Will the Real Mueller Report Please Stand Up?

We have heard, ad nauseam, that the American people deserve to see the full Robert Mueller report. That is a fair statement, even though it was never necessary; the average person would have been perfectly content with an honest summary of what the special counsel investigation concluded and why.

Since we had to endure the hysterical demands that everyone get to the see the report, though – and now that it has been made public – it is time to demand that everyone see the version of the report the Democrats and their zombie journalist army saw because clearly it was not the same report.

This Mueller Report or That Mueller Report?

Mueller and his team concluded that there was no coordination or conspiracy involving the Trump 2016 election campaign and the Russians. At least, that was the finding laid out in the report most people got to see. In the Democrat version of the report, oodles of evidence indicate that the president and his ragtag band of loyal, jackbooted thugs and criminals eagerly worked in concert with Russian operatives and that together they stole the election right out from under Hillary Clinton’s nose.

Version I of the report admitted a failure, on the part of the special counsel, to firmly conclude that the president obstructed justice. Conversely, version II presented a clear and indisputable case of obstruction. On CNN and MSNBC, vast panels of ne’er-do-wells gather each day to reassure each other that the evidence against the president is all there, as plain as day. Several Democratic Party presidential hopefuls confidently have asserted their firm belief that the report damns the president.

There is a disconnect. Either there are two quite different versions of the report or people on one side of the political spectrum have embarked upon a strict diet of peyote and the kind of mushrooms one cannot buy at the grocery store.

James Clapper’s Passive Collusion Theory

If the post-Mueller media foaming, frothing, and thrashing around were not already enough to make one want to gouge out one’s eyes with a hot spoon, James Clapper’s contribution to the mass delusion surely will.

Pause for a moment to remember who Clapper is. Other than Rep.  Adam Schiff (D-CA), there may have never been a more creepy-looking dude to prowl the corridors of power in Washington. Clapper looks like an incarnation from the pages of a Stephen King novel, or perhaps a hell-born demon from a Wes Craven movie. More terrifying than that, however, is the reality: Clapper was in fact director of national intelligence.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper, resplendent in his journalist costume, recently solicited Clapper’s opinion of the Mueller report. It is worth repeating that Clapper is the former director of national intelligence, in light of what he, Clapper, told Cooper.

“If there wasn’t active collusion proven,” Clapper said, “then I think what we have here is a case of passive collusion."

Passive collusion. Let that sink it.

Clapper may also believe in the existence of very small giants. He may be a man with an extremely loud whisper. He warms himself in front of cold fires. Passive collusion. How does one collude passively? According to Clapper – who once served as director of national intelligence – one passively colludes when one unwittingly takes an action that benefits someone else.

Imagine a police chase after a bank robbery: The robbers, in their getaway vehicle, are racing down the high street. They race past as you pull out of a side street. A moment later, the pursuing police vehicle speeds around the corner, but your car is now blocking its path. Congratulations! You have just passively colluded in a bank heist. Enjoy your 15 years in prison. Make yourself a shiv. Your days of passively colluding are over, you filthy swine.

So, yes, we need to see what is in that report, the one from which the Democrats and the media are working. We also need to restructure the entire U.S. Code to ensure that people who passively collude in crimes are held accountable. In particular, our political leaders need to be far more careful about vetting future directors of national intelligence to ensure they possess, well, intelligence.

~

At Liberty Nation, we love to hear from our readers. Comment and join the conversation!