “joke”, President Putin’s “cock holster”.

That possibility never made much sense. Why would the Kremlin have bet heavily on a candidate who looked like a sure loser – and one who promised to Make America Great Again by, among other things, ramping up defense spending, taking a much tougher line with Russia on its partial invasion of Ukraine, putting American troops in the Baltic states and – even more important – reversing the Obama Administration’s (anti-)energy production and transportation policies that were so helpful to Russia with regard to the pricing of its only valuable export – energy?

Trump may be personally respectful of Putin, but his policies have been a disaster for the Russians. If, indeed, somebody at the KGB had helped Trump get elected, by now Putin would presumably have had him tortured, then shot.  

Even so, the braying hounds of the left – of whom there are many, now covered with mud – made an astonishing amount of noise as they gave joyful chase to the illusion of treasonous behavior by Trump. Every time a highly partisan, low rent former Obama Administration intelligence official – Clapper, say, or Brennan – or a lying, leaking exile from the FBI like Comey or McCabe – went on TV to breathlessly intimate that the end was near for Trump, this “news” (ok, ok: fake news) was greeted with joy by much of the Trump-hating left. They wanted it to be true that our election process had been easily subverted by foreign interests and that our President was a treasonous criminal.

The palpable disappointment on the part of the left resulting from Mueller’s conclusion that there was nothing to the Russian collusion allegations is what gamblers might call a tell – evidence that possible treason at the highest levels wasn’t really the primary concern to the collusion-mongers. If they had been concerned about such horrifying possibilities, they would be happy about Mueller’s conclusion (and they might’ve shown some curiosity about whether Hillary approved the sale of 20% of America’s uranium to Russian interests while the Russian government was making enormous donations to the Clinton Foundation). No, the left wasn’t worried that collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians had taken place, they hoped it had.

And why would they hope that our President, while a candidate, had sold out our interests to a foreign adversary?

Because that would allow them to shut down the many policy initiatives that they abhorred and knew Trump would be taking and to besmirch him and all those who supported him in a fashion that would make the post-Watergate Republican bloodbath look like a picnic. Trump’s treason – if it had existed – would likely have given the left the upper hand politically for years to come. And that, dear readers, is what most of them were really after.

Now it appears that the real scandal – and maybe set of related crimes – was the way that former members of the Obama Administration, working closely with our equally partisan media, ginned up a phony scandal to justify a multi-year investigation of the President in the hopes of a) hampering his ability to pursue his agenda, b) maybe finding something, anything to justify getting rid of him and c) covering for/excusing rampant and otherwise presumptively illegal spying on Trump’s campaign by members of the intelligence services. Of these three possible motivations, the first is understandable, if low, the second a gross abuse of investigatory powers for political ends and the third, if true, a much more serious set of political crimes than Watergate.

I am sorry to write that this story won’t be over until we learn the extent to which the the third possible motivation – covering for illegal spying by Obama Administration officials – explains the strange origins of the Russian collusion investigation. The first two are clear enough already.

M.H. Johnston

P.S. The questions with which I opened this post were meant rhetorically. I’m pretty sure that you were not among those who went into mourning when Mueller’s findings were announced. After all, it would be wrong to hope for the worst in terms of the legitimacy of our elections and the integrity of our President, wouldn’t it?       

6 comments to Why Do They Grieve?

  • Vivian  says:

    Certainly sums up the possible motives. I might add, Trump’s election may have damaged their self-image. “If that clown can become president, what does it say about our feet of clay?”

  • Ronald Davenport  says:

    I can’t say that I’m glad that the Mueller Report said that President Trump didn’t collude with Russia to get elected. I am relieved, however, because I think such a finding would be bad for the country. I would also be relieved to learn that President Trump is not in debt to various foreigners including Russians. On the former point, I find it hard to believe that highly sensitive internal polling data was given to Russians by people associated with the Trunp campaign. On the latter point, I find it equally hard to believe that citizen Trump was such a great negotiator that he was able to flip multi-million dollar condos and residences for multiples of their purchase prices to sophisticated purchasers notwithstanding the fact that no American banks would do business with him.
    In terms of phony scandals for political purposes, however, I must disagree. While there may not be a “fire” in terms of crimes intentionally committed that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, there’s a whole lot of “smoke.” Prosecutorial discretion is an interesting thing (just ask Jeffrey Epstein), and the fact that Mueller didn’t seek criminal penalties for “conspiracy” (not collusion which isn’t a crime) or obstruction doesn’t necessarily mean that such crimes didn’t occur. It’s also interesting that Mr. Mueller chose not to interview President Trump or any members of his family. It would be impossible to understand President Trump’s motives or intentions without asking him.
    Last, in terms of scandal for political purposes it would be hard to top Benghazi. True, 4 Americans died. However (and I welcome fact checkers on this): the deaths occurred in September 2012 and the investigation wasn’t started until 2014; the findings were released in June 2016 but the final report wasn’t issued until after the 2016 election; at 2 years and 4 months, the investigation lasted longer than 9/11, Watergate, the JFK assassination and Pearl Harbor, and now Mueller’s investigation; and Kevin McCarthy bragged about how the investigation helped bring down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.
    Therefore, I am relieved that the special counsel decided not to charge President Trump with conspiring with foreign adversaries to subvert the 2016 election because I see it to be in the best interest of the country. I also can’t begin to imagine the hue and cry and invective if the parties were reversed.

  • Doug  says:

    Good commentary. I grieve because the former administration…Obama, Clinton (yes as Sec’y of State she was obligated),Clapper, Comey, et al. KNEW of the Operation C.H.A.O.S. shenanigans of the Russians and never thought to warn the new ‘reality star’ non politician President. Not the least of whom is Schiff et al. pronouncing that there was hard evidence. This result is proof positive that the MSM is complicit (something most anyone with a pulse knows) and that they seek neither justice nor the objective reporting of the truth. If all (MSM and attacking dogs of the left) are altruistic and loyal to the Constitution, they should celebrate this finding. On the unpleasant imagery and ‘Cock Holster’ comment, I would recommend the equivalent of the Penile Plethysmograph for the anti-Trump but Pro America contingent. Any that mourns this outcome is Un-American.

  • Doug McCaig  says:

    On second thought, there is something significantly more egregious in this. Clapper and HR Clinton knew that the Russian operatives were routinely working to hack and disrupt our democracy. Heck, Clapper admitted that again last night on CNN. HRC has Secretary of State was dealing with this as part of her job. She was certainly, at the least, licking her wounds after having been hacked from her closet server and all of this information being made available through WikiLeaks. If she and Clapper were patriotic and altruistic and looked beyond their noses, shouldn’t they have taken the lead in warning the new President to watch out? So Ron Davenport, I would agree that this is a good outcome for America. For the sake of this, I would forget Citizen Trump who you apparently despise. When are Clinton, Clapper, Blumenthal, and Schiff going to be held to account for feeding off of the vulnerability of a freshman politician? This is a pathetic example that the Clinton cabal has set.

  • Anonymous  says:

    Well said. Mark seems unconcerned that the facts will revel Russians interfered with our election.

    I guess Mark agrees with Trump’s assessment in Helsinki
    and believes Putin when he says Russia did not interfere with our election. Our seventeen intelligence agency all are headed by individuals of the deep state and there was no interference with our election and no need to take any action or precautions to curtail this behavior in future election Donald and Mark believe Putin

    Of course Trump may at times have memory loss or outright lie. I guess it was a loss of memory when he boldly claimed over and again that he had no business dealings in Russia…. only his largest deal ever in Moscow but why would that influence his behavior negotiating with Russia.

    Then again I assume it was coincidence that Ivanka was able to score three new licenses to operate her businesses in China after being seated next the the Chinese leader at Mara Largo.

    Campaign manager, assistant campaign manager head of security found guilty all concerning foreign governments. Jared with zero experience

    But then again Trump seems to have memory loss when it comes to Russia. He stated over and again that he had no business dealings with Russia. . . Oh just my biggest deal ever a tower in Moscow and a penthouse for my idol Vladimir.

    Or maybe it was the deep state the helped Ivanka get four new licensees for her business in China while dinning with the Chinese leader at Mara Lago.

    • M Johnston  says:

      Dear Anonymous:

      Not sure where you read that I’m unconcerned with foreign interference in our elections. I have no doubt that the Russians (and probably the Chinese) have done all they could to sow dissension in our ranks and discredit our elections – for many years. If the Democrats wanted to do the same, what would they do differently than to baselessly accuse our President of having stolen the election with Russian help?

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>