RUSSIA COLLUSION "D or R"?

RUSSIAN COLLUSION AND DEMOCRATS

Several weeks ago I wrote to friends on Facebook asking, somewhat rhetorically, what would happen when the “Russian-Trump Collusion Investigation” forced focus on Democrats, Clinton(s), the Obama DOJ and others of the “Deep State,” including Comey and Mueller. What would happen? Would it be reported or covered up? Who would report it? Well, it's happened and those expected to be questioned as perpetrators and accomplices are already parsing words, denying what would appear to be obvious, lying and looking for cover. The four most common words, written about here in the past, “there is no evidence,” are falling from the tongue of Clinton, DNC operatives and others. Those words have been prominently used since the sub-cultural revolution abrogated the absolutes of ethics and morals and of what's right and what's wrong to focus on what can be deemed legal. What can we expect now?

The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel wrote an op-ed today that outlines the problem. The DNC and the Clinton campaign and all of their operatives must now be viewed as ones responsible for the Russian-Trump “collusion” investigation. I have thought from the initiation of the investigation that this is typical “projectiion,” but the worst of it. As I have written before, unfortunately today's “Progressive” Democrats have become masters, professionals, at using the technique, none better than the Clintons. What is “projection?” It's simply assigning ones own activities, especially sins, transgressions, wrong-doings of all sorts to the opposition. From the get-go I've thought this is what the “Deep State” operators are doing with the claims of Russian-Trump collusion.

I must remain skeptical of the investigation led by Robert Mueller as I was of James Comey. Just as I didn't accept the praise heaped upon Comey and wrote accurately on May 21, 2016 that he would exonerate Clinton and how he would do it, I am equally skeptical of the Mueller investigation. I've assumed that Mueller will indict one or more people and I still think his target is Trump. Hopefully, the issue will soon be resolved with the focus now on the Democrats as the “owners” of the Russian-Trump collusion that I choose to call a diversion from their own complicity in what could be criminal action. But, I will not be surprised if Mueller plows on to get PresidentTrump.

I would hope all of this nation-damaging activity can be settled soon, with resolution of who is responsible for what. HOWEVER, suddenly we have the 54-year old JFK assassination now flooding the media. Why now? I want that resolution also, but will it be done correctly – fairly and honestly?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own experie
Read more