We’re honestly starting to get a little bit dizzy from watching Democrats, the media, and so-called ‘legal analysts’ doing their best to somehow spin the Mueller report into a bad thing for President Trump. It almost reminds us of when Trump beat Hillary, and how they spent YEARS accusing him of working with Russia to get elected.
If you think about it, these people have done nothing but complain about losing while trying to find a way to discredit Trump’s win.
Seems Kimberley Strassel has noticed this as well:
Gotta love all those Ds and liberal "legal" analysts who immediately complained Barr made a "hasty" 48-hour decision to rule out obstruction. Turns out he's been working on the question for three weeks, ever since Mueller told him he would not make a conclusion.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) March 26, 2019
Pretty sure she’s referring to this Brad Heath fellow who was looking to pick a fight with her over thread on the Mueller report and the FBI.
This should be obvious, but the fact that prosecutors choose not to bring a charge doesn't mean there's no evidence. It means they didn't think there was *sufficient* evidence. That happens pretty routinely. https://t.co/A4YwrOfg3W
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) March 26, 2019
Oh no he di’int.
This should be obvious, but embracing a piece of opposition research financed by the rival presidential campaign as "evidence" was always a bad call. That doesn't happen very routinely, and for good reason. https://t.co/1AvOzTdunx
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) March 26, 2019
*popcorn*
Sometimes, though only after thorough "scrubbing" of source motivations. Which didn't happen here, by Comey's own admission. But if this is the standard you are advocating in every election, good to know. Let's insert the FBI into every race, see whose dirt is most compelling.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) March 26, 2019
Ooh, ooh, we know!
And why is it, pray tell, that the FBI deliberately did NOT tell the court that said person was being financed by "Candidate #2"? One guess only.
Out of curiosity, why the burning, all-in effort to be on Team FBI? https://t.co/0IpvuNI25q— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) March 26, 2019
They just don’t want to be wrong at this point and none of them can accept Trump actually won.
And you should read (when it comes out publicly) the testimony of former General Counsel FBI James Baker, who spent a long time talking about FBI scrubbing standards. And i think he would know.
(And FBI did NOT note that Simpson was financed by "Candidate 2"— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) March 26, 2019
Yeah, we think he would know too.
But spin spin spin.
Dude, walk away.
Related:
