Yes, the conclusion from reports as results of those multiple investigations into election tampering by the Russians are in. And they are simple: there IS no evidence to implicate President Trump, any members of the Trump Campaign, or any other Americans in collusion with the Russians in the 2016 Presidential election that could have possibly changed the outcome of the Trump victory/Clinton loss. Here quickly are the facts that are uncontroverted:
- The Russians hacked various email servers of the Clinton Campaign and the Clinton Foundation, received emails from hackers from John Podesta’s email account, and through various Russian and other media outlets that distributed/published the content of many of those hacked and/or stolen emails prior to the election in November;
- The Russians did NOT in any way manipulate actual votes, voting machines, computer hardware or software, destroy actual votes, counterfeit any votes, or in any way keep voters from casting votes in any place in the U.S. or any other place where registered voters could legally cast votes;
- In the release of those hacked emails, the Russians did not edit, delete, or add any data, names, or information into or from the emails before their subsequent release;
- There is now much distribution of leaked information that is NOT sourced, is NOT accompanied by any type of evidence or documentation or testimony to corroborate the information that was “reportedly” provided by “anonymous” or “unnamed” sources. Because of that process of information dissemination, none can be verified because Intelligence Officials have no way of carrying out normal intelligence confirmation processes. The term “reportedly” is used in the previous sentence because there is NO way to confirm any such information was actually provided by those anonymous and unnamed sources. It is very possible NO such information was provided by anyone to those who released information as being factual.
The results are in! After months of name calling, “he said, she said,” “I read a memo that said….,” THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! But there is horror and irony here: although the United States Constitution guarantees everyone to be innocent of any charges until proven guilty, and since in court proceedings in the U.S. a defendant has the right to face those that have testified or presented evidence against them, in this case innuendo, empty and unsubstantiated claims, “facts” offered up by unnamed or anonymous sources to reporters, have been plastered across cable news national broadcasts, major American newspaper front pages, internet blog and news websites, and even nighttime entertainment talk shows, nothing in the collusion claims has been proven.
This process has been created and implemented to do one thing and one thing only: bring down the President. And so far it seems to be working. After all, everyone knows there is no way Donald Trump could beat Hillary Clinton straight up in an election. There had to be cheating — collusion of some sort.
More irony? Not one of the HRC supporters will even give one second’s thought to the possibility that Americans really did NOT vote for Hillary BECAUSE of Hillary. Yes, her emails were distributed throughout the nation. Yes, she, the DNC, Podesta — none of them wanted their emails out there. Why? They were ashamed of one thing: the content of those emails! Prior to the email dumps, Americans saw one Democrat National Committee. They saw one Hillary Rodham Clinton. When they read those emails, they realized behind the scene there was one DNC on tv, one Hillary Clinton on stage, and one of each that is entirely different when the lights went out. And Americans don’t like the ones that came out of the darkness with the release of those emails that showed who the real DNC, HRC, and Podesta are. If that was Russian collusion — releasing emails that contained the truth about a candidate and a political party — then there WAS collusion.
In today’s House Intelligence Committee meeting with former CIA Head John Brennan, Congressman Gowdy asked if there is “evidence” to Mr. Brennan’s knowledge of any Russia/Trump collusion. He stated he saw no evidence. Senator Dianne Feinstein of the Senate Intelligence Committed said she has seen no evidence of collusion. Fired FBI Director James Comey under oath stated he has seen no evidence of collusion by the President or his campaign committee. I’m at this point: (quoting Cuba Gooding Jr. from the Movie “Jerry McGuire),” “SHOW ME THE MONEY!” Everyone needs to simply be quiet for now: there’s no evidence.
Unless and until there is evidence produced from sources that have been verified by U.S. Law Enforcement officials to be factual that show collusion (as defined by Federal Law) between Russian persons and Trump Campaign persons or the President himself, THIS CASE IS CLOSED! (Collusion: “secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.”)
This IS America, isn’t it? The U.S. Constitution requires (in criminal cases) evidence to be presented prior to conviction and sentencing, doesn’t it? How have so many people been so ready to jump on what amounts now to be only gossip, to charge, convict, and sentence the President of the United States? This is unprecedented in U.S. history. Americans can not let this process stand.
If laws have been broken, let’s make sure consequences are enforced for all those guilty of lawbreaking. Other than that: Innocent until proven guilty. That’s the law.
Here’s some more “factual” information about Russian collusion findings from FORBES published yesterday (Tuesday, May 23rd):
Where is the evidence of President Trump’s collusion with Russia?
The Wall Street Journal – no particular fan of Trump – characterizes the DOJ charge to Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, as fatally open-ended, vague, and flawed. His instruction lists no federal statutes and invites a fishing expedition into trivial matters. Journalists covering the story appear to disagree on what Mueller is supposed to do: Is he to “oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials” or “investigate possible coordination between President Trump’s associates and Russian officials?”
The political feeding frenzy has, to date, brought forth the following facts of Russiagate: Persons associated with the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians, some unsavory. Trump businesses, like other luxury property developers, had dealings with wealthy Russian buyers. Trump did not condemn Putin during the campaign and expressed a hope (shared by many across the political spectrum) of improved relations.
These facts shed little light, if any, on collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state to throw the election to Trump, as is evidenced by the deafening silence of anti-Trumpists. As Jim Geraghty writes in National Review:
Diverse figures and outlets agree that the nexus of “possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign” does not include any evidence of collusion. Maxine Waters (D-CA) concedes there is no proof of collusion as does Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) joined by Trump nemesis Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Fox political analyst, Brit Hume, on Sunday’s #MediaBuzz stated that he has never seen a charge get so far out in front of the available evidence over the course of his long career. Matt Taibbi, a left-wing columnist for Rolling Stone who calls Trump the “crazy clown President,” points out that “despite almost daily leaks by anonymous sources, we do not know whether it is about collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state.”
The New York Times, in a lead editorial, counters the lack of evidence of collusion as follows: “The known facts suggest an unusually extensive network (my italics) of relationships with a major foreign power.” The Times’ logic: Trump-associate dealings with Russians are alone sufficient justification for an investigation. Where there is smoke, there may be fire. So, investigate, investigate, investigate until you find something.
The smoke-justifies-the-investigation argument is inconsistent with centuries of common law and the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of “probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.” Realizing the inconsistency with the rule of law, Deputy AG Rosenstein cited “unique circumstances” and “the public interest” to justify the independent counsel. Taibbi disagrees in a moment of candor. “Liberal thinkers have traditionally abhorred secret courts, secret surveillance and secret evidence” and “reflexively discouraged the news media from printing unverified or unverifiable charges emanating from such secret sources. But because it’s Donald Trump, no one seems to care.”