Wednesday, June 14, 2017

The quiet shift of narrative that the left hopes nobody pays attention to...

Let's start with the obvious...

  • There is zero evidence of criminal collusion between the Trump team and the Russians. 
  • Trump himself is not even considered a person of interest in such a probe. 
  • In spite of nearly a year of investigation, in spite of two congressional investigation, and in spite of special counsel overseeing the probe... there remains two chances of finding any criminal collusion: minute and none.

As this becomes increasingly obvious... the Democrats and their cronies in the media are attempting to slowly but surely "shift" the narrative from collusion to obstruction. While I am sure the mindless drones on the left will fall for such an obvious ploy, and the powers that control will keep them distracted from reality... there remains a long uphill battle to move this from narrative to substance.

The question that is now being asked is when is enough, enough? At what point does the left admit that there is no "there there" and decide to move on to how we move the country forward, solve the problems that need to be solved, and work to make people's lives better?

The answer from the conspiracy theorists on the left seems to be that we will move on when we find something else to distract us. Right now, that distraction seems to be that Donald Trump somehow committed a crime by firing James Comey, or that he committed a crime for telling James Comey that General Flynn is a good guy and he hopes he isn't prosecuted, or that he committed a crime because he believed that the general public had a right to know that the President himself was not under investigation.

In the eyes of the left... the new threshold for criminal behavior appears to be anything Donald Trump does that they don't like. The problem, of course, is that the law is not decided by bloggers, media hacks, polling numbers, or a count of how many articles you get during a google search. In the case of the President, the law is even more complicated than that. The end game is to prove a criminal act so blatant and obscene that you can get a considerable amount of Republican Senators to vote to convict him.

Bottom line: the left is playing an obvious game of move the goal post. Now that they know that the President himself is not even a target in the collusion investigation (much less guilty of any such collusion), they find themselves in need of a new narrative. They are hoping to move to this new narrative as seamlessly as possible, without admitting that they were wrong about everything they have claimed since November?

Who would fall for this?


rrb said...

Who would fall for this?

every single person who voted for and believed in hillary clinton.

rrb said...


"The only verified leaker exposed: Jim Comey. The only person we know is not and never was under investigation for ties to Russia: Donald Trump. The only person exposed for trying to influence an election: [Obama attorney general] Loretta Lynch. The only paper accused of publishing fake news: The New York Times. The only person who attempted to obstruct justice: Loretta Lynch and probably Bill Clinton"

--Charles Hurt

Loretta said...



Good ole gentle truth-seeking James said...


Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say

The Washington Post 32 mins ago

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that NOW INCLUDES AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s own conduct marks a major TURNING POINT in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Trump had received private assurances from former FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say THAT CHANGED SHORTLY AFTER COMEY’S FIRING.
The article continues and it is vital

wphamilton said...

Reckon Mueller is doing that with "zero evidence"?

That's a silly claim on the face of it CH. I have no doubt that there is no evidence sufficiently convincing to you, but that's a far cry from no evidence at all.

BTW, have you seen the compilations of videos and photos of Trump handshakes? What kind of moron acts like that, seriously.

Good ole gentle truth-seeking James said...

"When is enough enough?"

How about when this poor excuse for a President has been thoroughly investigated.

James said...

Sure did get mighty quiet around here, Ch, with this latest NOT so "quiet shift in narrative."

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ad infinitum.

Ch's famous last words:
"Trump himself is not even considered a person of interest in such a probe."


Loretta said...

Obnoxious troll

Loretta said...

Obnoxious troll

Loretta said...

Obnoxious troll

C.H. Truth said...

WP - "No evidence of collusion" are the exact words of several Senators and House Reps (from both sides of the aisle) who are briefed by the FBI on the ongoing investigation as well as being part of the broader congressional investigations.

If "they" haven't seen any evidence, how is it that "you" believe that there is evidence?

Hint: NYT and WaPo stories that have been debunked under oath would not be considered "evidence". Law enforcement has to use the actual evidence that they find, not evidence that is "reported" but doesn't exist.

James said...

Ch told us there would be no special counsel.
There is.

Ch told us the President was not under investigation and would not be.
He is.

The "leak" was that the President was considering firing the special counsel.
That apparently led led to the "leak" that the President is now under investigation.

James said...

Trump’s personal lawyer (he needs one!) is Marc Kasowitz.

"The FBI leak of information regarding the President is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal” said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz.

"Outrageous, inexcusable and illegal" -- also undeniable?

Then too, it is not certain where the leak came from.

Spam said...

Trump Dismisses Obstruction Investigation

President Trump took to Twitter to respond to reports that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice.
Said Trump: “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice.”

Most Say Trump Has No Respect for Democratic Traditions

A new AP-NORC poll finds 65% of Americans think President Trump “doesn’t have much respect for the country’s democratic institutions and traditions or has none at all. Just a third of Americans, or 34%, thinks he has a great deal or even a fair amount of respect for them.”
Overall, 64% disapprove and just 35% approve of his job performance.

‘Can’t Fire Him Now’

Jonathan Swan: “Republicans are seizing on a familiar — and for them, distressing — pattern: when President Trump applies unconventional or inappropriate pressure to ‘independent’ public officials, his intervention is often followed by damaging leaks.”
“About an hour after the Washington Post broke the story Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, I started hearing from Republicans who are starting to draw a straight line from Trump’s undisciplined venting to damaging leaks.”
Said one GOP operative close to the White House: “Leak was probably a response to stories about POTUS firing Mueller. Can’t fire him now.”

Why Republicans Are Worried About Mueller

Mike Allen notes that with the Washington Post bombshell report that the obstruction probe is in full swing, White House officials and Republicans sweating profusely for several reasons:
“They know Trump talked to countless people about ending the Flynn probe, so they assume Comey’s version of events is true.”
“They assume he did, indeed, ask Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, if they could help derail the Flynn probe, as the WashPost reported. They also assume he said similar things to other officials.”
“Nobody has privately mounted a straight-faced argument to us that Trump didn’t say this stuff to Comey or to Coats/Rogers. That’s telling in itself. The fact that the Trump public position — that Comey is a perjurer — isn’t being argued in private.”
Also troubling: “Any obstruction probe requires context, which means investigators digging into the finances of Flynn, Trump and Jared Kushner. This is the phase of the probe many Republicans have always feared most.”

Republicans Less Satisfied with Direction of Country

A new Gallup survey finds just 41% of Republicans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S., down 17 percentage points since last month.
Overall U.S. satisfaction dropped to 24%, down seven percentage points.

wphamilton said...

For starters, senior Trump official has already resigned due to his dealings with Russians. How is that not evidence? All of the covert contacts are evidence. Intercepted Russian intelligence communications are evidence. It's silly to pretend that there is no evidence.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious troll

Loretta said...

Obnoxious troll

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling.

James said...

Absolutely correct, Wp.

Commonsense said...

For starters, senior Trump official has already resigned due to his dealings with Russians. How is that not evidence?

Evidence of what exactly?

None of this is evidence and anything. If there was evidence of collusion that would have been leaked instead of vague (and mostly incorrect) reports of contacts with Russian officials.

For every true report of a contact there is more likely a legal, proper and legitimate reason for such contacts than a nefarious reason.

You are easily subscribing to the narrative created by the Clintons and John Podesta in the wake of her disastrous loss and are desperately grasping at anything that feeds that narrative.

janes said...

eric‏ @eriContrarian

Yesterday: GOP hates women, minorities, gays, earth, clean water, clean air. They'll kill you and your kids
Today: hey guys, same team.

Gingrich said but Ken Starr said...

Tuesday morning on Good Morning America, Newt Gingrich blasted Mueller and his still-forming team. “These are bad people,” Newt Gingrich told George Stephanopoulos. “I’m very dubious of the team.”

But that criticism flies in the face of widespread, bipartisan acclaim for the team. In fact, just a day earlier, on the same program, former Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr praised Mueller at length. “I don’t think there’s a legitimate concern about Bob Mueller,” Starr said, explaining that the former FBI director was “honest as the day is long.”

Wired said...

not only that, but he's choosing an INVESTIGATORY DREAM TEAM!

Wired said...

“From the list of hires, it’s clear, in fact, that Mueller is recruiting perhaps the most high-powered and experienced team of investigators ever assembled by the Justice Department. “

Questioner said...

How many Republicans are secretly praying that Mueller can "rid us of this troublesome Prez"?

janesnewleaf said...

Todays only likely voter RCP poll (Rasmussen)

47% approval rating for PRESIDENT TRUMP !!!

Bloomberg predicting he will win re-election!!

Democrats going beserk

Trump said...


C.H. Truth said...

Intercepted Russian intelligence communications are evidence.

WP... There IS NO intercepted Russian Intelligence communications. Never were. Comey stated UNDER OATH that those reports were false.

It's silly to pretend that there is no evidence.

Basically you are calling every member of the Senate and House intelligence committees who have stated as such... silly.

What's "silly" WP... is stubbornly refusing to accept that most of the "leaked information" is simply not true and therefor is not evidence and therefor not presented to anyone who has seen the "actual" lack of evidence.

wphamilton said...

CH ... No, Comey did NOT testify that there were no intercepted Russian communications. You're injecting your subjective opinion into what he did say.

It is established and documented that there were. Comey may have acted on false intelligence, but that doesn't mean there is NO intelligence.

Numerous reports said...

Reports: U.S. Intercepted Calls Between Trump Campaign Staff And Russian Intelligence

Russian intelligence officials made repeated contact with members of President Trump's campaign staff, according to new reports that cite anonymous U.S. officials. American agencies were concerned about the contacts but haven't seen proof of collusion between the campaign and the Russian security apparatus, the reports say.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the calls at the same time as they investigated Russia's attempts to tamper with the presidential election, according to The New York Times, which first reported the contacts.

Both the Times and CNN, which has published its own story about the intercepted communications, cite multiple current and former U.S. officials as the sources for their stories.

According to CNN, "The communications were intercepted during routine intelligence collection targeting Russian officials and other Russian nationals known to U.S. intelligence."

Reporter Matt Apuzzo, part of the Times team that broke the story, tells NPR's Morning Edition that while officials said they haven't seen proof of collusion — "just the flurry of contacts was enough, and the timing of the contacts, was enough to get them very concerned."

U.S. agencies are still working to determine the reasons behind the contacts, officials tell both news outlets.

Michael Flynn, whose tenure as national security adviser lasted less than four weeks, was among the Trump insiders who were regularly in touch with Russians, according to CNN.

Flynn resigned late Monday after reports alleged that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with that country's ambassador — and then misled Vice President Pence about the conversations. The chain of events emerging today suggests that those contacts in late December are separate from the calls cited by officials who discussed contacts between Trump campaign aides and Russian nationals during the heat of last year's election season.

President Trump called the new reports "conspiracy theories" early Wednesday.