Goal Posts: It’s Not The Collusion, It’s The Corruption Or Something

Hot takes abound post-Mueller report release. Democrats are not taking it well at all. If they were smart, they’d just move on. The only people who are believing that Something Bad Happened are the hardcore Democratic Party base. Much like with Fitzmas, Muellermas was a big dud. That hasn’t stopped Democrats, and their pet media, from quadrupling down. Most of the Washington Post is taken up with claiming the report is damning. They NY Times is not quite as bad. Their main story doesn’t show Trump doing anything wrong, it just says he’s mean and lies and gets people to lie for him (we’re still waiting for the NY Times to condemn Obama for Operation Fast and Furious, slow-walking and holding back requested material from Congress, lying about Ocare, etc, oh, and Hillary’s actual criminal violations for her illegal server and email program).

The Editorial Board is, of course, having a moonbat fit. And a few other Orange Man Bad pieces. These are offset by one noting that Barr was right on everything, and that there should be a reckoning to the media and its government allies. Then we have Excitable David Brooks

It’s Not the Collusion, It’s the Corruption

The Mueller report is like a legal version of a thriller movie in which three malevolent forces are attacking a city all at once. Everybody’s wondering if the three attackers are working together. The report concludes that they weren’t, but that doesn’t make the situation any less scary or the threat any less real.

The first force is Donald Trump, who represents a threat to the American systems of governance. Centuries ago our founders created a system of laws and not men. In our system of government there are procedures in place, based on certain values — impartiality, respect for institutions, the idea that a public office is a public trust, not a private bauble.

When Trump appears in the Mueller report, he is often running roughshod over these systems and violating these values. He asks his lawyer to hamper an investigation. He asks his F.B.I. director to take the heat off his allies. He tries to get the relevant investigators fired. I don’t know if his actions meet the legal standard of obstruction of justice, but they certainly meet the common-sense standard of interference with justice. (snip)

The Mueller report indicates that Trump was not colluding with Russia. But it also shows that working relationships were beginning to be built, through networkers like Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and Roger Stone. More important, it shows that many of the Trumpists, the Russians and the WikiLeaks crowd all understood that they were somehow adjacent actors in the same project.

I would say that’s the report’s central importance. We are being threatened in a very distinct way. The infrastructure of the society is under threat — the procedures that shape government, the credibility of information, the privacy rules that make deliberation possible. And though the Chinese government does not play a big role here, it represents a similar sort of threat — to our intellectual infrastructure, the intellectual property rights that organize innovation.

So….no collusion. There’s not doubt that Russia is a bad player and had programs working against the U.S. Nations do this. But, they got caught. As for Julian Assange and Wikileaks, remember when the Left loved them for releasing national security material multiple times, and defend Bradley Manning for giving Assange damning material? None of this means Trump and his team did what they were accused of, ie, collusion, nor did Mueller find any American engaged in collusion with Russia (remember when Dems loved the notion of Russia?)

Trump doesn’t seem to have any notion of loyalty to an office. All power in his eye is personal power, and the government is there to serve his Sun God self. He’ll continue to trample the proper systems of government.

First, where were the complaints when Obama was taking actual actions on his own, not just talking about it? Neither the Times nor Post could find it in them to mildly chide Obama for blowing off working with Congress and simply writing his own rules. For the most part, what Trump has done is words. Not actions. And does anyone think Obama wasn’t exactly the same way as the above excerpt? That’s not to condemn him, you have to have a big notion of power to want to be POTUS, unless you’re George Washington.

But, see, this is what Democrats are doing: not just shifting the goal posts, but tearing them down and creating brand new ones. But, we should welcome this, because it will mean more Democrat over-reach, especially through their buddies in the media who report badly, and four more years of Trump.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

51 Responses to “Goal Posts: It’s Not The Collusion, It’s The Corruption Or Something”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach claims revealing Trump’s obstruction is “moving goalposts”.

    Was it moving the goalposts when President Clinton was impeached for lying about sexual contact when the original investigation with of financial dealings in Arkansas?

    • What obstruction? If there wasn’t enough to charge, that means he’s, by the legal definition, innocent.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        C’mon Teach, according to the Rachel Maddow School of Law just “trying to obstruct” means one has to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt or something and the Constitution be damned if one has an R affiliation.
        Every good little commie knows that.

        • david7134 says:

          Anything they view as obstruction sounds to me like a CEO brainstorming with his people. He is working in an environment that is as corrupt and dishonest as it gets with even his own party at his throat. So, he throws out, should we lie, the return answer is no. He ask if he should fire Mueller, the return is no. He never carried out the actions, so he is not obstructing, only trying to defend himself.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Anything they view as obstruction sounds to me like a CEO brainstorming with his people.

            That is not according to the Mueller report, which said that “the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.”

            Also, “The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports.”

            So, he ordered McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. Then he told McGahn and others to lie about it.

            david7134: So, he throws out, should we lie

            Seriously? That’s something you defend?

          • david7134 says:

            So he did not obstruct. That is plain as day. One day, you will grow up and have more experience and learn that people bat around ideas. Are you saying that every thing that Hillary did was within the law? If you are, then something is terribly wrong with you, if you feel she broke the law, then are you working to get her into jail?

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: So he did not obstruct.

            One mistruth at a time.

            You had claimed that Trump was “brainstorming”. That was false. He directed the White House counsel to fire the Special Counsel, then directed others to lie about it.

      • Zachriel says:

        William Teach: What obstruction?

        There’s ample evidence of obstruction. As for collusion, the Mueller report determined that Russia and Trump were friends with benefits. Read the report.

        William Teach: If there wasn’t enough to charge, that means he’s, by the legal definition, innocent.

        Mueller indicated that Trump wasn’t criminally charged because the Department of Justice has made the determination that the president can’t be charged while in office, and that the House of Representatives is the proper venue for determining whether Trump’s action rise to the level of impeachment.

        • david7134 says:

          No, you are wrong on all your points.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: No, you are wrong on all your points.

            “Is not!” is not much of an argument.

            Z: Mueller indicated that Trump wasn’t criminally charged because the Department of Justice has made the determination that the president can’t be charged while in office

            Mueller report: The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;

            28 C.F.R. § 600.7 (a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.

    • formwiz says:

      Willie was impeached for a lot worse than that.

      The “obstruction” thing is just a vain attempt to still smear the man and it appears to be failing.

  2. Kye says:

    That’s not a claim, Elwood, It’s a point of fact. For two years every day was a non stop cycle of Russia/collusion/Corruption/treason/Russia/collusion/corruption/treason. Now that that’s all been put to bed the new Boogeyman for the left is “Obstruction”.

    Yes, they moved the goal posts on Clinton and fortunately for our Republic the move failed. Does that mean because there was a previous miscarriage of justice we should repeat the act this time in the hope it causes irreparable harm to the Republic? I don’t think continuing on with this anti Trump bull crap by the Democrats is any more than their inability to accept they lost the damn election.

    It’s enough!! You lost the election. You lost the hissy-fit and special investigation trying to overturn the election you lost. You lost the despicable Coup d’etat that was attempted to overturn a lawful election. Any further nonsense should be dealt with as sedition.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      I disagree with you. Your claim that this is about a lost election has some basis in fact, to wit, if Trump had lost, much of this would have been unnecessary. Although it’s likely the DOJ would still have looked into the Russian actions to influence our election and the Trump campaign’s involvement.

      And yes, many conservatives do now admit that the attempt to oust President Clinton was wrong, and not just because it failed. Would you describe his attempted ouster as a Coup d’etat?

      Most Americans realize that Trump is ill-suited to be our president, but that he won the election. But our Congress, a co-equal branch of government, has a Constitutional duty of oversight.

      You seem particularly upset after your big “win”. It’s understandable that defenders of Trump are very upset with the our system of oversight, and that we should just let “Trump be Trump”, but fortunately that’s now how our government works. We elect presidents, not kings, and they’re required to work with the judicial and legislative branches. It’s not perfect but it’s worked OK for almost 250 years.

      Regarding sedition – how do you suggest that Trump and his hand-picked AG deal with the upcoming House investigations of Trump? Isn’t being put to death a penalty for sedition?

      • Kye says:

        Elwood, the attempt to “oust” Clinton was not a coup d’etat because it was done above ground not by leaks and false info from the deep state. And let me explain something to you about politics. When you find one of the opposition who agrees with you (me about Clinton) you don’t pick another fight about WHY he agrees, you accept it and move on or you may just lose that agreement.

        Most Americans “realize” no such thing about Trump and you are woefully unsuited to speak for “most Americans”. And don’t start citing a battery of leftist pols asking a hand picked audience charged questions designed to illicit one response. We’ve all seen that crap before and in the New World of Fake News that dog won’t fly any more.

        I don’t know why you felt the necessity to “inform” me about Congress being a co-equal branch of government since I never suggested anything else. I think that since the “investigation” is over the oversight of Congress would be best focused on the illegal crisis, the opioid crisis or any of the other dozen thing people are concerned about rather than redoing another investigation. But that’s my opinion.

        You seem to think they should just keep investigating and investigating until they either get Trump on SOMETHING or Trump dies. I understand how our government works Elwood, and I don’t need a civics lesson from you. So far the judicial and legislative branches have done their best to overturn the election “By Any Means Possible” and have failed. I’m just saying enough is enough. Please stop. Please realize you lost and move on. By now you should all be at the final stage of grief: Acceptance. Get. Over. It.

        Regarding sedition- I think Trump and his “hand picked AG” (when are AG’s NOT hand picked? Weren’t Holder and Lynch hand picked by Obama or did they fall from heaven?) should respond in whatever lawful way is required. Just like he did with Mueller and his hand picked cabal of attorneys. One of the consequences of sedition is execution. Are you for executing the President of the United States? Is that what you are suggesting? Like the French Revolution, off with his head?

        To suggest that the president of the United States might be a criminal, albeit without substantiation or a filing for prosecution, is to suggest that Trump should be required to prove his innocence. This, when not only is the burden of proof on the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused, but the police and prosecutor’s office are required first to establish objectively that a criminal deed occurred more than merely a breach of ethics.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Mr. Mueller would have prosecuted Trump, except that Trump is president. Bill Barr denied that was the case, but Mr. Mueller’s report spelled it out.

          Mueller’s Report was a damning indictment of Trump.

          Think about that for a second. The president of the United States avoided prosecution only by being president.

          This is not the end of Trump’s travails, but opens the next chapter. Trump is unfit to be our president, and needs to go. But cheer up, you’ll get Mike Pence who is much more conservative than Trump!

          Richard Nixon was never indicted but likely would have been impeached and convicted by Congress. Do you think Nixon committed any crimes?

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Mueller’s report was incomplete.
            He came to no conclusion. That was his one job and he didn’t do it. And you continue to make up things that are not true. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • formwiz says:

            No evidence, so any prosecution would have been thrown out.

            Mueller’s Report was a damning indictment of Trump.

            No evidence, no indictments. The only damning indictment is of the Left and its innate corruption.

            This is not the end of Trump’s travails

            Only if you’re as dumb as we think you are.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      • david7134 says:

        I think most Americans feel that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread. He is working night and day to correct the wrongs by Obama and group. He is getting rid of much of the regulations that have harmed the country. He has gotten the economy up and running after the ruin of Obama. He will win the next election and in the mean time he is putting decent judges in key areas. Winning, MAGA.

      • formwiz says:

        many conservatives do now admit that the attempt to oust President Clinton was wrong, and not just because it failed.

        Which “Conservatives” are these? The same fools who proclaimed him a political genius?

        Most Americans realize that Trump is ill-suited to be our president, but that he won the election. But our Congress, a co-equal branch of government, has a Constitutional duty of oversight.

        It does? I thought its job was to make the laws, not to go looking for scandal where none exists or to make it up when they find it doesn’t.

        I think you confuse the Soviet constitution with the US Constitution.

        And 55% isn’t most Americans. They’re the ones who like him.

        It’s understandable that defenders of Trump are very upset with the our system of oversight, and that we should just let “Trump be Trump”, but fortunately that’s now how our government works

        No, it’s not. Zippy got a free ride even though he was a jerk. Willie got a free ride. Presidents are usually given a honeymoon to allow them to settle into the job and get their policies enacted. Trump was attacked from day one on a phony charge.

        No, it’s not the American way. It is, however, the Commie way.

        Isn’t being put to death a penalty for sedition?

        Wrong country.

  3. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:


    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/maddow keep the faith.jpg

    Bwahaha! https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  4. david7134 says:

    I can’t wait for the investigation of Hillary and group. That will be wonderful.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Trump claimed the Mueller Report “totally exonerated” him, and also that the Report was “total bullshit”.

    Can both be true?

    • formwiz says:

      Lefty propaganda. The second is always true.

      The first is because there was no there there that would stand up before the American people.

      You lose yet again.

  6. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The Mueller Report is the greatest challenge Trump has faced so far.

    It will be interesting (and potentially dangerous for the nation) to see how he responds to the humiliation.

    He may come undone. Let’s hope he has sympathetic but strong, friends, family and colleagues at Mar a Lago this weekend. As a nation we can only hope our military leaders are as strong as Don McGahn, who refused to follow Trump’s orders to commit crimes.

    • Kye says:

      See, Elwood the $25 million wasn’t a total waste. You got yourself a new folk hero: Don McGahn. See, everything worked out in the end. I can see it now: “CNN News Alert. Don McGahn (D, D.C.) just got into the clown car and is running for president in 2020.

    • formwiz says:

      No, there’s going to be retribution and you can already see people throwing everybody they know under the bus.

      McGahn may have been the stopped clock, but your risible hope he has sympathetic but strong, friends, family and colleagues at Mar a Lago is about as phony as your bunny suit

      And which orders did the military refuse to follow?

  7. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Mueller used the same language over and over and over again, which is that there’s no evidence, or the evidence does not establish that these conspiracy theories actually happened.

    On the obstruction issue:
    Was Trump trying to stop the investigation because he genuinely believed that — it was based on a false conspiracy, or was he trying to stop the investigation because he knew he had done what people were accusing him of doing with the Russians and wanted to cover that up? And the Mueller report concluded it was the first instance: He was trying to stop the investigation because he thought it was a sham all along, and therefore, even though he lied and acted improperly, it doesn’t rise to the corrupt intent needed to charge him with obstruction, which is stopping an investigation to prevent your own wrongdoing from being uncovered.


    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Here’s what Trump’s supporter, Glenn Greenwald, said to defend Trump in the link:

      “On the obstruction issue, I think there’s a lot of evidence that Donald Trump is what we knew he was, which is an amoral liar, somebody who is willing to corruptly abuse his power to protect himself.”


      “He was trying to stop the investigation because he thought it was a sham all along, and therefore, even though he lied and acted improperly, it doesn’t rise to the corrupt intent needed to charge him with obstruction, which is stopping an investigation to prevent your own wrongdoing from being uncovered.”


      “On the question of whether or not there are disturbing aspects of Trump’s behavior, I agree that the obstruction part of the report, again, reveals some things that Donald Trump did that are, for me, utterly unsurprising, but nonetheless showing his utter lack of ethics, which is something I’ve known for 30 years living in New York. But on the part of the report that deals with everything that kicked this all off, which was Trump’s relationship with Russia, the only thing that is in the report, that David keeps harping on, is the idea that Trump and his campaign was willing to accept help from the Russians. And that’s true. When the Russians called and said, “Hey, we have some dirt about your adversary, Hillary Clinton, that shows her to be really corrupt and criminal, and we would like to give it to you,” the Trump campaign said, “Yeah, we’d love to get that.””


      “I mean, I think Donald Trump is a huge danger and menace to the republic for a lot of reasons that David is very adeptly covering, and I really hope that we can now turn our attention to those things, now that we’re done with this espionage thriller that has dominated us for three years.”

      • Mangoldielocks says:

        And he is exactly right. Trump is an amoral asshole. Crass and rude. But he gets shit done. Unlike all the silver tongued smooth talking bullshit politicians who cant do anything with out phoning their corporatist handlers to get permission.

        Obama was as bad as they come. HRC was wall streets darling. The middle east was pumping tons of money into her foundation until she lost. Talk about someone who should go to jail.

        OBSTRUCTION is as I pointed out earlier a crime to which INTENT to Obstruct is of paramount importance. Trump was furious he was being dragged thru the fire by lying sacks of shit politicians because they could not handle his crass, asshole personality. HE was incensed and powerless and for the first time in his life probably he could do nothing to stop any of this without. As a result he lashed out many times. Over and over but there was never any attempt to actually OBSTRUCT.

        WHY? BECAUSE THeir was no crime to obstruct. Simple really. Buy more tinfoil.

        • david7134 says:

          I did not vote for Trump for his morals. I voted for him as he was the only person on the ticket that had a chance of stopping Hillary and the destruction of our country started by Obama and his communist. He has done a good job despite zero help. We can now focus the Justice department on more important and real issues like the corruption of the Clintons and the illegal acts of Obama and his group.

          If you look at the Cultural Revolution of China and the Red Guard, we get a good idea of the script these people are following.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Notice the little fella didn’t dispute anything about Greenwald’s assessment of Mueller’s findings which was the gist of the post.
            Funny that. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            I didn’t need to refute anything. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston did a great job. Funny that you didn’t notice.

      • formwiz says:

        IOW no supporter, just somebody who sees the Democrats going over a cliff.

        Otherwise, as big a jerk as Jeffery, only better paid.

  8. Kye says:

    Glenn Greenwald is not a Trump supporter and if he pawned himself off as one he’s a liar. He was party to stealing and/or using CLASSIFIED documents leaked by Edward Snowden. He is your typical New York red diaper baby. He’s Jewish on the outside and red on the inside. That makes him a cherry blintz, I guess.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      I stand corrected. I should have said Trump “defender”, not supporter.

      Not sure why you think it’s important that his parents are Jewish.

      • formwiz says:

        Because what he appears to be and what he is are 2 different things?

        Too bad you can’t say the same.

      • Kye says:

        I didn’t say it was “important his parents are Jewish”. I didn’t mention his parents at all. I gave a description that pointed out what he is outside and inside. Why would you think it’s not important that he’s Jewish? My first wife was and it was very important to her. Trumps son is and it’s important to him. I’m a white Protestant married to a Buddhist Asian and that’s important to us. You got some kind of prejudice going on where you’re afraid to say what a person is? What is it that makes leftist so touchy about the differences in humans? They are after all what make us special if you don’t believe God did.

  9. Mangoldielocks says:

    Glenn Greenwald is not a trump supporter nor a con. He is a liberal.

    he was one of the first reporters to begin saying their is NO EVIDENCE to support collusion charges against Trump. He seeks the truth. He is a journalist. Unlike the partisan rags now calling themselves MSM.

    Donna Brazile was hired by FOX NEWS. Even Fox news is slowly becoming a corporatist rag for the Elites. Even going so far as to host a Bernie town hall in which they softballed questions at him all night long.

    LOLOLOLOLOL. Add some tin foil to your hat their Jeffy.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      You are correct that Greenwald is an honest journalist, as is David Cay Johnston. And they have opposite opinions on the import of the Mueller Report. They both understand that Trump is unfit to be president.

      Greenwald wrote Pulitzer winning articles based on the info from Edward Snowden.

      It appears you came down off your high. Good for you. Hang in there.

      • Mangoldielocks says:

        LOLOLOL. That was in response to your: Here’s what Trump’s supporter, Glenn Greenwald, said to defend Trump in the link:

        My high horse is not so High. I actually read, listen to and reflect on what other people have to say about things. I form my opinions based upon facts not biased reporting by lackeys in the tank for one side or the other. ERGO I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity contrary to what you might think.

        I listen to David Ruben, Jimmy Dore, Tim Poole, Glen Greenwald, Ben Shapiro, and others on all sides of the spectrum. If you notice those are all anti trump. It helps to get the other sides take on things in order to form sound judgements.

        In this particular case I would be a never trumper if he was getting nothing done. He is not. He is actively doing many things I agree with. As does Tim Poole, Ben Shapiro and the former Never Trumper Glen Beck.

        Tim Pool and Ben will probably still not vote for Trump in 2020 but they begrudgingly admit that trump has done some good things.

        Here is one for you that you will most likely love.

        “I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia — including information that had been illegally obtained; that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement; and that the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian interests in Ukraine,” he went on to say.

        “Reading the report is a sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders.” MITT I AM SLOWLY SHOOTING MYSELF IN THE HEAD ROMNEY.

        There you go. Another never trumper trashing the president for being human. What sickens me is that this same man has had nothing to say about HRC and her litany of malfeaseance while at the same time bashing and voting against trump since Romney took office.

        Enjoy. The never trumpers will be oozing out of the woodwork for the next few months as the dirt on trump like the dirt on HRC is made public. LOLOLOL. As for Trump being arrested when he leaves office. Go for it. As long as he keeps doing good by America. Trying to get us out of wars and keeping the economy rolling and bringing back jobs. I am perfectly happy to have a sleaze bag in office who actually gets things done rather than checks their bank account every 30 minutes.

      • formwiz says:

        Trump aside, Greenwald isn’t that great a reporter, if you’ve followed his career. Just another Lefty.

        His one virtue in this case was he had brains enough to see this would never be another Watergate and turning it into the witch hunt it became would be a disaster for the Democrat party.

        • Mangoldielocks says:

          He repeatedly called out the MSM. CNN and MSNBC in particular. Not that he was in the tank for Trump but that he could easily see there was nothing. I never said he was great. Which is sad that people who were once considered great like The Watergate dudes were all saying Trump was a goner and a treasonous bastage. Sullying their reputation by being partisan instead of waiting for the facts or going to get the facts for themselves.

          Greenwald simply looked at the facts objectively and said. This is a nothing burger. Same thing Vann Jones was caught on tape admitting as was many other top Democrats.

  10. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Bar Is Right About Everything. Admit You Were Wrong.



  11. formwiz says:

    I didn’t need to refute anything. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston did a great job. Funny that you didn’t notice.

    Because all of your rantings have been in the opposite direction.

    You still want to believe Schiff For Brains and Nadless are going to come up with something and keep up the same rap about he obstructed, he colluded.

    You are exactly the kind of moron Greenwald is talking about.

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      Ahh Nadler. He opposed vehemently the release of the Starr report on Clinton calling it a witch hunt. And now he is vehemently demanding the Mueller Report.

      HOLD on a minute…they are all checking in with their corporate sponsors to find out what to think. They will get back to you later.

  12. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    “[Mueller] didn’t have an obstruction case against the president of the United States or he would have brought it,” Levin insisted, becoming increasingly animated. “I’m using plain English so even Joe Scarborough and Jake Tapper can understand this.”

    “Volume two is crap!” he continued, slamming his hand on a copy of the report for added emphasis. “Volume two was written for slip and fall lawyer Nadler, slip and fall lawyer Schiff. That’s why he wrote it. He knew the media would run with it.”

    Hilarious. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif


  13. […] The Pirate’s Cove – Goal Posts: It’s Not The Collusion, It’s The Corruption Or Something. […]

Pirate's Cove