So far, so no Russian collusion. The FBI have charged General Mike Flynn with what it is known in the trade as a ‘process crime’ of lying to the FBI, about perfectly legal discussions with ‘Ze Russians’ after the election of Donald Trump. So this was not illegal discussions with the Russians in an attempt to steal the election.

Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist explains: ‘I was promised treasonous collusion with Russia to steal an election, not diplomatic groundwork by an incoming admin.’

Don’t bother listening to the Today programme on this. Just listen to Mark Levin explain the whole wretched business.

Let’s just say, for now, this so-called Russian collusion narrative is a big fat nothing burger.

Maybe they’ll find something, maybe. But at the moment the FBI have a guilty plea to lying to an FBI agent, mainly because they threatened to come after General Mike Flynn’s son.

When you are done with Levin, Ann Coulter is worth listening to.

She does some interesting compare-and-contrast with actual contact made by the then Senator Ted Kennedy when Russia was the Communist USSR intent on destroying the West. Yes, that same Ted Kennedy I talked about before.

Finally, if you have time, you can finish with Ben Shapiro’s analysis. Even if there was no Russian collusion, and no substantive crime, there could still be an attempt to take down the Trump administration.

Shapiro: ‘This sets off the distinct possibility of a bevy of legal charges based on untruth, but with no underlying crime. This wouldn’t be about collusion or election-rigging, but about ensnaring Trump administration officials in their own words.’

He concludes: ‘If there is no underlying crime – if this is sheer incompetence followed up by lying to the FBI about sheer incompetence, all based on anger at flimsily-sourced charges of Russian collusion – we could quickly find ourselves in a scenario where President Trump seeks to pardon those around him, fire Mueller, and then be put up for impeachment by Democrats, all without any proof of actual criminal wrongdoing with regard to Russia. That would turn into a massive political conflagration. We’d have a scandal about a scandal about nothing.’


  1. Robert Muller is a formidable prosecutor, and a man of unimpeachable integrity and probity. Laura needs to relax. I’m sure Muller knows what he’s doing, and that Mr Trump and his clan will be judged fairly for their deeds. It is disappointing though that a supposedly intelligent woman, appears to swallow the transparent and frankly pathetic deflections that Trump and his supporters are promulgating.

    • Mueller has a track record of failure, in fact, so less of the “formidable prosecutor”, and how do you know he is “a man of unimpeachable integrity and probity”? Did he tell you that himself? It doesn’t really fit with the fact that his best friend is James Comey, or that he has packed his investigating team with Democratic donors, including ones known to have demonstrated strong pro-Clinton/anti-Trump bias.

      That investigation has miraculously overflowed beyond its brief. As Laura Perrins rightly pointed out, the very feeble “confession” by Mike Flynn admitted no wrong-doing beyond saying something vaguely incorrect to the FBI. At the time, he was being questioned about a crime that has not even, as yet, been defined. Talking to the Russian ambassador is not a crime. That’s sort of what ambassadors are for. Mueller can pin no crime on Flynn. Notoriously, if the FBI can’t get you on anything else, it will catch you out in contradictory answers to questioning, which is exactly what we have here.

      Far from being a man of probity, Mueller is grotesquely implicated in the corrupt circumstances surrounding the Uranium One deal, when he was FBI chief and his subordinates had an agent able to testify to the Russian bribery and racketeering, which culminated in the deal. FBI and DoJ high-ups who failed to pursue the allegations: Mueller himself; current Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, arch-Clintonista; Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney-General, Democrat and the man who appointed Mueller as special counsel. Several years later, a Russian was prosecuted on a very minor charge. Delaying politically consequential trials was an Obama-era habit; think Nidal Hasan, or Bowe Bergdahl. On the other hand, when Obama and Clinton needed a conviction quickly, they couldn’t get Nakoula Nakoula into court fast enough.

      Mueller had one Paul Strzok interview Flynn. By a singular coincidence, Strzok had also interviewed Hillary Clinton, that time when she was not put under oath, was not recorded and was accompanied by nine lawyers, two of them themselves of material interest to the Clinton case. Strzok was eventually sidelined, when the anti-Trump tweets he exchanged with his Justice Department mistress came to light.

      Meanwhile, Mueller, bastion of integrity, has been countenancing leaks from the investigation to favoured news outlets, which tend, coincidentally, to be the ones preferred by Democrats. Rosenstein set no parameters for Mueller’s role. A special counsel is supposed to look into specific matters, but Mueller considers he has unlimited licence to roam, in the search for anything with which to undermine the elected President.

        • From that Telegraph piece:

          “Two blots on his tenure were the Boston Bombing in April 2013 – Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the lead bomber, had previously been investigated by the FBI – and the Fort Hood shooting.”

          “Blots on his tenure”? Yeah, that’s one way of putting it, I suppose. Bloodstains, rather than blots, perhaps. Mueller was directly responsible for hamstringing FBI investigations into muslim terrorism. He was the one who acceded to demands from muslim brotherhood affiliates that islam-related terminology be purged from FBI investigations and training manuals. Did you know that a report into the Fort Hood massacre not only avoided the words “muslim”, “islam” and “jihad”, but even managed to squirm away from mentioning the give-away name of the terrorist?

          Mueller’s “integrity” and “probity” cost lives.

          (I notice you can’t respond to a single point I made and you rely on just one piece from the Telegraph to back you up.)

          • Nothing you say merits a response. Google is your friend here along with your God given intelligence. Assuming you have any. Interesting that this article should appear the same day Muller has subpoenaed Trump’s financial record from Deutschebank. If he has nothing, as Ms Perrins, our resident legal experts suggests, that is the most outrageous fishing expedition. Man of his considerable experience should know better eh?

          • Learn to write sentences, ignoramus. You are so stupid that you think Mueller must have a good reason for issuing a subpoena, just because he has done it, even though you have already conceded that it is a fishing expedition. You can’t have it both ways. The DoJ and FBI have themselves been ignoring subpoenas for months. How does your woodlouse-level logic work with that?

            You can’t rebut a single argument of mine. Hang on: I think they are calling you from the burger counter.

  2. I suspect we have heard only the half if it.
    And then… how can you defend him encouraging the Russians to ‘find’ Clinton’s emails or speaking about whether the ‘2nd amendment folks’ could stop Clinton’s supposed gun control plans in a deliberately provocative, yet ambiguous way – never clarified.
    Nasty man.

    • Lots of people were pointing out that Hillary Clinton’s private server left confidential communications insecure. It would be very surprising if the Russians did not have a full set of Clinton’s e-mails. Similarly, GCHQ and Israeli intelligence probably captured the lot, too, as, I expect, did the NSA. Trump was simply pointing out the truth: that Clinton, acting in her own selfish interests, was wholly and characteristically irresponsible.

        • Well, I’d assume that the NSA would have communications in and out of Clinton’s illegal server, with or without intentionally monitoring it.

      • Maybe, maybe not but just how would that justify inviting Russia in, and even more alarmingly, what he said about the 2nd amendment folk?

        • That’s my point. He wasn’t “inviting” the Russians, or anyone else. He was acknowledging that Clinton’s illegal arrangements had meant that her yoga e-mails and (who knows?) maybe the odd one which was supposed to be protected had made it into foreign hands. Abetted by Obama, the State Department was pretending that it could find no more e-mails. Clinton was claiming she had no sensitive e-mails. Both were lying.

          Trump was simply saying that the Russians and, by extension, any competent intelligence service, potentially possessed every communication that had been sent across Clinton’s insecure server. Clinton and the State Department were being deliberately uncooperative about releasing the e-mails. Trump was joking that even the Russians might be more helpful and they’d definitely be better informed.

          • If you look at what he said, your point is pants.
            And how about the assassination hint??
            The real point is that the POTUS is a wacko money-worshiping wannabe dictator who I again say will never voluntarily relinquish the Presidency, even if he sees out 4 years or 8.
            Watch out for more ill thought out policies designed only to distract and control the narrative-regardless of consequence.
            Who knows, maybe even a N. Korean escalation?

    • An alternative view on the proceedings might be-

      If a candidate for POTUS was found to have refused an offer of talks with a foreign power with with a view to improving relations and bringing peace settlements, would this not be cause accusations of incompetence or even warmongering?

      If a foreign country offered information of wrongdoing or concealment of a blunder that had caused massive problems of migration and the deaths of many people, then the cadidate had refused to listen and allowed the information to remain secret, would this not be called collusion or concealment?

      If a candidate had a history of losing aides and colleagues who had turned against them, would the FBI not be better employed investigating the circumstances of these deaths?

      • You’re correct, almost. One of the keys here is that the Flynn thing (and almost everything else we’ve heard was not when he was a candidate, it was during the transition, when he absolutely should have been.

  3. The longer the Russia story goes on, the longer the Democrats, the establishment and the media will hold off on any form of self reflection.
    They don’t understand their own country or their own people. They don’t understand that Trump actually won because he was possibly up against the worst candidate in American history.

    I’m convinced Trump loves the Russia ‘story’, because it allows his adversaries to dwell endlessly in the limbo status of denial..

  4. I have no reason to doubt that President Vladimir Putin is not a very nice bloke, that the FSB have lots of fingers and the meat pies spying on western intelligence blah, blah but then if they weren’t eavesdropping surely, then, they’d be compromising the Russian state?

    All states spy on each other, why the big deal. More, it never, ever was about the security and defence of the good ol’ US of A – now was it?

    The illiberal tosserati who think that they run DC, seem to have a very limited world prospectus and buried in the rhetoric of some reminiscent throwback to JFK and a Caribbean island digging, readying nuke missile silos.

    Russians will meddle, but to portray them as some sort of major threat – militarily to the US is braindead hogwash, yeah but so typical of the lefty’s though and Lordy weren’t the leftys all so pro Soviet Russia at one time, open secret and all that, though LBJ (sorry LBJ) wasn’t so much. ……………..Seeesh, talk about mixed up numpties, the only real ambition is to somehow spike the Trump administration and ‘get Trump’ – shallow accusations of ‘Russky collusion’ are just so much figments of Socialistas and the billionaires club fetid delusions.

    In their Washington/NYC bubble headed hysteria of bloviating but but But it all counts? …………….not a lot and Donald J. Trump imperiously sails on.

    God bless you Donald.

Comments are closed.