Conway torches Democrats, the press & Hillary in one fell swoop: Here’s what you got from Dems…nothing!

(Video screenshot)

Following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report on Russian collusion Thursday, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway mocked the mainstream media, and their lifelong hero, failed 2016 Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She issued the mockery while speaking with the media about Mueller’s conclusions, which were that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that President Donald Trump had either colluded with Russian operatives to affect the 2016 election or attempted to obstruct the investigation into alleged collusion.

Listen to her full statement below:

 

 

The media have responded to Mueller’s conclusions by arguing that the limited evidence that does exist — which shows for instance that Trump had lashed out at times in exasperation over how the collusion narrative and its accompanying investigation would affect his presidency — proves something.

Conway’s argument was that it doesn’t: “Intent has never mattered to any of you, respectfully, throughout this whole thing,” she sternly pointed out Thursday afternoon to the media. “Was there intent to collude? Was there intent to commit a crime? Was there intent to conspire with Russians?”

Mueller’s findings appear to suggest that no, there was no intent. Trump was just a frustrated guy lashing out at what he felt was an unfair “witch hunt.” The lack of any conclusive evidence vis-à-vis his alleged collusion and obstruction suggests he was right.

The White House counselor continued by taking a direct shot at the press: “Was there intent to steal the election from poor, old Hillary Clinton, I’m sure for whom most of you voted.”

“I present to you the document that shows the Democrats successes,” Conway began as she searched for a blank piece of paper. “This is the success of the Democrats first 100 days in Congress,” she said as she held up the blank sheet. “Here it is. There’s nothing.”

FYI, the answer is nope, sorry, there was no intent, despite endless poorly sourced reports from the media suggesting or outright claiming that collusion and/or obstruction had occurred.

Clinton too has a history of issuing such claims:

“Hilary Clinton harbors no doubts that political allies of Donald Trump astutely ‘guided’ the release of hacked e-mails by WikiLeaks and the planting of fake news in order to sabotage her,” The New Yorker reported in 2017 without pushing back on her dubious claims.

“[S]he is convinced that members of the Trump team colluded with Russia to help get the Republican nominee elected,” the BBC added in its own report around the same time.

These allegations were based on nothing but her relentless rage, which, it was learned that very same year, began immediately following her loss in the 2016 election. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the only sabotage that actually occurred happened in reverse, i.e., she sabotaged Trump.

Around April of 2017 two mainstream media journalists, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, published a book, “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign,” that outlined what had happened before, during and after Clinton’s devastating, unexpected loss to Trump.

According to their research and investigation,  less than 24 hours after her Nov 8, 2016, loss to Trump, the failed Democrat nominee began plotting to blame her defeat on collusion.

“She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way,” a longtime Clinton confidant reportedly told Allen and Parnes, according to reporting by Breitbart.

“That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech,” the journalists wrote. “[Clinton campaign manager Robert E.] Mook and [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up.”

“For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

It could be argued that the narrative they constructed is in part responsible for the past two to three years of nonstop Russian collusion delusion conspiracy theorizing by Democrat legislators and their liberal media peers. It could even be argued that this narrative played a role in Mueller being assigned to look into a dubious collusion narrative that’s now been thoroughly debunked.

Yet this narrative has never even been considered by the mainstream press because, as Conway bluntly noted in her statement Thursday, most “reporters” voted for Clinton in 2016.

As renowed former mainstream media “reporter” turned conservative journalist Lara Logan pointed out a couple months back, the vast majority of liberal media’s objectively non-biased “reporters” and “journalists,” including presumably CNN’s Jim Acosta, are registered Democrats.

“The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just in the U.S.,” she said in an interview at the time. “But in this country, 85 percent of journalists are registered Democrats. So that’s just a fact. Most journalists are left or liberal or Democrat, or whatever word you want to give it.”

And that’s why almost all of the media’s Trump coverage is glaringly negative.

Listen:

“That tells you that distortion of the way things go in real life,” Logan continued said. “Because although the media has always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today. The former executive editor of The New York Times has a book coming out. Jill Abramson says they would do dozens of stories about Trump every single day, and every single one of them was negative. She said, ‘We have become the anti-Trump paper of record.'”

“Well, that’s not our job. That’s a political position. That means we’ve become political activists in a sense, and some could argue propagandists.”

Propagandists who have no interest in looking at the counter-evidence. For instance, the facts show that Clinton’s possible sabotage began long before election night. It began when, in tandem with the Democrat National Committee, she paid a shady firm, Fusion GPS, to prepare a dossier of dirt on Trump.

This firm in contracted British spy Christopher Steele to dig up this dirt. Steele in turn then allegedly reached out to his contacts within the Russian government to obtain this dirt.

These are all indisputable facts that, for some inexplicable reason, have been ignored by the mainstream media, never mind their astonishing implications, which are that it was Clinton who colluded with Russians — albeit indirectly — to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

Dovetailing back to Conway’s comments Thursday, she also took a shot at House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff, saying bluntly that it’s about time he resign.

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

Comments

Latest Articles