The Big Maybe
"The Big Maybe"
It’s almost like people have lost the ability to reason. Flynn contacts Russian ambassador Kysliak about fighting ISIS, which was his job. That was the sum total of Flynn’s big confession to Mueller and team. What else did Flynn and Kysliak talk about? Since the Obama administration tapped the phone conversation of both men, under the pretext of Russian meddling, the full text of the conversation is available.
Now, for a liberal, this is proof of collusion, in spite of the fact that the conversation was completely consistent with Flynn’s job. Apparently, because Kysliak is Russian, and the word “Russian,” as it relates to Trump, is a trigger word for liberals. Not in relation to Obama or Hillary, just Trump. That is the liberal version of justice. One set of rules for thee, but not for me. According to this theory, if Flynn had contacted the Chinese, it would be proof of Chinese collusion. Even though, that too would’ve been well within his job duties. Meaning, the latest bombshell, like the many other bombshells—none of which have produced evidence of collusion—is really, “The Big Maybe.”
But, wait a minute! Maybe, there’s more? “Maybe,” being the operative word.
Does “Maybe” constitute reasonable doubt?
Maybe?
Now, after the last dozen or so, “Maybes,” maybe there’s some actual smoke to go along with the latest media-generated fire. But I seriously doubt it. In fact, there is no “Maybe,” since the existing facts don’t support even a “Maybe.” But the press doesn’t care. Neither do the Democrats. Hell, they don’t care enough to ask what the Obama administration was doing, listening in on the opposition’s phone calls and conversations, during a heated campaign. About that, there is no “Maybe.” They really did listen in and used that little act of political espionage to entrap Flynn in a potential lie, based on what were completely legal actions by Flynn. But they had good reason to, “Maybe.” Even if they’ve produced no evidence—not a single shred, to support their claim. What could possibly be wrong with using the heavy hand of “The State” to prosecute a political figure on what was merely a technicality? This was done by Mueller in an effort to force Flynn to turn state’s evidence against Trump—or go to jail and lose everything. Liberals, nonetheless, remain befogged about why Flynn would confess to lying if he was really innocent. For those with short memories, "Remember Scooter Libby?"
This state induced coercion isn’t a crime worthy of the Kremlin at its very worst. No, it’s the new Democratic party strategy for winning elections, which they can’t win legally.
Let’s be clear, this lack of even a “Maybe,” was verified by the FBI, who said without equivocation; “We found NO evidence of Collusion between Trump and Russia!”
But, “Maybes” springs eternal. I mean, “Maybe” some clever reporter will turn up, what the FBI missed, with their meager 8.5 billion dollars a year budget and their 35,000 agents. And, besides, maybe more damning “Maybe’s,” will be forthcoming.
People should be ashamed of this blatant disregard for our system of jurisprudence. And they should definitely be ashamed for having so little knowledge about how our system of government and our legal system was designed to work, including what actually constitutes evidence. I doubt it, though.
In that regard, even a “Maybe,” may be beyond their capabilities.
Mark Magula
It’s almost like people have lost the ability to reason. Flynn contacts Russian ambassador Kysliak about fighting ISIS, which was his job. That was the sum total of Flynn’s big confession to Mueller and team. What else did Flynn and Kysliak talk about? Since the Obama administration tapped the phone conversation of both men, under the pretext of Russian meddling, the full text of the conversation is available.
Now, for a liberal, this is proof of collusion, in spite of the fact that the conversation was completely consistent with Flynn’s job. Apparently, because Kysliak is Russian, and the word “Russian,” as it relates to Trump, is a trigger word for liberals. Not in relation to Obama or Hillary, just Trump. That is the liberal version of justice. One set of rules for thee, but not for me. According to this theory, if Flynn had contacted the Chinese, it would be proof of Chinese collusion. Even though, that too would’ve been well within his job duties. Meaning, the latest bombshell, like the many other bombshells—none of which have produced evidence of collusion—is really, “The Big Maybe.”
But, wait a minute! Maybe, there’s more? “Maybe,” being the operative word.
Does “Maybe” constitute reasonable doubt?
Maybe?
Now, after the last dozen or so, “Maybes,” maybe there’s some actual smoke to go along with the latest media-generated fire. But I seriously doubt it. In fact, there is no “Maybe,” since the existing facts don’t support even a “Maybe.” But the press doesn’t care. Neither do the Democrats. Hell, they don’t care enough to ask what the Obama administration was doing, listening in on the opposition’s phone calls and conversations, during a heated campaign. About that, there is no “Maybe.” They really did listen in and used that little act of political espionage to entrap Flynn in a potential lie, based on what were completely legal actions by Flynn. But they had good reason to, “Maybe.” Even if they’ve produced no evidence—not a single shred, to support their claim. What could possibly be wrong with using the heavy hand of “The State” to prosecute a political figure on what was merely a technicality? This was done by Mueller in an effort to force Flynn to turn state’s evidence against Trump—or go to jail and lose everything. Liberals, nonetheless, remain befogged about why Flynn would confess to lying if he was really innocent. For those with short memories, "Remember Scooter Libby?"
This state induced coercion isn’t a crime worthy of the Kremlin at its very worst. No, it’s the new Democratic party strategy for winning elections, which they can’t win legally.
Let’s be clear, this lack of even a “Maybe,” was verified by the FBI, who said without equivocation; “We found NO evidence of Collusion between Trump and Russia!”
But, “Maybes” springs eternal. I mean, “Maybe” some clever reporter will turn up, what the FBI missed, with their meager 8.5 billion dollars a year budget and their 35,000 agents. And, besides, maybe more damning “Maybe’s,” will be forthcoming.
People should be ashamed of this blatant disregard for our system of jurisprudence. And they should definitely be ashamed for having so little knowledge about how our system of government and our legal system was designed to work, including what actually constitutes evidence. I doubt it, though.
In that regard, even a “Maybe,” may be beyond their capabilities.
Mark Magula