The previous blog showed you an excerpt from Bruce Bialosky’s excellent commentary outlining the importance of investigating how the fake Trump collusion delusion came to be and naming the “collusion culprits” who appear to have orchestrated it.
Here, excerpted from his latest column, is New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin’s take on the same subject:
To grasp the significance (of mueller’s report establishing there was no Trump/Russia collusion or obstruction of justice), imagine the consequences if the report found he was probably guilty of one or both charges.
The left would have erupted in orgasmic joy. We would be discussing articles of impeachment and Republicans would have fallen in line. There would have been worldwide implications as America turned inward to face its crisis.
Yet it is now apparent that Mueller’s report, as great as it was for Trump, was just the start of a dramatic turnaround in the fortunes of both the president and his tormentors. The bookend, at least so far, came last week with Barr’s stunning comment that “spying did occur” on Trump’s 2016 campaign and that Barr was obligated to review “the conduct of the investigation.”
“Spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr said matter-of-factly.
Heart be still. Barr’s promise touches on the holy grail for those of us who believe there was an outrageous abuse of government power to try to tip the election to Hillary Clinton and then to topple Trump.
If Barr keeps his word, the sunlight of transparency soon will shine on the rancid corruption of the Justice Department, the FBI and the intelligence agencies under Barack Obama.
Turning the tables on the conspirators is absolutely necessary to hold accountable those who tried to rig the election. That accountability, if it is seen as honest and evenhanded, will prevent a repeat and begin to restore public trust.
Thank you, Mr. Goodwin, for joining Bruce Bialosky in stating this so clearly.
And all shame to the media, which a) did not get what they clearly were rooting for from the mueller report and b) will now have to explain to their viewers/readers why they either downplayed or did not at all report the evidence of collusion to influence, then upend, the 2016 presidential election – evidence that, all along, was right in front of their eyes.