Don's Tuesday Column

         THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson   Red Bluff Daily News   4/02/2019

            Nov. ’16 win becomes legitimized

The not-to-be-missed Tehama County Republican Red, White and Blue dinner, honoring the Second Amendment, is Saturday, April 13. The meet and greet starts at 5 PM, with dinner and program at 6:30, with Smoked Barrel Tri-Tip, Succotash and Pilaf from The Snack Box. The NRA’s Daniel Reid and Gun Owners of California’s Sam Parades will speak. Call 865-2666 or 200-0091 to reserve your $45 seat/$360 table.

I found my first mention of “Russia” in “Election hijinks and despotism,” 11/29/2016. Headlines like “White House denies that Russia hacked election for Donald Trump win,” and “The Kremlin didn’t sink Hillary, Obama did,” lent skepticism to Russian election collusion. That has morphed from the post-election decision by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to blame Russian skullduggery for her loss, to what we now know is the official refutation of all aspersions against Trump’s campaign.

I pointed out that it had been decades since a Republican president won election without immediate and persistent efforts to refute the validity of the victory (i.e. G.W. Bush 2000, 2004), or the “legitimacy” (as a recent letter-writer denied) to Donald Trump’s win. Let’s get one thing straight: Denying the legitimacy of Trump’s Presidency over non-existent, now-disproven accusations of Russian collusion and conspiracy can and should be placed alongside other ludicrous myths like “the moon landing was fake,” “9/11 was an inside job,” the Clinton’s left dead bodies in Arkansas, and “Bush lied about WMDs.”

Currently, I read of “50+ Journalists, Politicians, Celebrities, and Grifters Who Peddled the Russia Collusion Hoax,” by Debra Heine, pjmedia.com. I have neither cable, dish nor the patience to have my intelligence, common sense and decency insulted by their leftist, Trump-deranged propaganda, and have been oblivious to the conspiracy lunacy peddled to their viewers. Having now read the quotes and viewed the clips of endless “bombshells,” “walls closing in,” “beginning of the ends,” predicted indictments, presidential subpoenas, and impeachment—I can only shake my head at the eagerness and gullibility of Trump’s opponents.

Even now, the “stages of grief” are well applied: 1) denial, 2) anger, 3) bargaining, 4) depression and 5) acceptance (few are there, yet). You can apply those stages to those who were so cock-sure to the point of tears (i.e. Rachel Maddow) that their saintly Bob Mueller would issue the devastating blow to “OrangeManBad.” Then the Permanent Governing Class could get our priorities back to Obama/Clinton/Pelosi/Schumer “Resistance”: Open borders, welfare for all, socialized medicine, weakened economy and military, eradication of fossil fuels, “tax the rich” (we will all be “rich”), etc.

A significant legal clarification: Between Mueller’s report and the A.G. Barr/Rod Rosenstein summary, President Trump is correct to say that he was “exonerated” of the charge of “obstruction of justice.” I’m well aware that Mueller’s report states otherwise: that Trump is neither guilty, nor exonerated, of any obstruction. That’s not a valid legal conclusion.

Here’s where it falls apart: America’s justice system is based on the “presumption of innocence,” or “innocent until proven guilty.” A jury, judge or court renders a guilty/not guilty verdict. Much is made, by those who supposedly care about justice and fairness, of the “burden of proof” being on the prosecutor—the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. There is no “not exonerated” verdict, even in obstruction where there is no underlying crime—as was the case in Mueller’s “Russia collusion” investigation.

I’ve read that it is possible to technically “obstruct” justice even when no criminal statute is involved, but Mueller and his 19 partisan Democrat lawyers couldn’t cite any actions by Trump that proved obstruction of justice. Especially, since they gave Trump a clean slate on all other charges they investigated—hence, exoneration, also known as “not guilty.”

I see Mueller’s verbiage as a sop to Congressional partisan crusaders and news media Democrats-with-bylines as a carte blanche to maintain the spinning of (nonexistent) perfidy by President Trump. Sure enough, the talking point has been bandied about whenever a Trump defender appears, legal fine points aside.

As early as my Dec. 13, 2016, column, I cited “Russian ‘Meddling’ in Election: Most Overblown Story Ever?” by John Hinderaker. He took apart “the very Washington Post story causing all the hyperventilation, which shows 1) it wasn’t the Russian government, 2) they quote no one by name and 3) there are no facts, documents or testimony to support the allegations.” We. Told. You. So. Our side has been correct in analysis, investigation and conclusions based on what was known and verifiable.

I have no inclination to extend graciousness, let alone forgiveness, to those who can’t bring themselves to even “eat a little crow” over their believing the absolute worst of President Trump that you could accuse an American leader. There was plenty of proof of Barack Obama’s sympathy for Iran and Venezuela, animosity toward our ally Israel; his “hot mic” message to Putin that he would have flexibility over our missile defense, combined with policies—like opposing American energy production—seen as benefiting Russian interests.

“There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party’s duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election.” (John Solomon, The Hill, last October.)

“What is being exposed is the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States: the effort by highly placed…members of one administration to mobilize the intelligence services and police power of the state to spy upon and destroy first the candidacy and then the administration of a political rival.” (Roger Kimball, May, 2018)

If this doesn’t chill you with the use of police state tactics, you have no political conscience.