Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

[Lone Star]

.

The top promoters (outside of the FBI and DOJ) of the phony Trump-Russia Collusion story -- in no particular order.

BuzzFeed was the first media group to publish the complete phony Steele dossier. Unsourced. Unverified.

CNN continued to push the Trump-Russia narrative unsourced, unverified bombshell possibilities and predictions.

Washington Post and New York Times both published stories from anonymous sources, intelligence leaks and stories that claimed and then refuted that the Trump campaign and transition team had been wiretapped. They both continued to publish stories that were mostly innuendo and unsubstantiated.

Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu, both congressmen from California continue to claim that there is clear evidence in plain sight that Trump conspired with Russia to win the election. They continue to make these claims after Mueller's Report was completed.

Prepare for a thorough house-cleaning in the FBI and DOJ with AG Bill Barr at the controls. There will be digging going on everywhere to expose the corrupt players involved in the phony investigation.

[Lone Star]

Trey Gowdy gives his perspective on the next stages with the Mueller Report.

[Lone Star]

Mark Levin lays everything out on the regulations surrounding the Mueller investigation and recounts his claims from 2 years ago that Obama's DOJ and FBI was weaponized

[Lone Star]

Collusion: The Greatest Hoax In US Political History

Dick Morris is a former political advisor to former president BJ Clinton.

The circular movement of phony evidence has been revealed. Brennan and Clapper, two of Obama's lackeys, promoted it all in the media as if it was fact. Those two gave it legs and credibility, and they knew damn well that there was nothing to it -- that it was all bullshiggity.

[vlad]

Trumpy has not exactly come out smelling of Roses Comrade Lone Star has he ?? Although Trump is clear Mr Mueller states it does not Exonerate Trump ??. In my book that means something in the report has been flagged up.

[Lone Star]

Trumpy has not exactly come out smelling of Roses Comrade Lone Star has he ?? Although Trump is clear Mr Mueller states it does not Exonerate Trump ??. In my book that means something in the report has been flagged up.

You haven't been paying attention.

First of all, Mueller works for Attorney General Barr.

Second, Mueller did not come to any conclusion on obstruction.

Third, Mueller doesn't make the decision to charge or not on loose ends in the report, the Attorney General makes that determination.

Fourth, both AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein did not find enough evidence to pursue obstruction.

The End. But you may continue to hope.

If vlad is investigated for anything, and no determination can be reached as to whether or not vlad committed a crime, I'm sure vlad would walk free and be innocent. It is the burden of the investigator to prove and convict. It's not the burden of the defendant to prove innocence.

Today, all Democrats and LIBs are convinced that Mueller is a Russian.

[Doodoo]

Only looking at one statement of yours so far Vlad and response from you know Who
" Mueller did not come to any conclusion on obstruction."

"Mueller Found Trump Did Not Conspire With Russia, But Didn’t Clear Him on Obstruction of Justice"
An opposing statement on the web

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mue ... 00017.html

I certainly didn't get to read it all (as I don't care) but the title did catch my attention


But while I do have you attention where is Hilary nowadays?

[Lone Star]

Jay Sekulow Explains Why Trump is Fully Exonerated

Mueller's questions regarding obstruction were left for the Attorney General to review and determine if a crime of obstruction had been committed. After consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel, DAG Rosenstein and AG Barr, it was determined that the obstruction questions did not constitute a crime. FULL EXONERATION.

[Lone Star]

.

Mueller Gave Barr A Heads Up 3 Weeks Ago

Source: CNN

Roughly three weeks ago the special counsel’s team told Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that Robert Mueller would not be reaching a conclusion on obstruction of justice, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

The source said that conclusion was “unexpected” and not what Barr had anticipated.

The information also means that Barr had a head start on developing his analysis on obstruction of justice well before Mueller delivered his report to the attorney general on Friday. Rosenstein’s office has also been heavily involved in overseeing the investigation since its inception.

So it wasn't a 2-day decision as Angry Democrats claim.

[Lone Star]

Senator Lindsey Graham

LET THE RECKONING BEGIN.

There's a long list.

[Udon Map]

LET THE RECKONING BEGIN.

There's a long list.

It's too early for that. We need to see the report (to the extent permitted by law). For example, we need to know whether Mueller did not recommend prosecuting Trump because there was no evidence that Trump did anything wrong, or because Mueller agrees with most legal scholars that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted.

However, it's important to note that the Dems pretty much got the investigation they wanted, led by the person they wanted. If he didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing, then that's it. They shouldn't be complaining just because they don't like the answer. There are plenty of reasons that people may believe that Trump should be replaced in the next election; but if he did nothing wrong, then it's a disagreement of policy, style, or something else, but apparently not criminal behavior. In that event, it's time to move on.

But it's critically important that we see the report so that we know exactly why Mueller reached the conclusions that he did.

[Lone Star]

But it's critically important that we see the report so that we know exactly why Mueller reached the conclusions that he did.

So now it's important to see all the things that amounted to no evidence or not enough evidence? That's a rhetorical question.

AG Barr will release what is allowed by law and by regulation. I will be surprised if he does otherwise.

[Udon Map]

But it's critically important that we see the report so that we know exactly why Mueller reached the conclusions that he did.

So now it's important to see all the things that amounted to no evidence or not enough evidence? That's a rhetorical question.

Exactly. I would have thought that you, of all people, would want to see it to remove any possible doubt that the Dems may try to sow. If there's no evidence of collusion, the American people should know that, not be left to guess.

[Lone Star]

Exactly. I would have thought that you, of all people, would want to see it to remove any possible doubt that the Dems may try to sow. If there's no evidence of collusion, the American people should know that, not be left to guess.

As long as the law and regulations are followed, release what can be released. No one is above the law -- or below the law. We don't change that BECAUSE TRUMP.

This investigation was a political hoax from jump. No one can obstruct justice involving an imaginary crime or a crime not committed.

[Udon Map]

Exactly. I would have thought that you, of all people, would want to see it to remove any possible doubt that the Dems may try to sow. If there's no evidence of collusion, the American people should know that, not be left to guess.

As long as the law and regulations are followed, release what can be released. No one is above the law -- or below the law.

Completely agree.

[Lone Star]

.

Mueller Exposes Spy Chiefs

Source: Wall Street Journal

Now that special counsel Robert Mueller has found that no one in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, Democrats are busy moving the goal posts. But this is a distraction from the real reckoning that needs to come.

The one we need is for all the intelligence officials—including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Central Intelligence Agency chief John Brennan, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—who pushed the Russia conspiracy theory. The special counsel has just made clear they did so with no real evidence.

Mr. Mueller could have said he didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute. Instead he was categorical: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

This wasn’t for lack of trying on Moscow’s part. “Despite multiple offers” from Russia-affiliated individuals to help their campaign, Mr. Mueller reports, the Trump people didn’t take them up on it.

So why do 44% of Americans—according to a Fox News poll released Sunday—believe otherwise? Part of the answer has to be that the collusion tale was egged on by leading members and former members of the American intelligence community.

Intelligence professionals are trained to sift through the noise and distractions in pursuit of the truth. In this case, however, they went all in for a tale that the Russian government had somehow compromised Mr. Trump or his close associates. In peddling this line, their authority rested on the idea they had access to alarming and conclusive evidence the rest of America couldn’t see. Now it appears they never had much more than an unverified opposition-research dossier commissioned by Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Nevertheless, they persisted. Start with the FBI’s Mr. McCabe, who boasts that he is the man who opened the counterintelligence probe into Russia and President Trump. Today the question has to be: On what evidence was this extraordinary step predicated, apart from Mr. Trump’s saying things the G-man didn’t like?

As recently as three weeks ago, Mr. McCabe—sacked by the bureau for a “lack of candor”—told CNN that he still thought it “possible” President Trump was a “Russian asset.” Again, on what evidence?

Ditto for Mr. Clapper, who said he agreed “completely” with Mr. McCabe that Mr. Trump could be a Russian asset. He added only that he couldn’t be certain whether it was “witting or unwitting.” Coming from a former director of national intelligence, this is a grave accusation. But on what evidence?

Or consider Mr. Brennan. After a presidential press conference in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin in which Mr. Trump refused to acknowledge Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Mr. Brennan tweeted that the president’s behavior was “nothing short of treasonous.” Not “wrong,” not “outrageous,” but “treasonous.”

It wouldn’t be the last time he invoked the “t” word. Mr. Brennan also used it after the president pulled his security clearance last August. During a subsequent appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd suggested that a former intelligence chief might wish to be a little more circumspect with his accusations.

“You are the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United States,” said Mr. Todd. “It’s not a private citizen. A lot of people hear the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United States of treason—that’s monumental, that’s a monumental accusation.” Mr. Brennan said he regretted nothing, and cited for his judgment his training as an “intelligence professional.”

Finally there’s Rep. Adam Schiff. As ranking member and now chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff has been claiming for some time that there’s “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.” This past weekend on ABC’s “This Week,” he said there’s “significant evidence of collusion.” Does anyone else think there’s a credibility problem when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee starts sounding like O.J. Simpson vowing to find the “real killer”?

In light of Mr. Mueller’s findings, there are only two ways to interpret these actions and statements from senior members of the intelligence community. The first is that they got played because they were incompetent. Anyone who reads the compromising texts between FBI master spy Peter Strzok and his FBI lover, Lisa Page, might well find the clown argument persuasive.

But there’s something even worse than an intelligence community that has been played. It’s an intelligence community that chose to play along simply because its members hated Donald Trump. For a full reckoning, America will need an accounting of the evidence used to launch that counterintelligence probe, the unmasking of officials, the leaks, and the likely abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants.

The lesson here is this: Be careful what you wish for. Because the questions this special prosecutor has unleashed might yet yield federal criminal indictments. Just not for the people the fantasists of Russian collusion expected.

Accountability is necessary.

[Lone Star]

VDH on Mueller Report

Brennan and Clapper could have some legal problems.

[Lone Star]

Democrat and Hillary Voter and Law Professor Alan Dershowitz

Dershowitz said it: "Let's get Trump. Let's get Trump all the time, every time, every minute. ... It backfired ..."

Democrats didn't accept the results of the 2016 election. Now they don't accept the findings of the Mueller Report. Today, every Democrat is convinced that Mueller is a Russian.

[Lone Star]

.

Trump vows to release FISA docs now that Mueller probe is concluded, slams 'treasonous' FBI

Trump announced yesterday that now that the Mueller Investigation is over, he will release the FISA affidavits that asked for warrants to surveil his campaign and others. These affidavits, submitted to FISA judges by Comey, Yates and others, will reveal the evidence that was supposedly used to initiate the investigation. It is widely believed, based on the testimony of the cabal of FBI/DOJ officials involved, that the main evidence used was the phony, unsubstantiated Steele dossier paid for by Hillary and the DNC to use as political fodder against Trump. Additionally, the cabal had leaked information about the dossier to the news media, and those same news media reports were used to try to give the dossier some legs.

It is also believed that these documents will reveal that Trump was correct -- again. That his campaign was being infiltrated through agents and technology -- in Trump's words, "wiretapped."

There is nothing to indicate in these FISA affidavits that the cabal notified the judges that the Steele Dossier was paid for by Hillary and the DNC as opposition research against Trump.

Here's the crux of it all. Mueller found NOTHING related to criminal activity regarding Trump or his campaign. So what evidence kicked off this investigation of nothing? There HAS TO BE A CRIME for an investigation to begin. The US does not investigate people to find crimes.

[Lone Star]

.

For those who are unaware of the details of how this all started to GET TRUMP, this outline by Victor Davis Hanson provides some easily understood information with names and motivations.

The fact remains that there was a Deep State cabal of high level FBI/DOJ leaders who thought they were going to do the country a favor by trying to manipulate the outcome of the 2016 election, and if failing in that mission, create an "insurance policy" (their term) that would destroy the Trump presidency.

There is probably no politician that could have withstood this constant barrage from all sides (Democrats, eneMedia, Never-Trumpers, et al) and not resigned his office and stepped aside. Most politicians are weak -- even when they are correct and right. I can only deduct that Trump's business logistical skills allowed him to delegate authority within his administration and still accomplish things.

I haven't underlined/emphasized anything. I would have had to underline almost all of it. All excellent points.

The Late, Not-So-Great Mueller Investigation

It followed the Soviet style: ‘Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.’

Had Hillary Clinton just won the 2016 election, there would have been neither a Mueller investigation nor much talk of Russian collusion.

No Trump Victory, No Collusion Investigation

A losing Donald Trump would have slunk off to left-wing and Never-Trump ridicule and condemnation — and no investigation about collusion.

A defeated Trump would have posed no threat to the 16-year Obama-Clinton progressive project. President Clinton would have been content to let her unverified but lurid dossier rumors hound Trump for the rest of his life, with Trump as the supposed “loser” who had tried, in cahoots with the Russians, to unfairly beat Hillary, though he pathetically failed even at that.

Of course, a President Hillary Clinton herself may well have faced some Russian blackmail attempts. Kremlin fixers would have likely threatened to go public that their planted lies to Christopher Steele were gobbled up by President Clinton’s own private Fusion GPS hit team. In essence, the Russians would have claimed that they had fueled the dossier that wounded the Trump campaign — and expected some sort of quid pro quo, perhaps in Uranium One fashion.

Obama-administration bureaucrats — Attorney General Loretta Lynch, subordinate attorneys general such as Bruce Ohr and Rod Rosenstein, FBI grandees such as James Baker, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, intelligence kingpins such as John Brennan and James Clapper, and national-security officials turned intelligence sleuths such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power — would all have been competing on the basis of service beyond the call of duty for top jobs in the Clinton administration.

Among their swamp talking points would have been rival obsequious claims to have squashed Trump. Clinton-administration transition officials would have had to parcel out patronage by judging the relative help of people who had seeded Hillary’s Steele dossier around the government and the media, or fooled a FISA court to monitor Carter Page and thereby generated leaks that the Trump campaign was “under investigation,” or obstructed the Clinton email investigation, or placed an informant in Trump’s campaign, or unmasked the contents of surveilled conversations and leaked them to the press.

Translated, that means the hysteria that helped prompt the Mueller investigation was in part whipped up by those who had knowingly acted unethically or illegally during and also after the 2016 campaign. These Obama officials bet on the sure-thing but wrong horse and suddenly, after Nov. 8, 2016, feared that they were soon to be subject to lots of criminal exposure.

Assume that both the ruse of “collusion” and James Comey’s leaking gambit to prompt a special counsel’s investigation were thus the preemptive defenses of an assortment of crimes by Obama-era officials, such as lying to federal officials, conspiracy to obstruct justice, illegally leaking confidential or classified documents to the media, deceiving a FISA court, and myriad conflicts of interest. In other words, there were never any evidentiary reasons to appoint a special counsel other than to divert attention away from an array of wrongdoing. After 22 months, that fact finally became clear even to a largely partisan group of attorneys, once eager to become folk heroes by aborting the Trump presidency.

Let us hope both that Attorney General Barr can now turn to the real illegal behavior of an entire array of Obama-administration officials, and that the public at last can have access to unredacted documents that record their frenzied and illegal efforts.

No Phony Dossier, No Investigation

The Clinton-purchased Steele Dossier was the encephalitic virus that infected the entire Washington establishment between 2016 and 2019.

Without it, there would have been no such thing as “collusion,” much less a Mueller investigation.

Had James Comey and his associates (and Bruce Ohr had briefed them all previously on the shaky dossier) been honest and apprised the FISA court in October 2016 that their “opposition research” evidence for a warrant was 1) paid for by Hillary Clinton, 2) largely written by a foreign national (with help from the spouse of Obama DOJ official Bruce Ohr) who despised Donald Trump and who was dismissed from his nebulous relationship with the FBI, 3) remained unverified, and 4) served as the basis for submitted news accounts that in circular fashion supposedly substantiated collusionary behavior, then the writ might have been rejected and the dossier’s usefulness died.

Immediately after the election, the dossier was reinvigorated (by nervous-lame-duck careerists like John Brennan and James Clapper, and Senator John McCain) to serve a new role in aborting the Trump presidency, given that it had always been the only real basis for the entire mythology of Trump-Russian collusion.

Paul Manafort was no doubt duplicitous and acted in a variety of felonious ways, but, without the seeded dossier, his illegal behavior would no more have sparked a wider investigation of the Trump campaign than the actions of the Podesta brothers (whose suspect Russian ties had long contaminated the Clinton campaign) would have spurred investigations of liberal Russian collusion and profiteering.

The Machiavellian brilliance of Trump-hater and otherwise washed-up hack Christopher Steele was his knowledge that lying outrageously (just ask Jussie Smollett) is a far more effective weapon than lying incrementally.

So, Steele’s insertion of the Trump-prostitute-Obama’s-hotel-bed-urolagnia meme was the sharp hook that snagged Washington’s swamp creatures. The Steele dossier was not just spurious in its wild claims about Carter Page eyeing billion-dollar payoffs or a bumbling Michael Cohen in Prague on a secret Trump collusionary mission, it was also so salacious that it served as lurid pornography that supercharged its odyssey throughout the bowels of the Obama government and the media.

The ‘All-Stars’ and ‘Dream Team’ Were Flawed from the Beginning

Robert Mueller spent over $30 million and 674 days in vain ferreting out “collusion” not because it was necessarily difficult to prove such a charge either true or false. After all, the basis for the allegation, the veracity of the Steele dossier, could have been easily and quickly adjudicated.

Indeed, already by May 2017 and the beginning of Mueller’s investigation, the dossier was roundly denounced as fraudulent. FISA transcripts of surveilled conversations had already apprised officials that there was no direct evidence of collusion, which is why Peter Strzok, well before Mueller began, had privately warned his paramour and soon to be fellow Mueller team member, Lisa Page, that “there’s no big there there” to the collusion charge.

What explains the cost and length of the Mueller investigation? It’s not the (relatively easy) challenge of adjudicating collusion. It’s the politicized make-up of his team, which relentlessly and expansively drove on to tag any Trump aide with almost any crime imaginable.

Mueller could have saved the nation a great deal of national angst and division had he only insisted on a brief series of special requisites in his personnel selections: 1) None of his lawyers and investigators should have donated either to the Trump or Clinton campaign; 2) there should have been some numerical parity between Democratic and Republican members; 3) attorneys should not in the past have directly defended either the Trump or Clinton Foundation or any aides who had previously worked for Trump or Clinton; 4) they should not have transmitted on government devices any prior hyper-partisan praise or invective concerning either Trump or Clinton.

Yet Mueller could not fulfill even those minimal requirements. And the result was twofold: Mueller never escaped the charge that his team was biased; and, because it was stocked with progressives, in its zeal to get Trump, the investigation started out with the Soviet assumption that to convict the guilty criminal Trump, they needed only enough time and money to find the right crime.

Members including Page, Strozk, and Weissman had either in email or in texts on their government phones or computers earlier expressed hyper-partisan, anti-Trump views.

Another working for Mueller, Jeannie Rhee, a prosecutor on the team, had been employed as “outside counsel” at one point by the Clinton Foundation. Rhee also had represented Obama official Ben Rhodes in the Benghazi controversy; Rhodes, remember, after the election, was outspoken in his efforts to resist the Trump administration’s initiatives.

Another prominent Mueller team member, Aaron Zebley, had once defended Hillary Clinton’s staffer Justin Cooper. Cooper infamously had set up the private and illegal email server in the basement of the Clintons’ home.

Mueller attorneys such as former federal officials Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad had also both previously communicated with, and been briefed by, Bruce Ohr, who allegedly had warned them of the unverified nature of the Steele dossier.

Mueller team member Strzok had long been directly involved in Clinton-Trump investigations. He had previously interviewed Michael Flynn (Jan. 24, 2017) to learn about possible Trump-Russian collusion. Earlier, Strozk had interrogated Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in connection with the Clinton email scandal; both had clearly lied to the FBI and both had been given de facto immunity. In short, Peter Strozk had no business posing as a disinterested investigator of Trump.

Another lead attorney on Robert Mueller’s team had also previously been assigned to the investigation of the Clinton emails. After the election, the unnamed Mueller team member, later revealed to be Kevin Clinesmith, had bragged in a text to an FBI attorney acquaintance of his opposition to Trump: “Viva le [sic] resistance.”

Other than Mueller himself, a registered Republican, there was no known member of the Republican party, or Republican donor, on his legal team.

The point is not that Mueller deliberately selected a biased team. It’s that he did not exercise proper caution in order to avoid even the appearance of bias in such a high-profile investigation. That is why liberal activists and the media were understandably giddy on hearing of the make-up of the team, and they gushed approbation of their newly adopted “army,” “untouchables,” “all-stars,” and “dream team” — or what Max Boot praised as a “hunter-killer team of crack investigators and lawyers.”

It did not help appearances that the appointed Mueller was a longtime friend and associate of fired FBI director James Comey, who had bragged that he had sought to prompt a special-counsel investigation by deliberately leaking to the press confidential (if not in one case classified) memos of private conversations with the president.

Worse still, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the Mueller investigation, signed off on a misleading FISA writ after the start of the Mueller investigation. Rosenstein also had provided the official rationale for firing James Comey, and he had been knee-deep in prior investigations involving both Trump and Clinton. Rosenstein allegedly had agreed to wear a wire, shortly before Mueller was appointed, to capture enough supposedly treasonous or unhinged Trump dialogue to invoke the 25th Amendment. Remember, in surreal fashion, Rosenstein stepped up to oversee Mueller’s work because, unlike Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he posed as someone who had no such conflicts of interest.

In the end, to justify the absence of any proof of collusion, Mueller’s progressive attorneys and investigators descended to dogging small-time wannabes and a few shady operators on charges that had nothing to do with Russian collusion — before they finally ended up ignominiously going after minor nobodies such the braggart and provocateur Roger Stone and Infowars’ Jerome Corsi.

Does anyone doubt that a comparable conservative team of lawyers including a few Trump donors, with $30 million of government money, a 90 percent favorable press, and 22 months’ time, while investigating Team Clinton and its hangers-on, couldn’t find scads of extraneous felonies, apart from its purported mission of investigating the collusionary Steele dossier?

Mueller, Progressive Hero?

The bias and the wasted resources and time of the stymied Mueller investigation will not matter to progressives. They saw Mueller and company as heroic, or at least useful, for all the righteous damage that the special prosecutor has already inflicted on the hated Trump administration.

For some 674 days, Donald Trump was under a cloud of a special investigator, prying into all aspects of his personal and private life, as well as the lives of his family and aides. Or to put it another way, for 83 percent of Trump’s first term, constant media announcements have blared about the “bombshell” to come as “the noose is tightening” and “the walls are closing in” — all as inaccurate as they were damaging to the efficacy of the administration.

The mainstream-network, MSNBC, and CNN prophesies of impeachment hearings driven by Russian “collusion” had, as planned, driven down Trump’s polls. Between 2017 and 2019, Mueller’s supposed prelude to impeachment caused defections among a once-solid Republican House and Senate and thereby stalled initiatives, thwarting efforts to curb illegal immigration, repeal Obamacare, quickly confirm judicial nominees and executive appointees, and preserve diplomatic leverage abroad.

Without the Mueller investigation and enablers such as Representative Adam Schiff (who had falsely insisted to the media that the dossier was not integral to a pre-election FISA application and had not launched the FBI investigation before the election), and without the MSBNC/CNN punditry, all the serial conspiratorial talk of invoking the 25th Amendment and the emoluments clause, as well as the comical McCabe-Rosenstein palace coup and the efforts of the “resistance” to thwart Trump’s administration from the inside, as outlined in the Sept. 5, 2018, anonymous New York Times op-ed, would probably have been written off immediately as short-lived psychodramas. Instead, they were all sensationalized by a 90-percent-biased media as the prefaces to the Mueller “bombshell” to come.

In the end, Mueller’s investigation really did prove to be a witch hunt, just as half the country came to conclude. It has probably forever ended the idea that a special prosecutor can be useful or fair. It has curtailed foreign-policy options and prevented the traditional American realist approach to Russia as a triangulating counterweight to China. It ruined the lives of innocents such as Carter Page and the reputations of dozens of others such as General Michael Flynn. It divided the country in its transparent violation of any sense of disinterested investigation and turned the idea of American jurisprudence into a version of the Soviets’ “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” And now that it is over, we should not forget what it wrought and those who empowered it.