Beverley Scott | The Russian Collusion Delusion

Commentary
Share on facebook
Share
Share on twitter
Tweet
Share on email
Email

Part 1 of 2

The Mueller Report

The Mueller Report, which began as an investigation to ascertain whether President Trump or his campaign staff colluded with the Russians to throw the 2016 presidential election in his direction, came out after 22 months in two massive volumes totaling 448 pages. 

Volume I dealt with the purpose of the investigation, the alleged collusion. Its conclusion: “NO COLLUSION,” which was apparent for some time. No indictments have been based on collusion.

Why was President Trump suspected of collusion in the first place? It certainly appears there never was a valid basis to pursue President Trump on Russia collusion. Special Counsel Robert Mueller knew there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians long before he wrote his report. 

In February 2018, Mueller’s right-hand man Rod Rosenstein announced that no Americans were knowingly involved in the Russian interference in the election, yet Mueller did not write his report until March 2019, more than one year later. 

Volume II 

I believe Volume II was written for the use and benefit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Rep. Adam Schiff. It has been described as an op-ed, as it deals totally with hearsay, “he said” “she said,” gossip, innuendo, and propaganda, all of course one-sided, which is not how it works in a court of law. 

Even though Mueller concluded that there was not enough provable obstruction to bring an obstruction charge against the president, he prepared a 200-plus-page report smearing the president’s character. 

It is considered unethical for prosecutors to write essays like this. Mueller says he found no evidence, but implies there is smoke. This was yet another abuse of power. Mueller complained that Trump considered firing Mueller and asked his attorney to do so, but apparently, he changed his mind, because that didn’t happen. 

If Trump wanted him fired, he would have been fired, and he had the right to do so. That’s not a crime. If you think about robbing a bank, does that make you guilty? 

Mueller also complained that Trump was angry about the constant smears and innuendos, but who wouldn’t be? What would you do if you were falsely accused of something you didn’t do? 

Nadler and Schiff have taken this as their cue to take up the mantle and go after Trump with an all-out witch hunt. They have now subpoenaed all of his bank records, all communications with his accounting firms, business dealings and tax returns for the past five years, etc. They sent subpoenas to 10 of the major banking institutions – looking for anything, anything – they can nail the president on. 

They have their man, and now they’re looking for a crime. Usually, it’s the other way around – first you have a crime, and then you look for the perpetrator of that crime. 

We never had a crime, at least not insofar as Trump is concerned. Schiff has stated repeatedly that he has “evidence” of Trump collusion with the Russians. Now would be a good time to present that evidence – in fact, it’s past time. Either put up or shut up. 

To quote Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, “Neither Mueller, the Obama FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Department, nor the Deep State ever had a good-faith basis to pursue President Trump on Russia collusion. Russia collusion wasn’t just a hoax, it was criminal abuse of power. The job of the intelligence community is to diligently follow evidence and prosecute crime, not play politics.”  

Congress needs to find out how claims of Russian collusion were able to consume and perpetuate through our intelligence agencies. 

Former President Obama knew that the Russians were interfering in our election, and that they had been for some time. Why didn’t they investigate that interference instead of creating the false narrative of Trump colluding with the Russians? And why wasn’t Trump informed of this during the campaign? I suspect that Trump was not informed because they knew it was false. 

Why was James Clapper so sure that there was collusion when there was not? Why did James Comey leak information regarding collusion to the press via his professor pal? The FBI has confirmed they found this coup was really about protecting Clinton and Obama and their gang from consequences of their coverup and misconduct during their administration, by diverting attention from themselves toward Trump-Russia collusion, which of course they instigated. 

This was an elaborate hoax to frame the president. Several top-level senior officials of the FBI are now under criminal investigation. 

The left and/or the mainstream media have operated under the assumption of Trump’s guilt, rather than innocence. However, we still have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in this country. They have attempted to hinder the president’s ability to lead by perpetuating the phony collusion narrative. I hope the facts exposing the unlawful efforts to destroy Trump’s presidency (by whatever means necessary) will be brought to light by Attorney General William Barr.  

A senior FBI official admitted under oath that they found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, in the Executive Office of the President. Obama interfered in Israel’s election by sending his campaign staff to assist Benjamin Netanyahu’s opponent. The Deep State has been on a lawless full-scale attack not only against President Trump, his family and his team, but also against honest elections and our federal laws. 

Rod Rosenstein, who assisted Mueller and helped to write the Mueller Report, offered to wear a wire to spy on the president. That’s not unbiased objectivity. 

Obstruction

Yesterday’s obsession was collusion. Today’s obsession is obstruction. Yet Trump has fully cooperated with the special counsel. He has not asserted any executive privilege claims. He has provided millions of documents when asked to do so. 

Mueller has had unfettered access to the White House and campaign documents. Trump directed his senior officials to testify fully. He did not deprive the special counsel of any documents or witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. There was no corrupt intent. So how is that obstructing justice?  

There were no restrictions on Mueller. For sure, if Mueller had an obstruction case against the president, he would have brought it. 

Beverley Scott is a Valencia resident. Part 2 of this commentary is scheduled to appear Saturday.

Advertisement

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS