But Can You Prove It?

 

Democrats are saying that the revelations of 2016 collusion in the Intelligence Community to tarnish Trump are all just a smokescreen to deflect from the Epstein debacle. That's a credible enough accusation that I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. BUT...I could just as easily counter that their invoking Epstein now is just an attempt on THEIR part to deflect from the 2016 monkey business. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm angry about both and want to see justice served on both fronts. Would that be so hard? Do I really need to choose just one or the other?

My impression so far is that this probably was a treasonous plot to unseat the president based on creating a false narrative.  Of course, I've believed that since 2016. The technique they relied upon is probably exactly the same technique they use when they want to destabilize a foreign government like Romania or Ukraine or one of the other former Soviet republics.  This time, the powers that be turned the procedure on elements in our own country. That's a terrible precedent to leave unexposed and unpunished.

But so far, I don't see anything that can be proved in court.  Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are stonewalling everything and relying on a strategy of deny, deny, deny, hoping it will all be too complicated a story to change anyone's mind.  They're probably right.  Even if the media and the perpetrators were to admit that the false narrative was way off base, they'll just throw Brennan, Comey, Clapper et al under the bus and claim it was all just incompetence and deny any intentional actions.  Unless Trump et al have credible whistleblowers who can testify to direct knowledge of conspiratorial intent, (and I hope they DO) my guess is this will never see the inside of a courtroom. I hope I'm wrong, but while the optimist in me is often disappointed, the cynic in me rarely is.