Nunez: Comey Indictment Should be Prelude to a "Grand Conspiracy Charge" Against About "Two Dozen Characters"

Nunez has been right about a whole lot about Russiagategate.

   Whereas McCarthy is looking at the legal case in abstraction, Nunez is looking at the big picture.

   Note: I'm not saying that's better than looking at the legal details.

   I'm very concerned about the way Trump and his DOJ are acting, it's easy to forget that there is a good chance that the real villains here are on the blue team--Clinton, her campaign, and Deep State players like Comey, McCabe, et al. If Nunez (and Trump) are right, what they're basically doing is playing roughly by the informal rules established by the Democrats. But, whereas the Dems were engaged in an actual conspiracy to prosecute and persecute an innocent man--Trump--and thwart the will of the voters, Trump et al. aim to expose that conspiracy to sunlight and reveal the truth of the matter.:

[Nunez]: ...So, look, Comey has long been a liar, a leaker. He's dishonest. He ruined the FBI. And I would just lastly say this about this indictment, is, he's going to also going to be very lucky if there's not a superseding indictment. But I'd say, most importantly, he will be lucky if there is not a grand conspiracy charge brought, which is really what should be brought against probably about two dozen characters in the United States over the last seven, eight years.
BARTIROMO: So that's what I want to talk about. The conspiracy charge, will that come? And what does that mean, the conspiracy charge? Because John Ratcliffe also brought that up to me, saying the statute of limitations does not apply if it's a conspiracy that's still going on.
NUNES: Yes, that's right. And so, when you go back and look at this at 50,000 feet, what are we really talking about here? What actually happened that they were all involved in? And it all goes back to really one thing, and that was that there were 30,000 e-mails that Clinton had that Clinton was worried would come out before the 2016 election, and, if those came out, it would make her unelectable.
That's what this is all about. Everything goes back to that. And then what happened is, is that Comey and company and all of them got involved in the so-called Clinton plan, which, if you remember, the Clinton plan was to do what? To say that the Trump campaign, it was colluding with the Russians and that's how the e-mails got out.
That's all true. That's all happened. That's, like, the quintessential definition of conspiracy.

It really is worth reading the whole (short) thing. He argues that this is what led to the bogus first impeachment--the Ukraine one. I'd say we already know that that impeachment was an embarrassing shit-show--and that Trump was justified in asking the questions he asked. (The second impeachment seemed to me to have a much stronger basis.)

   I thought the Durham investigation was supposed to reveal the facts here...and maybe it did reveal everything there is to reveal. But if so, it wasn't much. Elias lied, but a DC jury let him off--which is another kind of obstacle the Pubs face in all this. To my shame, I didn't read the Durham report, just accounts of it. And I don't even know whether it really did aim to uncover all this stuff. If not, we'd seem to need another investigation. We absolutely have to know what actually happened.

   Unfortunately, all blue-teamers took from any of this was [a] Trump was a Russian asset, no matter what Mueller said, and [b] "Russia, if you're listening..."...whicy they still refuse to admit was a jokey bit of rhetoric of a pretty ordinary kind.