=========

=========

Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.

=========

=========

//www.redstate.com/wp-content/themes/redstate-desktop-2017/images/redstate-placeholder.png //www.redstate.com/wp-content/themes/redstate-desktop-2017/images/redstate-placeholder.png //www.redstate.com/wp-content/themes/redstate-desktop-2017/images/redstate-placeholder.png //www.redstate.com/wp-content/themes/redstate-desktop-2017/images/redstate-placeholder.png //www.redstate.com/wp-content/themes/redstate-desktop-2017/images/redstate-placeholder.png 622w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />

In George Orwell’s novel 1984, there something called doublethink. He describes it thus:

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it…

Some Democratic “leaders” and their boot lickers in the media have learned doublethink apparently well when it comes to the ongoing saga known as the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Perhaps we should have the Chicago Police Department investigate the claims since they did a good job of exposing a hoax.

Thus far, several investigations costing God knows how many dollars have proven Trump guilty of one thing: legitimately defeating Hillary Clinton for the Presidency in 2016. This is the “high crime and misdemeanor” they find him worthy of impeachment. One investigation, that of the Senate Intelligence Committee headed by Richard Burr (R-NC) determined the following by Burr himself: “We found no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.” Obviously, Burr would not make such a profound statement if not true, correct? Otherwise, he is a liar and a public one at that.

In what can only be described as double talk and/or doublethink, ranking Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia came up with this gem of a statement:

Respectfully, I disagree . . . I’m not going to get into any conclusions I’ve reached because my basis of this has been that I’m not going to reach any conclusion until we finish the investigation. And we still have a number of the key witnesses to come back.

The translation into Standard English is thus: “We haven’t found any evidence, but we are still hoping that we will find some evidence of something so that we do not look like the idiots we are and have been acting like for three years now.” He followed up that doublethink with something else:

What we do know,and it’s part of the public record, there’s never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did.

Did Senator Warner ever hear of Uranian One? Did he ever hear of Oleg Deripaska? How about Fusion GPS which relied on Russian sources for dirt on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign?

US Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) tried in vain to educate the public, through Twitter, about circumstantial versus direct evidence. You got to give the guy a “B” for effort and an “F” for execution because in this series of tweets, the esteemed gentleman from California failed to provide one shred of even circumstantial evidence.

This is Adam Schiffism on full display. Warner and Swalwell say the supposed “evidence” is classified and thus they cannot reveal it. But, trust them… it’s there. Exactly when has any Democrat held classified information secret when it served their interests otherwise to reveal it? Then later Swalwell asks Burr, through Twitter, whether he has seen any circumstantial evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Of course, Burr’s statement answers the query since Swalwell fails to mention that any evidence- circumstantial or direct- must be factual. In other words, the fact there is no “factual evidence” means there is no circumstantial or direct evidence of collusion except in the deluded minds of Democrats. Swalwell is simply attempting to lessen the Burr statement so the collusion delusions can continue unabated.

And it goes without saying that the Left and Democrats have a compliant media on their side. NBC’s national security analyst Ken Dilanian is a poster boy. In the wake of the Burr announcement, he emphasized the phrase “direct evidence” in his postings. This phrase and the fact that at least three key Democrats have harped on two words keeps the collusion delusion alive. By taking a rather categorical statement by Burr, they then keep that hope alive that some investigation, most likely that of Mueller, will eventually provide the “direct evidence.” In other words, AHA! There must be other types of proof, otherwise why would Burr use the phrase “direct evidence?”

However, Dilanian’s reporting, however obtuse, was met with consternation from the collusion crowd. He then did proper penance by tweeting out that neither did the Senate Intelligence Committee exonerate Trump. In other words, there is no collusion, but there is collusion.

When Trump characterizes these investigations as a “witch hunt,” he is closer to the truth than most people think. He, like the witches of the Burning Times or in Salem in 1692, has to repeatedly refute an endless litany of non-evidence. No matter how deranged and unfounded and no matter how many “smoking guns” that ended up being malfunctioning water pistols, Trump is guilty until proven innocent. And he just cannot be proven innocent because he is, in the eyes of the deluded, just a bad man who denied Hillary Clinton the Presidency.

As proof- their “circumstantial if not direct proof-” consists of the fact several people associated with the Trump campaign have been indicted or pled guilty to some charge. Said one column in The Hill in relation to Trump seizing on Burr’s statement:

Trump has repeatedly maintained that his campaign did not collude with Russia, and he has decried the federal investigation into the 2016 election led by special counsel Robert Mueller, calling it a ‘witch hunt.’ That probe has thus far implicated six former Trump associates and dozens of Russians.

However, the article never mentions what these six former Trump associates were implicated in or of. They nicely leave out that these six officials had absolutely nothing to do with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. As for the “dozens of Russians,” I believe it is a foregone conclusion that Russians interfered in the 2016 election, but interference and collusion are two totally different beasts.

It becomes painfully obvious that as long as the Democrats can keep the Russian collusion delusion alive, they will repeatedly justify their probes, investigations and hearings. It will keep the writers at the newspapers and at CNN and NBC busy and employed as they repeatedly search for yet another smoking gun in vain. For them, it has been nothing but a series of duds and/or guns that backfired.

So, let Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff continue their investigations. But, perhaps it is time for Lindsey Graham’s Senate Judiciary Committee and Richard Burr’s Senate Intelligence Committee to open hearings into the Uranium One deal and how that little piece of “collusion” with Russia by the Clinton-run State Department truly compromised national security. Perhaps, they should open investigations into the Clinton Foundation and how a Secretary of State and two-time Presidential wannabe enriched herself. My guess is that a little bit of reverse collusion investigations may be the pill to shut these people down. Personally, it would be poetic justice to see Hillary and Bill Clinton dragged before a Senate committee and deny that they, more than Trump, played footsies with the Russians.