Comment: Words have many meanings and new associations can be instantaneous and convenient. Had Wilson not publicly criticized the President's private phone call, there would be no John Kelly remark in question. The MSM, looking for any new ax to grind in the Trump arena, will make the most of it and lock in the connotation.

More from the Washington Examiner:

Kelly's reference to Wilson as an "empty barrel" was intended as a metaphor, he said Thursday, for someone "making the most noise." Kelly defended Trump, and lamented that presidential calls to the families of fallen soldiers are now used in political fights.

The comment prompted backlash from previous presidents' staff members, and Wilson came forward to say she had been in the limousine with the family of Army Sgt. La David Johnson when Trump called. She said Trump made inappropriate comments to the family.

Comment: So, what's the deal? Who did what now? Is it an exercise in parameters and flexibility? Tugging on threads, throwing stuff out there, testing the waters, Trump may be seeing how far he can sway various elements as well as determine the limitations of his influence -- if this is his strategy. Or, he could be orchestrating the biggest Middle East traffic jam ever.

See also:

• Thierry Meyssan: Trump is still fighting the U.S. establishment
• Thierry Meyssan: Trump is holding course, anti-Trump reaction is war propaganda

Comment: See also:

• Hillary calls Uranium One revelations "debunked", "baloney" - but the Clinton machine knew it was a scandal from day one
• Media networks ignore bombshell Russia/Uranium/Clinton revelations - until Trump tweets
• Mueller, Comey cover ups of Hillary uranium kickbacks & email breaches unlikely to lead to indictments

Nobody's going to jail.

This too is a nothing-burger, although it's understandable why US conservatives have hung their hat on it: their Democratic opposition, with the backing of the Deep State establishment, have used 'ties with Russia' as a vehicle with which to bash Trump and keep him in line, thus keeping the US Empire on course (towards its total destruction, but they don't know that).

Putin explained - in plain, simple, non-hysterical language - what this uranium deal is actually about in his recent speech at Valdai 2017 (where leaders from around the world in the fields of politics, media and business met to discuss future global governance without the US, which has apparently lost its mind).

The US and Russia made arrangements in the early 90s to 'civilize' their nuclear warheads by selling it to each other for use in nuclear power plants. This way, the process could be openly monitored. The only Clinton connection to this overarching deal is that Slick Willy happened to be president at the time. There's no scandal here. It's being 'scandalized' now because all things Russia are 'bad'.

The vast majority of political news coming out of the US these days is - to again borrow a phrase from Putin - paranoid political schizophrenia.

Comment: In other words, the DNC used dodgy Russian sources (compiled by Steel in his dodgy dossier) to try to swing the election. Precisely what they accused the Trump campaign of doing. Zero Hedge summarizes the situation so far:

• Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
• In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources, both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
• Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).
• The former head of the FBI who was supposed to probe Clinton's State Department - and the Clinton Foundation - for a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear business, is now investigating Trump for Russia collusion instead

But wait, it gets better: as Ken Vogel, formerly the chief investigative reporter at Politico and currently at the NY Times just reported, "When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong."

Another NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying "Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year", and by folks she ultimately means Hillary Clinton herself.

Which in light of the latest news suggests that Clinton was lying, which is not surprising, especially when considering the recent "revelations" that the Clintons may themselves have been involved in collusion with Russia over the infamous uranium deal.

Then there's the FBI angle in all of this. As the Post pointed out: "After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports."

From the WSJ (with commentary by Zero Hedge):

Let's give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan grandstanding you imagine.

Here's a story consistent with what has been reported in the press - how reliably reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited stories from their supposedly "connected" sources in Moscow. If these people were really connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime. The resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, and after the election to trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.

We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief James Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.

OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI's own actions are necessarily a concern. But now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress.

Here's another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.

Ah yes, the Clinton's own Russia collusion narrative which recently emerged to the surface and which as of today is being investigated by the House ... As the WSJ correctly notes, "for anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story."

Which then shifts the focus to the person who was, and again is, in charge of it all: former FBI director, and current special prosecutor Robert Mueller:

The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy. More recently, if just one of two things is true - Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake intelligence prompted Mr. Comey's email intervention - then Russian operations, via their impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot behold a mountain if there's a molehill anywhere nearby.

Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.

Mr. Mueller's tenure may not have bridged the two investigations, but James Comey's, Rod Rosenstein's , Andrew Weissmann's , and Andrew McCabe's did. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller as special counsel. Mr. Weissmann now serves on Mr. Mueller's team. Mr. McCabe remains deputy FBI director. All were involved in the nuclear racketeering matter and the Russia meddling matter.

The punchline: it's not the Clintons that should be looked at, at least not at first - their time will come. It's the FBI:

By any normal evidentiary, probative or journalistic measure, the big story here is the FBI - its politicized handling of Russian matters, and not competently so. To put it bluntly, whatever its hip-pocket rationales along the way, the FBI would not have so much to cover up now if it had not helped give us Mrs. Clinton as Democratic nominee and then, in all likelihood, inadvertently helped Mr. Trump to the presidency.

We eagerly look forward to Trump's furious tweetstorm once he learns of all of this... and how long before he fires Mueller, in this case with cause.

Update

The "new" DNC is scrambling to do damage control. They've just put out a press release denying any involvement.

In a brief statement from DNC Comms Director Xochitl Hinojosa,

"Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion-GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization."

Of course, the DNC then added - for good measure...

"But let's be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened."

All of which is quite ironic following Perez' comments during the week:

"We have the most dangerous president in American history and one of the most reactionary Congresses in American history," Democratic Chairman Tom Perez said during his speech.

Perez also labeled Trump an "existential threat" with no apparent worry that his words could be taken, along with those by Waters and other liberals in the media, as ammunition for a crazy leftist to once again attack Congress or even the White House.

And even more ironic in light of the increasing evidence and investigation surrounding Hillary Clinton's dealing with the Russians over Uranium One.