Triggered Hollywood celebrities clear up Mueller report for the good of the country (people who are not as smart as celebrities)
We Americans are so fortunate to have actors who are willing to clear up the Mueller report and tell all of us common folk what we, Robert Mueller and Attorney General Bill Barr, missed in the endeavor to investigate Pres. Donald Trump and implicate him, charge him with him with high crimes, and remove him from office. Not only are they sometimes great actors (and one well known author), in real life they are also attorneys, investigators, and news reporters.
So devoted are they to our democracy, that they even produced a video, put it on Youtube for all of us to watch.
Let’s list the luminaries, the celebrities who appear in this wonderful video: Robert De Niro, Martin Sheen, Christine Lahti, Laurence Fishburne, Stephen King, Sophia Bush, Johnathan Van Ness, Rob Reiner, George Takei, Rosie Perez, Kendrick Sampson.
The video was directed by Rob Reiner and produced by Justin Vail and Michele Reiner. Rob Reiner dislikes the president and thinks that if he were involved in the news media, he could have used his brilliant intellect to keep Trump from getting elected. He was critical of the media during an interview with Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on the MSNBC show Morning Joe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFz4YbxTfG4
Here are some of the conclusions presented by celebrities in the video: the dialogue is in italics:
In 2016, the Russian government attacked our democracy. They interfered in the presidential election, in sweeping and systemic fashion. They hacked emails, spread lies on social media and made hundreds of contacts with the Trump campaign as part of a massive covert operation to help Donald Trump become president.
FACT: Russians and the Russian government cause problems for the United States with their computer hacking. Russia not a productive economy other than exporting arms and fossil fuel. To make up for it, the government, (including Vladimir Putin) turns a blind eye to all kinds of hacking. The question is whether or not Trump knew about their intentions, or if it was part of a general effort to cause problems for the United States. It’s probably more of the latter than the former.
Pres. Obama also told about potential Russian interference and pooh poohed it in a public speech. So if it was so serious then, as these celebrities are claiming, why are they not blaming the guy who knew about it, and could have done something to stop it., instead of of someone who probably did not know about it. The most logical reason is that these celebrities are unhappy with the results of the election and are attempting to reverse history.
They can’t have it back and redo the election. It’s over. In other words, if Hillary Clinton had won the election, there would be no special counsel because liberal celebrities would be happy. They wouldn’t care.
In May 2017, the Justice Department appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. Mueller delivered his report March 22 and it contains the most damning evidence ever compiled against a sitting president.
Yet virtually no one has read it. And before the report was even released, Attorney General William Barr lied about its contents. He told the American people that the president had done nothing wrong. And Trump was more than happy to trumpet that propaganda.
FACT: Of course, that is not correct. AG Barr never said that Trump did nothing wrong. Trump may very well have done things in error or that were wrong, as have recent presidents as well, including Pres. Obama and Pres. Clinton. Obama lied often during his presidency. Clinton lied under oath during a grand jury investigation. Clinton was probably wrong in the minds of many Americans to have sex with multiple women in the White House. Most of us know that. The question of the Mueller report and before both Mueller and Barr is whether if Trump were charged with either collusion or obstruction, as something illegal, he would be found guilty of either. The answer is no.
Mueller found plenty of evidence of collusion. The Trump campaign knew about Russia’s illegal attack on our election. They welcomed it and encouraged their help. That’s collusion.
FACT: Meeting with someone who may have information about a political opponent is not illegal. Meeting with any foreign operative associated with a foreign government is not illegal. In no way did any Russian communicate that they were attempting to overthrown an election. Neither did they do that with anyone associated with the Trump campaign. It’s an important distinction.
Former Sec. of State John Kerry flew to Iran during the Trump presidency, without permission from the Trump administration to talk to Iranian officials about who knows what. He probably violated the Logan Act. That probably rises to the level of collusion with a foreign government. Why didn’t the justice department charge him? Probably because it did not matter to Trump and his foreign policy. They have more important things to do than to worry about Kerry.
And recently, Donald Trump, seated in the Oval Office, acknowledged that collusion. In fact, he admitted that in a future election, he would break the law and do it all over again.
I think you might wanna listen - there’s nothing wrong with listening. I think we’d want to hear it. You want that kind of interference in our elections? It’s not an interference. They have information. I think I’d take it.
FACT: Again, we know that listening to someone talk about a political opponent is not illegal. If it were, we would have to monitor and record every conversation a senator has with every foreign ambassador or official.
But we knew that. Here are some other specific examples from the Mueller report.
One: In the Spring of 2016, a Russian operative told a Trump adviser that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The advisor then worked to arrange a meeting between the campaign and the Russian government. That’s collusion.
FACT: No it’s not. It’s called opposition research. The fact is that this guy was set up by entrapped by someone from a U.S. intelligence agency. Did he ever meet with someone from the Russian government? Did he ever get emails from Hillary Clinton? No. He didn’t.
Two: In June of 2016, Donald Trump, Jr. received an email offering dirt on Hillary Clinton, as ‘part of the Russian governments support’ of his father. Don Jr. replied within minutes.
If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer. Four days later, on June 9th, 2016., he set up a meeting in Trump Tower with a Putin-connected Russian lawyer, the campaign chairman Paul Mannafort, and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. That’s collusion.
FACT: No it’s not collusion. Russian officials attended the National Prayer Breakfast while Obama was president. It's attended by senators like Sen. Chris Coons and other senators and representatives. They sit together at tables and talk about who knows what. Is it collusion for a Russian ambassador to sit at the same table as someone who is running for president? Obviously not.
Further, the person they met with did not represent Vladimir Putin or the Russian government. It was a bait and switch. She had no information on Hillary Clinton, neither did she represent the Russian government. It could be said that every person with a Russian with a passport who freely travels to the United States and has a connection to Vladimir Putin for the simple fact that if they were a Russian dissident or criticized the Putin in any way, they would either be asking for asylum in the U.S. or would be living in a jail in Moscow or Siberia.
Two: Wikileaks worked with Russia to release thousands of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. Trump knew Russia was behind the attack and his staff prepared a strategy to take advantage of future releases.
At a press conference a few days later, Trump said - Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. That same day, the Russians made their first attempt to hack Hillary Clinton’s private email servers. That’s collusion.
It’s clear, Russia was helping Trump. But it’s also clear the Trump campaign was helping Russia.
When Trump got his first intelligence briefing, and the FBI warned him that the Russians were trying to infiltrate his campaign, and urged him to report any suspicious activity, did he? No. He ignored the warning and continued to collude with the Russians.
FACT: Besides the fact that it was illegal for Hillary Clinton to have email servers and destroy them because they held emails that were part of her job as a federal employee, at his press conference, Trump was not referring to emails from the DNC, he was referring to the emails that Hillary Clinton ordered destroyed with BleachBit.
Second, both the Republican National Committee and the DNC were warned about hacking and infiltration from Russian governments. The RNC did something about it. Neither the DNC, nor Pres. Obama, who also knew about the potential hacking by Russians did anything about it.
The DNC emails that were obtained were from a successful phishing attempt from Russians, the result of an error by a DNC official who clicked on a phishing link in their email. Instead of deleting it, this official clicked on it, allowing the Russians to obtain thousands of their emails. It had nothing to do with Trump or his campaign.
During his press conference, Trump was simply asking Russia to find the Secretary of State’s emails that she destroyed, which should be seen as something helpful to the country. If they were accidentally destroyed and anyone could find them, it would be a good thing to find them. If they were not accidentally destroyed, Hillary Clinton and every person associated with the destruction of government property should be prosecuted.
In the run-up to the election, Donald Trump, Jr. repeatedly communicated with Wikileaks. And Trump ally Roger Stone kept in regular contact with a Russian Military Intelligence hacker who gave him the “turnout model for Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign.” That’s collusion.
FACT: If one recalls the presidential debates, there is one debate where Hillary Clinton crossed over the stage and talked personally with someone who asked a question. The problem is that Donna Brazile, as CNN commentator, got access to the debate questions before that debate, on Oct. 19, and passed the information on to Hillary Clinton. After the debate, when this was discovered and reported on by the Washington Post, in a Oct. 31, 2016 article, Clinton should have resigned from the campaign because she was guilty of colluding with Brazile for the purpose of gaining an unethical advantage over her opponent.. She obviously didn't.
Here is the article:
Washington Post: Oct. 31, 2016: Hacked emails suggest Trump was right after all: Clinton got previews of some debate questions
In an email released Monday morning by WikiLeaks, Brazile provides details to top Clinton aides about what Clinton would be asked at a CNN debate March 6 in Flint, Mich., by a woman whose family had lead poisoning.
“One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash,” Brazile writes in the subject line of an email to Jennifer Palmieri and John Podesta. In the body of the email, she adds: “Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.”
The description matches Flint resident Lee-Anne Walters, a debate questioner who had previously talked about her family's rashes and showed her own to a photographer.
Her question was different, though. She asked if Clinton would "make it a requirement that all public water systems must remove all lead service lines throughout the entire United States."
In another new email to Palmieri, on March 12 -- the day before a CNN town hall -- Brazile promises to “send a few more," apparently referring to questions or subjects that would be covered.
The latter comment came in a newly released reply to a previously released email that Brazile had sent with the subject line, “From time to time I get the questions in advance.” In that email, Brazile seemed to warn of a death penalty question that could be forthcoming:
Here's one that worries me about HRC.
(Here is an email from Donna Brazile):
19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?”
FACT: It’s clear that all of this communication from DNC official Donna Brazile was designed to give HRC an unfair advantage over her opponent, Donald Trump, during the debate, something that might have influenced the election. Brazile claims that she did not get the information from CNN, but where did she get the information from?
As for Roger Stone, and a Russian Military Intelligence hacker, this is the same information that was obtained from the phishing expedition with the DNC, as a result of a DNC official. Roger Stone meeting or contacting this hacker has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It's doubtful that Trump even knew about it. That's why it did not implicate Trump.
Trump campaign managers Paul Mannafort and Rick Gates met with a Russian agent in a cigar bar in New York City. This was one of many meetings were they shared the campaign’s internal polling data and their electoral strategy, specifically the targeting of midwestern states. Let me say that again. Trump’s campaign manager shared Trump’s election strategy with Russia. That’s the textbook definition of collusion.
The Trump campaign had over 200 contacts with Russian operatives. Again. Let’s repeat that. Over 200 contacts with Russian operatives. The campaign never reported any of it. Instead Trump lied and tried to hide everything from the investigators and the American public.
Simply stated, Trump sided with a hostile enemy power against the United States. He colluded with Russia and compromised our democracy. All this is in the report. Please, just read it for yourself.
Then demand that Trump and members of his campaign and administration come before congress and testify in public, under oath so that Trump may be held accountable. Donald Trump. If you are listening, on behalf of the American people, we will hold you accountable. Because no one - no one - no one - not even the president of the United States is above the law.
FACT: How does one know if someone is a Russian agent, and exactly what is a Russian agent? Why not list the named of all of the 200 Russian contacts if they are in the Mueller report? Let’s be clear: knowing Donald Trump, he had limited information on who contacted who, for how long, leading up to the election. Where is the reporting on these 200 Russians living in the U.S. or Moscow?
If Russians tried to influence the election to elect Donald Trump, or meet with someone from the Trump campaign, it was a mistake, a serious mistake. Since the election, while Trump may have been friendly with Vladimir Putin, and may have a good relationship with him, he has not done things that are helping Russia.
Quite the opposite. He has increased funding for NATO and supported increasing missile defense systems in Poland. He called out Germany for approving a pipeline deal that gives Russia more strategic influence over Germany and Europe. He has increased fossil fuel production in the U.S., something that puts pressure on Russia’s own fossil fuel production.
In fact, he did not confer with Russia in bombing a site that poisoned populations with chemical weapons in Syria.
In reviewing this mini documentary, one can see that all of these celebrities have been triggered by this president. They are upset that he got elected. They are not troubled by the fact that Hillary Clinton broke the law and committed multiple felonies. The Mueller team investigated Trump and his campaign staff for two years. They did nothing to Hillary Clinton or anyone in her campaign. In fact, they gave nice immunity deals to people who were implicated in both her campaign and the DNC.
Here are some things to keep in mind: Donald Trump is not listening to these people. Hollywood celebrities like this don’t represent the American people. Let’s be clear; if a biased group of Democrat supporting attorneys can’t find anything to charge Trump with, he’s going nowhere. If anyone is above the law, Hillary Clinton is. If she were not above the law, she would be in jail.
What the celebrities are known for:
Robert De Niro: opposed to Trump to the point of using profanity.
Martin Sheen: actor who portrayed the president in the series West Wing.
Christine Lahti: well-known female actress: "Chicago Hope," "Running on Empty," Oscar winner.
Laurence Fishburne: well-known Hollywood actor, mostly triggered by dumb Hollywood reporters.
Stephen King: lots of Tweets opposing Trump.
Sophia Bush: Got death threats after Tweeting about gun violence and Trump,
Johnathan Van Ness: figure skater, hair dresser, on Netflix' Queer Eye
Rob Reiner: Son of Carl Reiner, well known liberal activist, Trump hater, self-described brilliant journalist.
George Takei: former Star Trek actor, Tweeter about Trump.
Rosie Perez: Multiple interviews opposing Trump. questioning why people would vote for Trump, etc.
Kendrick Sampson: actor: "How to Get Away with Murder," activist, supporter of Colin Kaepernick.
© 2019 Larry Ingram
Based in St Louis,
Larry Ingram writes about the news media, movies and culture, as well as topics like race, privilege, Christianity, religious expression and tolerance.
Many news articles are blatantly biased against Christians and conservatives in the news media, movies and culture.
Read his exclusive articles and columns that bring balance to mainstream, leftist and liberal thinking on a variety of topics.