Withering post-Mueller wisdom for the Democrats and their media

by WorldTribune Staff, March 25, 2019

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team concluded in its final report that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller walks past the White House after attending St. John’s Episcopal Church on March 24. / Cliff Owen / AP

Writing for The American Spectator, columnist Daniel Flynn noted “The report speaks here of obstruction of justice, which generally follows the commission of an actual crime. But the report says Trump engaged in no collusion. Why would he try to obstruct an investigation into a nonexistent crime?”

“When you strike at a king,” Ralph Waldo Emerson informed, “you must kill him.”

Mueller’s report, “the hoped-for instrument of the king’s dethroning, ironically, just administered the coup de grace for the coup d’etat,” Flynn wrote.

“As far as coups go, this one struck as particularly passive-aggressive. When you deploy attorneys in the place of corporals, this tends to happen. Even in its use of rhetoric as a substitute for combat, it seemed so very whiney and wimpy. The president’s antagonists suggested, insinuated, implied. They never asserted. One does this who desperately wants something to be true but deep down knows it is false. Weasel words signal a dishonest person’s attempt at honesty.”

President Donald Trump’s enemies “now face the hard task that every other political opposition faced since the dawn of the republic. They must sell an alternative to Trump to the American people,” Flynn wrote. “This, the tough-sledding of American politics, is exactly what every loyal opposition prior to this one did for these last 243 years. But the Trump haters saw themselves above this because they saw Trump as beneath contempt.”

The Left “laughed uncontrollably when anyone implied that Donald Trump could possibly, if the stars aligned, just maybe win the presidency,” Flynn wrote. “Then they forecasted an economic apocalypse upon his election. Around the same time, they absolved their side from blowing a hard-to-lose election by accusing the opposition of cheating. The evidence, they claimed, came from an ‘intelligence dossier,’ which, we eventually found out, came into existence due to the Clinton campaign, the most biased source one can imagine, paying a foreign agent to claim that the other campaign cavorted with foreign agents.

“Yet, they maintained faith that an investigation based on opposition research masquerading as an ‘intelligence dossier’ would bear fruit. It did, albeit quite bitter for those hungry for a bite. Advice for Dems? Start a different diet, one that gives you a healthier look than Jerry Nadler or Chris Hayes.”

Your Intel Brief: Geostrategy-Direct __________ Fix The Media Now