…many here fell for it…hook-line-and sinker!

It Wasn't Russia. It Was the White House.

WENDI STRAUCH MAHONEY
JUL 21, 2025


When Donald J. Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, the political establishment went into vicious overdrive. Within days of his election, the media began promoting a new narrative, soon to be known as the “Russia Hoax”—that Russia had intervened to help Trump win. But behind the scenes, was something even more calculated unfolding between then-President Barack Obama and the defeated candidate, Hillary Clinton?

To be clear, there is no public record of a meeting between Hillary Clinton and President Obama in the weeks following the election. However, for years speculation has swirled about a quiet, off-the-books conversation—perhaps a lunch—held somewhere in the White House between Obama and Clinton. If such a meeting occurred, what was said could have contributed to one of the most explosive cover stories in modern American political history.

Clinton’s memoir What Happened confirms only that President Obama called her late on election night, urging her to concede quickly “for the good of the country.” She did so the next morning. But the abrupt shift in national focus—from Clinton’s stunning loss and the growing legal scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation to a full-scale media blitz around Trump-Russia collusion—happened almost overnight. The speed and coordination suggest more than coincidence.

On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post published what would become a pivotal leak: the CIA had assessed that Russia interfered in the U.S. election with the intent of helping Donald Trump secure victory. The leak ignited a media firestorm and swiftly redirected the national conversation. Almost overnight, coverage of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, pay-to-play allegations, and questions surrounding foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation disappeared from front pages. But why? Who was responsible for burying these stories—and to what end?

New clarity emerged on July 21, 2025, with the declassified release of internal documents by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. The documents reveal the FBI’s tepid handling of the Clinton email investigation and include long-sought materials from the so-called “Clinton annex,” an appendix to the Justice Department Inspector General’s June 2018 report. Grassley’s press release accompanying the declassification offers further insight into how and why Clinton controversies faded from public scrutiny at a critical political moment.

Stunningly, in this very same document, the person who is mentioned is none other than the president himself, Barack Obama. According to page 7 of the document, Obama “sanctioned the use of all administrative levers to remove possibly negative effects of the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation and the email correspondence of the State Department.”

Grassley’s press release highlights an FBI cover-up that would protect Clinton and Obama from scandal and would derail the narrative Obama wanted at the time:

“This document shows an extreme lack of effort and due diligence in the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s email usage and mishandling of highly classified information,” Grassley said. “Under Comey’s leadership, the FBI failed to perform fundamental investigative work and left key pieces of evidence on the cutting room floor. The Comey FBI’s negligent approach and perhaps intentional lack of effort in the Clinton investigation is a stark contrast to its full-throated investigation of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, which was based on the uncorroborated and now discredited Steele dossier. Comey’s decision-making process smacks of political infection.”

“I warned years ago that the Clinton investigation failed to hit the mark, and I’m grateful the American people can finally see the facts for themselves,” Grassley continued.

Now back to July 2025. According to a declassified 2025 CIA Tradecraft Review commissioned by former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe who is now CIA Director, the intelligence community’s assessment was anything but objective. Ratcliffe’s June declassification found that the December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was “rushed,” “politicized,” and produced without proper analytic rigor. Brennan, Clapper, and Comey worked in lockstep to frame the ICA as a consensus product, even as dissenting voices were excluded.

This conclusion was confirmed again with DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard’s declassified release on July 18, 2025. The more than 100 pages of documents prove the IC community repeatedly told leadership and Obama that Russia “neither had the intent nor the capability” to hack the U.S. election in 2016, according to Secretary Gabbard.

In a July 20, 2025 interview with Fox News reporter Maria Bartiromo, Gabbard explains in no uncertain terms Obama’s involvement in the “years-long coup” against President Trump based on the documents she declassified:

“In the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community agreed that there was no intelligence that reflected that Russia was trying to hack the election in favor of either candidate. The evidence showed the intelligence showed that, again, Russia did not have either the intent nor the capability to be able to impact the outcome of the United States election,” Gabbard explained.

“So it was very striking,” Gabbard continued, “When we look back again at the documents that I declassified and released, they show there was a shift in early December, the 1st week of December. Again, another document was produced by the Intelligence Community for the President’s Daily Brief that was consistent with every other assessment that was done previously leading up to the election. Russia was not, did not––this is after the election now–– did not attempt to affect the outcome of the American election. That document was never published.

“Hours before it would have gone into President Obama's Daily Brief,” Gabbard added, “It was pulled by a senior level intelligence official saying that they had to pull it because they had received new guidance. (Hmm I wonder who gave that “new guidance.”)

“The very next day, this meeting was called, said Gabbard. “It was a National Security Council meeting, bringing all together all of the senior leaders of President Obama's cabinet and the topic that was put forward was a sensitive matter. The tasks that came out of that meeting were coming from President Obama directing the intelligence community, then Obama's ODNI Director Clapper to produce an a document to produce an intelligence assessment that detailed, not whether, but how Moscow affected the the outcome of the election that had already occurred electing Donald Trump to the presidency. This document that they published in January of 2017 was the foundational groundwork that they continued to reference over and over and over again to enact the years- long coup against president Trump.”

Remember, during that period, FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page privately messaged about an “insurance policy” in case Trump won—a policy that now looks remarkably like the manufactured narrative that that emerged in the July 18 declass.

But why the sudden urgency? Why the need to redirect? One could easily argue the following also influenced the Russia Hoax operation––

The Clinton Foundation was under intensifying scrutiny in late 2016. Lawmakers had called for investigations. FOIA lawsuits were moving forward. Reports linked donations from foreign governments to favorable treatment at the State Department while Clinton served as Secretary. Had any of this led back to the White House, it could have tainted President Obama’s legacy—and exposed his own role in approving questionable deals and ignoring red flags.

That’s where the alleged secret meeting might come in.

Suppose Clinton privately warned Obama that if the investigations into her conduct at State or the Foundation moved forward, it wouldn’t stop with her. Emails, memos, and donor connections could trace back to the West Wing. If true, the political cost to Obama and the Democratic Party could be devastating. A distraction—no, a counter-attack—was necessary.

Thus, there was one more compelling reason for a narrative change. The Clinton Foundation vanished from scrutiny. In its place came a relentless push to delegitimize Trump’s win. Leaks flowed. Investigations launched. The Mueller probe followed. And for years, headlines were dominated by a hoax and Trump’s mandate to carry out the mission given to him by the American people was materially crippled. There is little doubt at this point that the real interference in the 2016 election came not from Moscow, but from inside the highest levels of our own government.

https://x.com/rasmussen_poll/s...401152133267523?s=46

Epstein? trump a pedo? Evidence mounting?

No!

Look. Over there!

. . . quick, look over there!

Always inspiring to see the faithful out proselytizing for their Messiah. Can we get an Amen!

I read the OP down to: "To be clear". That's where the narrative becomes clear that this whole rant is building on a conspiracy theory.

It's massive, harmful, lies, and sick.

The sickness makes a slick all the way to the WH.

"The winners get to write the history".

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”
― George Orwell, 1984

What Lane is spewing are not ordinary lies.

============================================

Why is it so important for an autocracy to control the narrative?

https://www.google.com/search?...701&bih=974&dpr=1.75

Politicians had a meeting and discussed shit. Who cares? Politicians tried to guide the narrative to suit their version. Why should this come as a surprise?
I am reminded of an interview I saw during the media coverage of the Watergate scandal. This was kind of a "man on the street" type of interview where the reporter asked an older man if he wasn't shocked by revelations about the Watergate break in. His reply was that he was shocked that anyone would be shocked to learn that political people would play dirty tricks on other political people. He said, "They lie, they cheat. If they're good at it, we elect them."
2016 is far enough back that I really don't care that we have discovered that some politicians lied or cheated. Add them to the list. Regards, Bill

And Nixon got raw deal as we say, he got hosed
Carter without Iran going to shits might have pulled it off for second term
Politics is ancient art of making populace believe “ You are the one “

If you read the OP narrative, it's easy to pick out the many suppositions to fill in the blank spaces, or holes. Without that the whole narrative implodes.

It is typical of a Rightists' narrative building off conspiracy theory. There used to be a guy from Texas participating herein, until he got banned for spamming, who loved to post articles from American Thinker, aka American Stinker. Those narratives were like the one in the OP.

This isn't about "both sides" do it, lie, whatever.

It's evident, at least to me, that this narrative is important in part because it's a building block, a foundation to what's happening and about to happen.

I see fear and desperation in the narrative. Fear of losing power control, and ideological personal ID, to a relentless undercurrent.

To me, it's like a political group, intrinsically psychologically self-ID tethered to a toxic red tide, and they fear the clean blue tide will wash them away.

There are at least two actions required in this scenario to maintain power. Control the narrative, and we see lots of evidence for that such as the Harvard thing, the dept of education thing, the lawsuits or weaponization of the legal system, etc., etc.

Second is to rig the system with justification. We see evidence of that already, especially in Texas with the in-progress gerrymandering to gain five more seats in congress. There's gonna be more.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Politicians had a meeting and discussed shit. Who cares? Politicians tried to guide the narrative to suit their version. Why should this come as a surprise?
I am reminded of an interview I saw during the media coverage of the Watergate scandal. This was kind of a "man on the street" type of interview where the reporter asked an older man if he wasn't shocked by revelations about the Watergate break in. His reply was that he was shocked that anyone would be shocked to learn that political people would play dirty tricks on other political people. He said, "They lie, they cheat. If they're good at it, we elect them."
2016 is far enough back that I really don't care that we have discovered that some politicians lied or cheated. Add them to the list. Regards, Bill

Comparing what's going on with trump right now and past presidential scandals is apples and oranges. I'd remind you that even Richard Nixon had the common decency and respect for the office of POTUS to resign for the good of the country. And, the things Nixon was accused of pale in comparison to the list of trump crimes and transgressions.

So, you can close your eyes to it and treat it as business as usual while the country is being driven off a cliff. I take issue.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
And Nixon got raw deal as we say, he got hosed
Carter without Iran going to shits might have pulled it off for second term
Politics is ancient art of making populace believe “ You are the one “

"Politics" as we know it has become perverted. What led us or pushed us on this path?

The answer to that is cloaked somewhat within the OP narrative, titled "The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".

I really don't believe the OP narrative even comes close to answering that. It suggests a partial answer, flip side.

The greatest hoax, of course, is Trumpism or GOPerism or perhaps conservativism as it has evolved. All the authors and supporters of Project 2025 are part of it. It has been fomenting for over 50 years.

What went wrong? Compare the following with Trumpism/GOPerism in general and the answer should be clear.

========================================

One clue to consider is the Rightists' fallacy belief that the govt. should be run like a business, presumably capitalistic, exclusive ownership or equity, and for profit, even zero-sum. That was part of the justification for Trump. Govt is more like Habitat for Humanity than Trump Tower.

The following explanation should dispel such notion. Business and govt have different goals and are completely different models.



So, consider this:

What did Aristotle say about politics?

AI Overview
Aristotle considered politics to be the master science, encompassing ethics and aiming for the eudaimonia (flourishing or living well) of both the individual and the state. He viewed humans as "political animals" by nature, meaning we fulfill our purpose through engaging in reasoned dialogue about justice within a political community. Aristotle analyzed different types of government, their strengths and weaknesses, and advocated for a "mixed constitution" as a way to balance competing interests and prevent tyranny.

Here's a more detailed look at Aristotle's political thought:

Politics as the Master Science:
Aristotle believed that politics was the most important science because it dealt with the good of the entire community, not just the individual.

Humans as Political Animals:
He famously stated that humans are naturally inclined to live in political communities, engaging in discussions and striving for justice.

The Polis and Justice:
The polis, or city-state, was the ideal form of political organization for Aristotle, as it allowed for the development of virtue and the pursuit of the common good.

Classification of Governments:
Aristotle classified governments into three ideal forms: monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (a mixed government), and their corresponding perversions: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.

The Importance of a Mixed Constitution:
He favored a "mixed constitution" that combined elements of different forms of government, believing it offered the best chance for stability and prevented the excesses of any single form.

The Role of the Citizen:
Good citizenship was not just about following laws, but also about actively participating in the political life of the polis and contributing to the common good.

The Importance of Education:
Aristotle stressed the importance of education in shaping citizens who could contribute to the political community and understand the principles of justice.

Potential for Political Instability:
Aristotle recognized that political systems are prone to instability and conflict, particularly due to the struggle between the rich and the poor.

The Importance of the Common Good:
Ultimately, Aristotle believed that the purpose of politics was to achieve the common good, which he equated with eudaimonia for both individuals and the state.

=====================================================================

What did the social contract mean to Jefferson and Aristotle?

AI Overview
The social contract according to Jefferson and Aristotle:

While both Thomas Jefferson and Aristotle touched upon concepts related to a social agreement between people and their government, their understanding and emphasis on the social contract differed significantly due to the historical context and philosophical frameworks in which they operated.

Thomas Jefferson and the social contract:
Focus on consent and natural rights: Jefferson, heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, saw the social contract as a foundational agreement where individuals voluntarily surrender some freedoms to a government in exchange for the protection of their inherent, unalienable natural rights – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Government's legitimacy derives from consent: He emphasized that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, implying that the people are the ultimate source of political authority.

Right to revolution: If a government fails to protect these rights or becomes destructive of the people's safety and happiness, the people have the right to alter or abolish it and establish a new one based on these principles. Jefferson's arguments in the Declaration of Independence relied heavily on this interpretation of the social contract to justify the American Revolution against British rule, according to Brainly.

Emphasis on individualism: Jefferson's view prioritized the rights and freedoms of individuals and saw the government as a means to secure those rights.

Aristotle and the origins of government (related to, but distinct from, a modern social contract)
Focus on the natural social inclination of humans: Aristotle, while not explicitly using the term "social contract" in the same way as Enlightenment philosophers, viewed humans as naturally social and political animals, meaning that forming communities and living under a political order is inherent to human nature and necessary for achieving human flourishing (eudaimonia).

Emphasis on virtue and the common good: He believed that the purpose of the state is to promote the common good and cultivate virtuous citizens. Governments are legitimate when they serve the interests of all stakeholders in the community.

Evolution of government: Aristotle postulated that early communities might have chosen the most virtuous individuals as leaders or kings, and as civilizations evolved, transitioned towards more collaborative forms of governance or proto-democracies, according to The Historian's Hut.

Implicit agreement and shared values: While he didn't articulate a explicit "contract" of individuals surrendering rights, his concept of a legitimate government implies an implicit agreement or understanding among citizens based on shared values and a commitment to the common good.

In essence, Jefferson's understanding of the social contract focused on the voluntary agreement of individuals to form a government that protects their natural rights, with the power ultimately residing with the people.

Aristotle, on the other hand, saw the state as a natural outgrowth of human sociality and a necessary institution for achieving the common good and cultivating virtue.

=======================================================


I could ask the question - what's the difference in liberalism and illiberalism? But not yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I read the OP down to: "To be clear".

You read that far?!?!?!
I didn't get past the title.

I've heard far to many "greatest ever" from Trump and MAGA to believe any of it. The government generally and Trump very specifically have a credibility problem as in he has zero credibility.

I posted quickly to make a point early in the thread.

After that post, for due-diligence sake, I went back and read the whole thing.

I wanted to make sure of what it said and how it was structured and the evidence it was based on.

My initial instinct and take was correct.

I was about to say a lot, and didn't want to falter for lack of reading the OP.

And IMO, you are correct too.

The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American People is Trump.

Nothing new.

Just a normal day in America!

Corruption leaps to new heights!

A load of supposition and innuendo. I'm surprised that anyone scientifically trained would quote such a work.

Does anyone else wonder why the Trumpeteers keep bringing up the issue of Russian support for Trump? Trying so hard to proclaim Trump's innocence.

Methinks they protest overly much.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
A load of supposition and innuendo. I'm surprised that anyone scientifically trained would quote such a work....

self-reflection is hard.. no, wait, you were serious? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American People is Trump.

Truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Politicians had a meeting and discussed shit. Who cares? Politicians tried to guide the narrative to suit their version. Why should this come as a surprise?
I am reminded of an interview I saw during the media coverage of the Watergate scandal. This was kind of a "man on the street" type of interview where the reporter asked an older man if he wasn't shocked by revelations about the Watergate break in. His reply was that he was shocked that anyone would be shocked to learn that political people would play dirty tricks on other political people. He said, "They lie, they cheat. If they're good at it, we elect them."
2016 is far enough back that I really don't care that we have discovered that some politicians lied or cheated. Add them to the list. Regards, Bill

Comparing what's going on with trump right now and past presidential scandals is apples and oranges. I'd remind you that even Richard Nixon had the common decency and respect for the office of POTUS to resign for the good of the country. And, the things Nixon was accused of pale in comparison to the list of trump crimes and transgressions.

So, you can close your eyes to it and treat it as business as usual while the country is being driven off a cliff. I take issue.

Oh, I don't doubt that it is worse and I consider Trump to be one of the worst things to ever happen in this country.
My point was that all of the finger pointing and dirty tricks are indeed business as usual. Backroom deals are par for the course.
I agree that, compared to Donald Trump, Nixon did nothing at all. He was a victim of the press. The press was mightily pissed that they couldn't get Mcgovern elected.
Back to the present, left and right continue to point their fingers at the other side, saying, they are the evil ones, only they can do wrong. The GOP makes this easy because they have shown themselves to be spineless and unable to oppose Trump. The Democrats make it easy for someone like Trump to rise to power because they refuse to recognize that they are adhering to a failed doctrine. Business as usual? Not quite. I think the country is polarized to a greater extent than any time since the civil war. Bill.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9KS?ocid=socialshare

Trump Lashes Out at Obama and Calls for Investigation

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...VzS?ocid=socialshare

Trump claims Obama 'coup' as Epstein questions mount

Come to think of it.

There is no greater hoax than a convicted felon, draft dodging coward, womanizing career criminal.

Who lies every time he opens his mouth, is being president of America!

And to top it all.

He has made America into nothing but a worthless PUPPET for the New Nazis occupying Palestine!

Go figure!

How the hell did a great country sink so low!

I had hoped you were off being deprogrammed somewhere Lane, apparently not.

You are still crazy after all these years

Welcome back.

https://youtu.be/3p8NZHH0_vk?si=iSl0vmNcV3JYm6aA

Obama responds to 'outrageous’ claims by Donald Trump to distract from the Epstein story

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee joins Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House with reaction to the baseless claims made by Donald Trump and his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, alleging former President Barack Obama of treason in relation to the Russian Election interference investigation, all in an effort to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein story.

I post this video here in this thread because it explains a hoax, or deception of high order, by means of putting pieces of the puzzle, (facts known) on the table, so to speak, to see if and where they fit to form a picture.

Sometimes that's appropriate.

But, my motive to post this in part is so this video can be contrasted with the way the OP article is presented.

The host of the video clearly informs the audience that the inferences or conclusions he reaches are not supported well enough to declare them fact.

This is a where there's smoke, there's fire thing.

This is not how a conspiracy theory is developed.

https://youtu.be/Fird4mvdteE?si=YVXLiLZxLgFV_Z3Q
A Psychiatrist's Theory About What Lies Behind The Epstein Enigma

==========================

Even in the title he uses the word "theory".

And he says: I have spent recent days trying to piece together the Epstein story and figure out what was really going on behind the veil. This has led me to develop a theory that is based in some excellent reporting and testimony to date. Now it is, of course, just a theory so let me know in the comments what you think about it and what ideas you have as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
I had hoped you were off being deprogrammed somewhere Lane, apparently not.

I'm betting that Lane is at home trembling with excitement waiting for Obama to be arrested.

He comes here for that but runs off when he's had enough, reprograms and comes back for more.

We're here to help, any time you feel you need another dose, Lane.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
He comes here for that but runs off when he's had enough, reprograms and comes back for more.

We're here to help, any time you feel you need another dose, Lane.

He's so used to getting spanked here that he no longer hangs around for it....

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
He comes here for that but runs off when he's had enough, reprograms and comes back for more.

We're here to help, any time you feel you need another dose, Lane.

Dose of Kool-Aid???

Here's a video that is very interesting and it relates to this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/live/Y...UICOPyQ3OM6EJhb&t=21

Tulsi Gabbard Is Quoting Russian Intelligence Sources | Explainer

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
He comes here for that but runs off when he's had enough, reprograms and comes back for more.

We're here to help, any time you feel you need another dose, Lane.

He's so used to getting spanked here that he no longer hangs around for it....

nah, it's the 7ish liberals that instantly spawn and rant/rage -- it takes a little intestinal fortitude to be attacked by little girls and not respond in kind --

the same girls .. is it gurls? that think they are always right, regardless of what the facts show -

Lane,

You've awakened the yapping dogs who have nothing substantive to add to the conversation. I'll poke them again, while the Russians had nothing to do with influencing the election Trump won, the Democrats did interfere with the election in 2020 that Trump supposedly lost. Given what Democrats have done, if there is a viable basis to prosecute Democrats, I'm all for it.

Keep kicking the yapping dogs, they show their true colors.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Lane,

You've awakened the yapping dogs who have nothing substantive to add to the conversation. I'll poke them again, while the Russians had nothing to do with influencing the election Trump won, the Democrats did interfere with the election in 2020 that Trump supposedly lost. Given what Democrats have done, if there is a viable basis to prosecute Democrats, I'm all for it.

I do hope the Russians, as well as the Chinese and everyone who wishes, interferes in your elections.

I hope they never stop.

As payback to your government involvements in so many countries elections.

And Trump being being a puppet for a foreign country is left in no doubt whatsoever!

NitanHitler ordered him to bomb Iran.

And he bent over and sent his bombers on an illegal international crime!

You have become the laughing stock of the world!

You have elected a sack of shit who has the brains of a deranged 10 year old.

I have no idea whether Epstein was working with Mossad but it is not hard to make a creditable case that he was. Listen to the Flagrant podcast. Then add to the mix Trump’s complete inability to control himself sexually and his longstanding relationship with Epstein. Lastly you have Trump seemingly being controlled by puppet strings held by Bibi and the theory certainly starts to have a level of believability that it might not have otherwise.

quote:

I do hope the Russians, as well as the Chinese and everyone who wishes, interferes in your elections.

We certainly couldn't do any worse.

The greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people is sitting on his orange backside in the Whitehouse.

I will get rid of national debt in two terms.

I wont have time to be playing golf I will be to busy presidenting.

I will drain the swamp.

I will end the Ukraine war in 24 hours.

Exporting countries pay tariffs.

The list is endless....

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Lane,

You've awakened the yapping dogs who have nothing substantive to add to the conversation. I'll poke them again, while the Russians had nothing to do with influencing the election Trump won, the Democrats did interfere with the election in 2020 that Trump supposedly lost. Given what Democrats have done, if there is a viable basis to prosecute Democrats, I'm all for it.

Yawn.

quote:

Yawn.

Woof woof

They've both been reduced to troll status.

Lane

When you post stuff like this, I really wonder where you get your Christian faith from!

You forget that the Russian interference came from Jeff Sessions & Trump was scared s#!%less.

Ted Cruz the genius lawyer was lost for any explanation.

Muller was a Republican. There were many indictments and many people went to jail.

Muller specifically said that the investigation could not exonerate Trump. It was up to the AG to act on Obstruction charges.

Bill Barr covered it up and lied. He was later forced to release partial report after Muller came out in the open.

Poor attempt by you ..... as usual.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by ledvm:
…many here fell for it…hook-line-and sinker!

It Wasn't Russia. It Was the White House.

WENDI STRAUCH MAHONEY
JUL 21, 2025


OTE]

Nakihunter, Very good concise post. Lane is a learn-proof human. brian