The Russian Collusion

If any journalist or politician that still says that Russian collusion did happen and that Trump is using partisanship to undo that investigative work (for which the Democrats held all the cards and documents and still couldn't prove anything), and you believe them, don't read on. You don't care about the truth.

Remember, Russian collusion was about the new national security advisor allegedly collaborating with a foreign government (Russia) to interfere in the election. This was the same guy Obama fired because he publically disagreed with Obama. This was all about getting back at Flynn and trying to unseat the new POTUS.

Let's just stop right there. Below are facts that cannot be denied. Below I ask for proving otherwise. If all you have is a news story that doesn't offer supporting documentation, don't bother. My proof you can easily find by watching reruns of C-SPAN when our legislators were reading these documents withheld by Democrats for three years. I saw no Democrat deny what was in those documents because they read them too. Do you think the news reported that? Soon all those documents unredacted will be available for public consumption. My attorney recommended holding off on a FOIA request until that happened or the request by others is granted.

1. After 3 years there were no charges of collusion or interfering in the election. There was no evidence of interference presented let alone any information about how it happened. Moreover, there was nothing in any conversation Flynn had that had any such subject matter (except with his attorney after being targeted). Nothing. Can you prove otherwise?

2. Those who said there was collusion in the news, all denied there was in their sworn depositions. All of them! That of course protected them from prosecution later. Can you prove otherwise?

3. Flynn's confession of lying to investigators was coerced using threats against his son, and his attorney recommended going with it to get it all over with and end their bogus investigation against his son. Considering the investigation against him was absolutely bogus and destroyed him financially, who wouldn't take a bullet for one's son? Then he got a different attorney who said retract that confession (his legal right). Any other case in this country would be thrown out due to the coercion and no probable cause (the Steele Dossier was not - see below). Those charges of lying - the only thing they could get done after 3 years - were bogus. After all, the only thing he did was talk to the ambassador. Every word of that the FBI already knew. So what were the lies about? Can you prove otherwise?

4. The Obama DOJ was shocked about the FBI behavior and said they need to stop. But she didn't go any further than that. Sound like partisanship to you? Can you prove otherwise?

5. The only evidence to open the investigation was by a former British spy (who is former because of his shenanigans) about a supposed Russian connection in Russia. In reality, the Russian involved in Steele's interview for the dossier was an American Russian that worked for a left-leaning organization funded by Hillary Clinton. Everyone questioned the believability of that former spy to begin with, but were told to continue anyway. Can you prove otherwise?

6. The actual conversation that Flynn had was with the Russian ambassador and it was about asking Russia not to escalate tensions in response to the sanctions. He was the national security advisor, and that sort of thing was his job. Can you prove otherwise?

7. Continuing this hoax and letting the worse abuse of power since the Hoover FBI and Roosevelt's robbery of American gold go without being addressed, is treasonous. Think about that the next time you want to believe the false narratives and who you vote for. Can you prove otherwise?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

You’re a Person of Color?

I like to begin with first and foremost, so... first and foremost, all people, not just people/person(s) of color (POC), can benefit from reading this. It is because whether we do or do not identify as a POC, we are all people - human beings with common and unique faults, strengths, and weaknesses. What do you do about the bias against you that you experience as a POC? So far, we’ve seen many movements and many efforts to raise awareness, demand justice, and all of that. But that’s not what I’m getting at. What I am asking is what are you doing about you?  Before I continue, I have a few thoughts to share. First, there are always two sides of every experience that seems racially biased: those experiencing the bias and those demonstrating it. Each side of such experiences has components that exist and components that do not exist, in isolation with the other. Such experiences are dynamic largely because of how we are wired to look at the world and how we are wired socially.  Be...
Read more

Risk If True Most Severe Ever

Whether the following is true or not, the scientific community needs to stop being political. If a lab can reproduce the findings of the following controversial paper, under the strict supervision of a trusted entity that will destroy the product after it is reported, then they should. Only then will we know for sure whether the COVID-19 virus was manufactured, helped along to facilitate accelerated mutations using human trials, or actually came from Nature's kitchen. Because if it is true, then we are living under a threat so severe it makes Nagasaki and Hiroshima look like child's play. The preponderance of scientific literature I've been steeped in over the better part of the last two decades goes back nearly a century and documents how easily the Hitler phenomenon and Stanley Milgram phenomenon can occur en mass within society, infecting the public, politicians, business leaders, and especially the media. My own investigations finding repeating but unsubstantiated narra...
Read more

New York Times Life-Long Romance With Communism

If I were the gatekeeper for who gets good or bad repute, I would want to give myself a good one under the auspice of modesty. Would not the newspaper of record, the New York Times, do the same? As is oft said, truth is sometimes too bizarre to be fabricated. And truth must be told as simply and as boldly as possible. We all studied history in school. If we were lucky, we had interest, a good textbook, and a non-boring teacher. But even if we had these three magic ingredients, we couldn’t possibly know what is not directly revealed in the history books. How could we read between lines that were not printed? All this came to mind as I pondered when the New York Times might have lost their way as the newspaper of record – the former noble journalist paradise where fact, not worldview, agenda, and spin ruled. As I revisited history anew, I began to doubt the New York Times ever truly earned such acclaimed magnanimity. It was obvious from my inquiry how powerful the pen was to change t...
Read more