Dear MAGA: Open Topic 20181223

i got only so far through the article–annoyed with unnamed “lawyers and others we spoke to”…and unnamed “critics say”…tactics
the article said Huber was never scheduled to testify on Dec 5th…really?
perhaps the government is going after Hillary, Obama and others from a standpoint that no one expects–like Capone with taxes…

Personally, I will remain open to ALL possibilities.
From the article:
‘“At the time, people wanted a special counsel, but Jeff Sessions announced he brought in Huber and people said, ‘OK, we got Huber on it,’ ” former Justice Department prosecutor Victoria Toensing said. “But it was a head fake.”
‘Now a private attorney in Washington, Toensing represents a whistleblower in the so-called Uranium One scandal, who she says still has not been contacted by Huber. Her client, Doug Campbell, an FBI informant who claims to have evidence that Clinton helped Russians secure U.S.-based uranium rights in a quid pro quo for large donations to her family’s foundation and speaking fees for former President Bill Clinton from the Russian company at the heart of the deal.
‘“He should have contacted Doug Campbell within the first two months” of being assigned by Sessions to look into the 2010 uranium deal, Toensing said.
‘“It’s a farce,” she added. “It’s an embarrassment how this has been handled.”
‘Huber’s office would not speak directly to the complaints, but asserted that his inquiry is active and ongoing.
‘Two other Clinton Foundation whistleblowers reached out numerous times to Huber’s office, starting in April, and offered to turn over 6,000 pages of evidence, only to get the silent treatment for several months before finally hearing back after Republican leaders supporting the expert witnesses made a stink about the snub on Fox News.’

Toensing is a lawyer. When she says “Huber” she might mean Huber.
She and Joe emerged from the Oval Office exploding with “nothing’s getting done” on their minds. And it may very well be true, nothing (except bad) is being done.
The issue has been, how to shut down the Mueller farce? In retrospect, shutting it down now appears to be a precondition, for practical reasons we can all figure out.
Now, we must ask ourselves, if Mueller needs to be shut down first, is it better to have him or anyone think that other prosecutions will immediately be unleashed?
Do not other potential prosecutions do three things: 1) add more grist for the mill; 2) ramp up determination to stay; 3) create weariness in the population?
Now, the Bad Guys do know that there is a “there” there, and the question for us in the peanut gallery is how much do they know, and by that I mean what quantity and quality of evidence? And how would that affect their (Mueller’s) actions?
I am unaware of any incentive Mueller has to shut down, and plenty to motivate otherwise. But Trump is NOT going to allow an endless investigation. SOMETHING is going to happen.
So when the inevitable happens, is it preferable to have multiple ongoing investigations currently proceeding, or none?
In the Fake News aftermath of the Mueller shutdown, what would overwhelm the Fake News Narrative?
For a populace not in the know, it would be new and interesting, not old and wearisome.