Smokeless Guns That Are Nowhere to Be Seen

Let me begin with a confirmation: I believe that US Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report that claims no collusion between President Donald Trump and the Russian government is accurate and truthful. At this point, any and all claims of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during the 2016 elections are a disproved hoax; further talk is just foul detritus from the slander originally meant to discredit the President. There is simply nothing unlawful or treacherous there.

First and foremost, as Tucker Carlson commented, this is outstanding, welcome, and jubilant news for any American patriot, and also for many more of the Free Folk around the world: the counsel investigated and declared that there is no evidence to believe that the President of the United States of America is a Russian spy. The United States is not under a clandestine and foreign occupation from the office of its highest leader. We maintain our sovereignty, security, freedom, and patriotism in this country, and any collective dread of being supplanted in our politics by an alien conspiracy now appears like ghosts in the midday sun. We are free.

But like a patient waking from nightmares in a safe, well-lit hospital room, we shake our heads, find our bearings to be so much less terrifying than we thought, and we consequently wonder: Why did it all seem so real? Why did the threat appear so tangible and imminent to our senses?

Why were we convinced?

(Most of) The Usual Suspects

After the conclusions from the Mueller Report came out last weekend, the news moved quickly around the country, but there was one organization (or a group of organizations) that incongruously didn't show a very positive outlook: the mainstream news media, especially the big, round-the-clock cable news networks. One of the consequences of their somber attitude was an all-around less festive mood to meet the excellent news: The Mainstream Media moped and wept when they didn't outright deflect attention, dismiss their share of the blame for this noisy uproar, or bizarrely double-down on their old and worn-out fake-news talking points that they have kept warm under a heat lamp for more than two years. But while I could fill one, or two, or more Saturday reports with unhappy talking heads weeping salty tears, and the shouts of glee from those who mock their hubris and rumormongering, I do not write this to draw (much) attention to the worse than useless Fake News Overlords. Instead, I am writing to ask a different, more basic question:

What did this all happen for?

Don't Read Stupefying Claptrap – Read This

Zman wrote again this week to quote his maxim about the Opposite Rule of Liberalism and to expound on it as it relates to this current non-crisis of a "No Collusion" report for the US Attorney General. For those unfamiliar with Zman's rule, it can be summed up like this:

Whatever the Left is howling about at the moment, you can be sure something like the opposite is the truth… Wherever they are focusing the attention of their cult, find the spot 180 degree the opposite (sic) and you are getting close to the truth.

In what we see with the circus of lies that is the implied Trump-Russian Collusion Scandal, the above rule is exactly right and frighteningly accurate as a helpful yardstick to gauge what the facts of the situation were regarding election interference. Why? Because the Democrat Party was the real co-conspirator in trying to sway the election results with foreign help thru its damnably false and misleading Steele dossier, which was sourced from a former British intelligence agent and his cronies who plucked lies and fabrications from left, right, and center faster than a toddler plucks strawberries at a fall festival. This conspiracy is documented, and there is little doubt about the true status (or unlawfulness) of those actions. Zman's essay is very good, and I recommend it wholeheartedly, but it does not cover the circumstances for Mueller's work.

To repeat: I am not even focused on the Democrats in this article – I'm focused on the Mueller report, specifically the team who wrote it, the context of how and why they wrote it, and the likely motivations for that team while they wrote it. And the best, most sensible analysis for that I found here – if you read only one article about the ending to this deceitful drama, read this one from Conservative Treehouse, because they explain better than I've seen anywhere else why this investigation has gone the way it has. Here's an excerpt:

With the Mueller probe officially concluding, people are starting to ask:

"When exactly did Robert Mueller determine that there was no Russian collusion/conspiracy?"

The answer is not complex, because all the characters knew there was no Russian collusion/conspiracy, ever. They knew the narrative was created; they participated in the creation; the Russian conspiracy narrative was a necessary element toward the goal of eliminating Trump. Remember what FBI Agent Peter Strzok said:

"…you and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there, no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there."

CT excellently observes that these investigators always knew that there was no corruption or treason, so they acted as they did to try to entrap President Trump for obstruction of justice – but they were unable to accomplish that either. Now it is evident that it was never about the Russians: They were a pretext for a decoy operation to draw out protest from the President that could be used as the grounds for impeachment. This was a seriously corrupt effort inside of the Federal government to decapitate the executive branch, and it amounts to a failed judicial coup d'etat.

Moving Forward

Special Counsel Mueller delivered his report on Friday, March 22 to the US Attorney General William Barr with a conclusion that there was no evidence to indict President Trump for collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 election. However, he did not give a final word on the question of obstruction of justice from the President toward the investigation, cleverly leaving the decision of whether or not to indict on those counts to the Attorney General. Mr. Barr has so far shown no signs of considering the count of obstruction as serious; therefore, any talk of impeachment now has no legs to stand on. And right on cue, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was downplaying impeachment fury and deflecting journalist's questions on the topic. She knows that it would go nowhere, and it more than likely would backfire for her party.

For now – it's over. There is no hook on which to hang an impeachment.


It's difficult to over-estimate how big of a win this vindication is for President Trump: the single largest question about the legitimacy of his authority is now no more, and those who seriously believed or propagated illegitimacy now have egg dripping off of their faces. Unfortunately, it looks like there will be many who stop up their ears and relentlessly double down on a narrative that has now proved to be a hoax. However, for the Free Folk, or anyone else with a long enough memory, they can now even more clearly discern who are mendacious, and who act to suppress them. I don't watch Stefan Molyneux often or agree with him on every subject, but he does give a good and clear, yet brief summary of where we are now that (again) the many other things that we're told have been revealed as false.

I took a different approach to my normal one for writing the Roundup this week: I usually have a long conglomerate of stories going in all directions, but because of the unique importance of this subject, I wanted to focus on it and not distract with either other headlines or superfluous links. For this week: just the facts. I'll return to my usual format this coming Saturday, but until then: a safe week to all.

(Header image by David Mark from Pixabay)