After all the false, dramatic reports about Donald Trump and anyone even remotely connected to him which have floated into the public discourse from the day he was elected president, it has become almost impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff. With the establishment media crying wolf at so many junctures, particularly regarding the probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it is beyond difficult to take their breathless reports at face value.
So what are we to make of the hysterical piece by The Hill, entitled “Dangers Multiply for Trump in Mueller Probe”? The story outlines five disparate reports thrown together in a witches brew which supposedly point to big trouble ahead for the 45th President. Let’s examine the facts and potential consequences of each of them.
“…Mueller had gathered evidence suggesting a meeting in Seychelles shortly before Trump’s inauguration was an attempt to create a back channel between his team and Russia.”
And the problem with a President-Elect establishing a back channel to Russia (or any other country) is…what? It is entirely appropriate for an incoming president to lay the groundwork for foreign relations in any way he deems appropriate, assuming no laws are broken. Must presidents rely strictly on the foreign policy establishment professionals who have done such a bang-up job (sarcasm intended)?
Indicators of Collusion
Considering the foreign adventures which have gone so badly off course in recent years, can you blame Trump for his skepticism about swamp-dwelling globalists (almost all of whom supported Hillary Clinton, even the Republicans)? And no, a private – or even secret – meeting between Trump’s team and Russians is hardly an indicator of “collusion,” a term which formed countless banner headlines, but which has now been quietly downplayed by the establishment media.
“The special counsel is also said to be investigating whether Jared Kushner’s family business dealings influenced U.S. foreign policy.”
And how exactly does one prove cause and effect when evaluating the representative of a long-standing international business enterprise with interests in many countries being granted a voice in certain foreign policy decisions? Isn’t this an accusation which could be made against almost any businessman in such a position? Should Mr. Kushner – and Donald Trump himself – have recused themselves from any decisions about any country with which he has had business dealings in the past? Imagine the mess.
“Mueller’s team has reportedly secured the cooperation of a hitherto-marginal figure, Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, who was stopped and questioned by the FBI at Washington Dulles International Airport in January.”
So, now another “hitherto-marginal” figure is the target of Robert Mueller who, oh-so-predictably, has seemingly expanded the scope of his investigation with each passing week. Nader is a one-time shadowy DC fixer who was once charged with importing obscene material from overseas and has been off the radar for many years. This sounds like another Sam Nunberg, the obviously troubled marginal figure who was canned by the Trump campaign 15 months before the election but was trotted out like a show pony by CNN, MSNBC and others this week – full of sound and fury, signifying nothing beyond his own dysfunction.
So a money guy with “links” (whatever that means) to a foreign country tries to get a public official fired. Wow – must be the first time that has ever happened.
“A New Yorker profile of Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored a contentious dossier alleging Russia had compromising material on Trump, included the detail that British intelligence services had intercepted ‘a stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow’ during the 2016 campaign. ‘The content of these intercepts has not become public,’ the author, Jane Mayer, added.”
So now we are supposed to believe this allegation contained in a discredited, scurrilous, Clinton-financed dossier which we now know was used as the basis for spying on Carter Page (and who knows who else) in the Trump campaign? Of course, it’s possible that the “stream of illicit communications” actually happened, but here’s a question: if you read something you know to be false on the first page of a book (or dossier), are you going to believe the rest of the contents?
As much as countless “experts” and journalists have engaged in extensive analysis of the Mueller probe, no one really knows to whom Mueller has spoken, what he has discovered and how long his probe will last. But trying to pull together the bits and pieces outlined herein to conclude that “dangers multiply” for the President is nothing more than rank speculation. The same kind we’ve been hearing for months on end.
But we should not be surprised at the ever-widening reach of this investigation, considering Mueller was appointed absent an alleged crime – meaning, of course, he will go to the ends of the earth to find one. He has already indicted three Trump associates on process crimes unrelated to “collusion” which, we should be reminded, is nowhere to be found in a single criminal statute.
But never mind that. The establishment media will keep on with this story until the day Mueller – finally – announces his findings. And the truth is, we still have no earthly idea when that might happen.