FreeThinke

2018-06-22T04:00:00.000-04:00

In Appreciative Memory

Charles Krauthammer

a man of rare brlliance, character, humor, and integrity

Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018)

We cover thee, Sweet Face __

Not that we tire of thee ––

But that thyself fatigue of us.

Remember as Thou flee

We follow Thee

Until Thou notice us no more ––

And then reluctant turn away

To conn Thee o’er and o’er ––

And blame the scanty love

We were content to show ––

Augmented, Sweet, a hundredfold ––

If Thou couldst take it now.

~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

2018-06-21T06:00:00.000-04:00

FBI Agent, Who Exposed Hillary Clinton's Cover-up, Found Dead

FBI Special Agent David Raynor

murdered with his own gun

FBI agent David Raynor killed on eve of testifying against HRC

by Jay Greenberg (emended and ungarbled by FT)

NeonNettle

June 18, 2018

Special Agent David Raynor was due to testify against Hillary Clinton when he was killed.

FBI Special Agent, David Raynor, who was expected to expose the extent of Clinton and Obama malpractice and corruption in the "Operation Fast and Furious" cover-up before a US Federal Grand Jury, has been found dead at his home.His wife was also found dead at the scene. The couple, apparently, were both being murdered with the 52-year-old agent's own gun.

Raynor's tragic death comes just one day before he was due to testify before a US Federal Grand Jury. He was widely expected to testify that Hillary Clinton acted illegally to protect Obama administration crimes while covering up the Fast and Furious scandal.

An autopsy will be completed to determine the exact cause of death, according to police.

David Raynor, 52, wife Donna Fisher, 54, and their child

Special Agent Raynor’s suspicious death is the latest in a sequence of disturbing deaths in Baltimore connected to the Clinton/Obama cover-up of Operation Fast and Furious. According to the Baltimore Sun: Authorities, who are offering a $215,000 reward for tips in Suiter’s killing, have struggled to understand what happened. The detective was shot with his own gun, which was found at the scene. Two other shots were fired from the gun, and Davis said there were signs of a brief struggle.

Detective Sean Suiter, one of the main witnesses in the case against Hillary Clinton and Obama, was an 18-year veteran of the force. However, Detective Suiter was gunned down in November, under circumstances eerily similar circumstances to thse of Special Agent Raynor and his wife. Both Suiter and Raynor were shot to death one day before they were due to testify.

When President Trump took power, the US Justice Department opened another investigation into Operation Fast and Furious as it pertained to the Baltimore Police Department and impaneled a US Federal Grand Jury.

The Raynor family before they were found murdered ouside their home

Special Agent Raynor was leading US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s and FBI Director Christopher Wray’s investigation into the murder of Detective Sean Suiter, who he believed was silenced before he could testify that the Obama administration was criminally complicit in allowing guns to flow into the hands of criminals on the Mexican border.

Special Agent David Raynor's own gun was involved in the killings. These gun is seen by investigators as the “Achilles heel of the Obama regime,” because the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is but one of a very few Obama administration crimes that have no statute of limitations.

Leaked Wikileaks emails also prove Hillary Clinton was fully knowledgeable about the crime—thus making her liable to criminal charges.

Police closed off the area around the couple's home where their bodies were found.

The home where the brutal murders took place.

Last week Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report exposed yet more Hillary Clinton and Obama Administration crimes. The report, that was released last Thursday, revealed that the FBI had discovered evidence that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had committed "sexual crimes against children. The report also shows that Obama lied to cover-up parts of these investigations that exposed child trafficking.

The IG report clearly indicates tevidence of these offenses has been covered-up and swept under the carpet by those acting at the highest levels.

... ____________ ~ § ~ ____________ ...

EXTRA! ... EXTRA! ... EXTRA!

2018-06-19T04:00:00.000-04:00

AAAAW

SHIT

!!!
!

PHEW

!!!
!

News Fatigue? Join the Club

Investor´s Business Daily,

by Bob Maistros

Original Article

I’m tired. Done in by network and cable news alike. Fried from frequenting online publications and opinion sites. Pooped in perusing breathless alerts on my devices. I´ve had it. And I´m not alone. A Pew Research study recently found that nearly 7 in 10 Americans suffer from "news fatigue" — a phenomenon even more pervasive among Republicans. The survey focused on the volume as much as the quality of the offerings. But why wouldn´t the public be emotionally expended from the anger and accusations, bullying and backbiting, "fake news" and "fact checks," insults and innuendo, posturing and protests, threats and trolling, and virtue-signaling and violent rhetoric …

2018-06-18T06:30:00.000-04:00

Are There Any Words That Could Answer That

Without Responding in Kind?

2018-06-15T06:30:00.000-04:00

IN HONOR of FATHER'S DAY

Sunday, June 17, 2018

A Father’s Prayer

Ask not, my child, what I can do for you.

Forgive what seems like stinginess today.

A lot will be required to go through

The process of discovering the right way.

Help yourself. Don't wait for me, my child.

Each one of us must learn to stand alone.

Rich rewards like Love can't be beguiled,

Seduced or bought. They must in toil be grown.

Perhaps to you I sound a bit too stern?

Remember that I've lived a longer time.

A joy cannot exist until you earn

Your way. To do it FOR you'd be a crime.

Exacting though I seem, my little one,

Respect me now, and –– later –– you'll have fun.

~ FreeThinke

Michael Horowitz, Inspector General

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

The IG Report Shows That The Fix Was In from Start of the Clinton Email Investigation

by IBD staff

6/14/2018

Scandal: The long-awaited report from the Justice Department's inspector general about the FBI's handling of the Clinton email scandal seems to absolve the bureau of any political bias. What it really shows, however, is that the FBI — under pressure from President Obama — was just going through the motions the whole time.

SettingsFullscreen

Most of the focus of the report in the news has been on its criticism of then FBI director James Comey. The IG says that some of his actions were "extraordinary and insubordinate" — a scathing indictment if there ever was one. It is another black mark on Comey's already badly tarnished reputation, and well deserved.

However, the report also finds that there was "no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations.”

Naturally, that's what Democrats have seized on as proof that, aside from Comey's bungling, the FBI did its job.

But look at the report in its totality and you see that time and again officials made "judgment calls" that weakened their investigation. In other words, from the range of options available to them, they consistently chose the less aggressive course of action.

It says, for instance that "We questioned why the Midyear team" — referring to the "Midyear Review" code name given to the Clinton investigation — "did not serve subpoenas on or seek to obtain search warrants related to the last known persons to possess devices that the team was never able to locate.”

At another point it says that the FBI had considered obtaining permission from the Department to review certain classified materials that may have included information potentially relevant to the investigation." And while "the Midyear team drafted a memorandum to the Deputy Attorney General in late May 2016 stating that review of the highly classified materials was necessary to complete the investigation and requesting permission to access them, the FBI never sent this request to the Department."

At another it says that "The Midyear team did not obtain or review some evidence that we found might have been useful to the investigation.”

And the IG report notes that "several members of the FBI Midyear team, including Comey, expressed concerns that the prosecutors had not been sufficiently aggressive.”

A fool, a fiend, a patsy, or just an All-American goofball?

It says "the decision to allow the Clinton interview to proceed in the presence of two fact witnesses, who also were serving as Clinton's counsel, was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment.”

The report also notes that the reasons given for why the FBI sat on news about Anthony Weiner's laptop for almost a month were totally unconvincing. One of them was that FBI resources had been redirected to the Trump-Russia probe. But as the IG notes, the FBI had enough resources to prepare speeches, talking points and other material defending their earlier decision to drop the case.

Evidence of Bias

Plus, the IG did find evidence of bias.

As the IG report notes, one of the agents involved in both the Clinton and Russia investigations — Peter Strzok — was texting FBI attorney Lisa Page saying things like how "we'll stop" Trump from being elected. This, the IG says, meant that his decisions regarding the Clinton email investigation might not have been "free from bias.”

Then there's the text from Page, regarding the interview with Clinton, saying that "One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need (is) us going in there loaded for bear. You think she's going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”

Our worst nightmare!

To that the IG said "suggesting that investigative decisions be based on this consideration was inappropriate and created an appearance of bias."

But underlying all of this is the fact — made clear throughout the report — that the FBI never thought there was a case here to begin with.

"As early as September 2015," it says, "FBI and Department officials realized that they were unlikely to find evidence of intent.”

And at several junctures, decisions made during the investigation were colored by the fact that the FBI had already decided they wouldn't pursue any legal action against Clinton.

One example involved getting laptops from top Clinton aides.

"Decisions concerning the laptops were occurring at a time when Comey and the Midyear team had already concluded that there was likely no prosecutable case and believed it was unlikely the culling laptops would change the outcome of the investigation.”

Obama's Thumb On The Scale

Angry, devious, self-serving?

The report also, whether intentionally or not, makes it clear why the FBI had concluded early on that there wasn't a case against Clinton: President Obama had already cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing.

The IG report recalls how, during a 60 Minutes interview on October 11, 2015, Obama "characterized former Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server as a 'mistake,' but stated that it did not 'pose a national security problem' and was 'not a situation in which America's national security was endangered.' Obama also stated that the issue had been 'ginned up' because of the presidential race.”

It goes on to say that "Obama's comments caused concern among FBI officials about the potential impact on the investigation.”

Former EAD John Giacalone told the IG, "We open up criminal investigations. And you have the President of the United States saying this is just a mistake ... That's a problem, right?”

Obama repeated his absolution in April 2016 — right around the time Comey was starting to draft his statement dropping the case against Clinton.

"Obama stated that while former Secretary Clinton had been 'careless' in managing her emails while she was Secretary of State, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the security of the United States with her emails.”

So, while the IG might not have found smoking-gun evidence of political bias in the investigation, the report makes it clear that the entire investigation was biased from the start.

From Obama on down, no one ever wanted or intended to do what should have been done: Prosecute Clinton for gross negligence in her handling of highly classified material. The entire investigation was just for show.

The Arh Fiend behind it all?

~ § ~

The Complete IG Report, Justice Dept, by Staff

Original Article

A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau

of Investigation and Department of Justice

in Advance of the 2016 Election

2018-06-12T06:00:00.000-04:00

Well, What Do YOU Make Of It?

It Should Be Interesting to See How the Market Responds Today.

The endless taunts, jibes, prevarication and calumny of the ENEMEDIA are becoming less and less relevant to American citizens.

LINKED ARTICLES

Read the full document signed by Donald Trump

and Kim Jong Un

Serious stuff.

No more nukes! Kim Jong-un commits to complete

denuclearnisation in historic Trump meeting

Trump was right, his button is bigger.

President Trump Didn´t Sign G7´s Leftist Agenda

— Smart Move

All the more reason to walk early.

2018-06-09T00:00:00.000-04:00

The last of the serious journalists with integrity?

Fox News Star Charles Krauthammer Reveals He Has Weeks to Live in

Heartbreaking Letter

by Greg Wilson | Fox News

11:5

Syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer says his cancer has returned; reaction from Chris Wallace, anchor of 'Fox News Sunday,' and Juan Williams, Fox News analyst.

Charles Krauthammer, the beloved and brilliant Fox News Channel personality who gave up a pioneering career in psychiatry to become a Pulitzer Prize-winning political analyst, on Friday revealed the heartbreaking news that he is in the final stages of a losing battle with cancer.

The 68-year-old’s incisive takes on politics of the day have been missing from Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” for nearly a year as he battled an abdominal tumor and subsequent complications, but colleagues and viewers alike had held out hope that he would return to the evening show he helped establish as must-viewing. But in an eloquent, yet unblinking letter to co-workers, friends and Fox News Channel viewers, Krauthammer disclosed that he has just weeks to live.

“I have been uncharacteristically silent these past ten months,” the letter began. “I had thought that silence would soon be coming to an end, but I’m afraid I must tell you now that fate has decided on a different course for me.”

"This is the final verdict.

My fight is over.”

~ Charles Krauthammer

Krauthammer, who graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1975 despite a first-year diving accident that left him a quadriplegic, explained that he had a malignant tumor removed from his abdomen last August. Although a series of setbacks left him in the hospital in the ensuing months, he believed until recently that he was on the road to recovery.

Young Charles Krauthammer before his tragic diving accident

“However, recent tests have revealed that the cancer has returned,” Krauthammer wrote. “There was no sign of it as recently as a month ago, which means it is aggressive and spreading rapidly. My doctors tell me their best estimate is that I have only a few weeks left to live. This is the final verdict. My fight is over.”

What we never saw on television only makes his life more heroic

Rupert Murdoch, executive chairman of Fox News and its parent company, 21st Century Fox, said Krauthammer has been a giant of journalism and a key part of the channel's success.

"Charles has been a profound source of personal and intellectual inspiration for all of us at Fox News," Murdoch said. "His always principled stand on the most important issues of our time has been a guiding star in an often turbulent world, a world that has too many superficial thinkers vulnerable to the ebb and flow of fashion, and a world that, unfortunately, has only one Charles Krauthammer.

"His words, his ideas, his dignity and his integrity will resonate within our society and within me for many, many years to come," Murdoch added.

Fox News viewers will undoubtedly miss Krauthammer’s formidable intellect and ability to analyze politics and politicians with a cerebral wit and keen charm. As the dean of “The Fox News All Stars,” the panel of pundits who break down headlines and events nightly on Fox News Channel’s top-rated “Special Report,” Krauthammer could be counted on to make viewers think, question and even chuckle.

READ CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER'S LETTER

MOBILE USERS: CLICK HERE TO READ THE LETTER

Krauthammer was on his way to greatness in the medical field when he veered first into policy, and then into journalism. After medical school, he became chief psychiatry resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he studied depression and published ground-breaking findings in top medical journals. But in 1978, he took a job in the Carter administration directing planning in psychiatric research and later served as a speech writer for Vice President Walter Mondale.

It was in the nation’s capital that Krauthammer trained his mind and talents on political analysis and began penning columns for The New Republic, Time magazine and finally the Washington Post. In 1985, he won journalism’s top prize for his weekly political commentary. In his sobering farewell, Krauthammer said he is “grateful to have played a small role in the conversations that have helped guide this extraordinary nation’s destiny.”

“I leave this life with no regrets,” Krauthammer wrote. “It was a wonderful life – full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make life worth living. I am sad to leave, but I leave with the knowledge that I lived the life that I intended.”

A brilliant, fair-minded, honest man who will be sorely missed

The heart asks pleasure first ––

And the excuse from pain ––

And then those little anodynes

That deaden suffering.

And then to go to sleep ––

And then –– if it should be

The Will of its Inquisitor ––

The liberty to die.

~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

2018-06-07T04:30:00.000-04:00

Ya Think?

2018-06-04T04:00:00.000-04:00

OPEN for BUSINESS

TWO WAR CORRESPONDENTS from CBS COMPARED and CONTRASTED

EDWARD R. MURROW

Attack on Senator Joseph McCarthy

Murrow’s program See It Now focused on a number of controversial issues in the 1950s, but it is best remembered as the show that criticized Mccarnyism and there'd Scare, contributing, if not leading, to the political downfall of Senator Joseph McCarthy. [McCarthy had previously commended Murrow for his fairness in reporting.]

On March 9, 1954, Murrow, Friendly, and their news team produced a half-hour See It Now special titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy.” … Murrow used excerpts from McCarthy's own speeches and proclamations to criticize the senator and point out episodes where he had contradicted himself. …

The broadcast contributed to a nationwide backlash against McCarthy and is seen as a turning point in the history of television. It provoked tens of thousands of letters, telegrams, and phone calls to CBS headquarters, running 15 to 1 in favor of Murrow’s indictment of the senator from Wisconsin …

ERIC SEVAREID

During the early 1960s Sevareid was a common sight on CBS, as moderator of the programs Town Meeting of the World, Years of Crisis, and Where We Stand and covering both political parties' national conventions in 1964. In November 1964, he left New York and returned to Washington, where he became a national correspondent and commentator for CBS. Watergate, a political scandal that rocked the United States during the presidential campaign of 1972 and culminated in the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon two years later, prompted a harsh reaction from Sevareid, who commented in a broadcast on May 1, 1974: "These are men whose minds are irrevocably fixed in the 'We or They' view of life and politics. … They are not interested in destroying their opponent's arguments, but in destroying their opponents, personally… .”

Quotation by Eric Sevareid

Given the mental climate of journalism of every stripe today I doubt very much if the honorable, serious-minded, straight shooting Eric Sevareid would be permitted to hold a job in the agenda-driven, dog-eat-dog, sensation-mongering jungle the enemedia's brand of attack journalism has created since their triumphant coup d'etat best known as Watergate. The once honorable profession has more openly become a whore for and myrmidon to the crypto-Marxist, Globalist agenda since the heyday of Mr. Sevareid. The always grandstanding, then-closet-leftist Ed Murrow on the other hand would doubtless be more welcome than ever, and far less reserved were he alive today. After all Murrow was a highly effective pioneer in the ignoble field.

2018-05-30T01:00:00.000-04:00

TEMPORARILY CLOSED

for

Renovation, Repair

and

Maintenance

________ FOOD for THOUGHT ________

The other day our friend Kid reported on the meticulous, painstaking, time-consuming, incredibly exacting standards those who guard The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier must adhere to regarding their uniforms and personal appearance. At first I thought, “Isn’t that a bit much?” but then the following thoughts occurred to me.

Impressive, indeed, –– and a superb answer to the leftist destructionists and thoughtless redneck rubes who urge doing away with the Royal Family and all the pageantry that characterizes the heart and soul of once-but-Alas-no-longer-Great Britain.

SYMBOLS are of vital importance –– especially when they are LIVING symbols. That's why maintaining these seemingly ridiculous high standards described in Kid’s article are vitally important. It's not the uniforms –– or even the men who wear them –– that matter; it's the ideals and principles they REPRESENT.

Once a nation denigrates, disrespects and discards the SYMBOLS of its past and potential glory that nation loses its identity and soon becomes moribund.

In plainer language:

Can you imagine a U.S. President, a Senator, a Representative, a Supreme Court Justice –– or your children's Schoolteacher for that matter –– performing their duties unshaven with unbrushed teeth, and uncombed hair in baggy, threadbare jeans and a dirty T-shirt after not having bathed for a month?

THINK About That.

~ § ~

2018-05-27T00:00:00.000-04:00

ENCORE POST from FIVE YEARS AGO UPDATED

MEMORIAL DAY 2018

In loving memory and deepest gratitude

for all who fought, suffered injuries, and died

that we might live in freedom today.

Remember

Remember me when I am gone away,

Gone far away into the silent land;

When you can no more hold me by the hand,

Nor I half turn to go yet turning stay.

Remember me when no more, day by day,

You tell me of our future that you plann'd:

Only remember me; you understand

It will be late to counsel then or pray.

Yet if you should forget me for a while

And afterwards remember, do not grieve:

For if the darkness and corruption leave

A vestige of the thoughts that once I had,

Better by far you should forget and smile

Than that you should remember and be sad.

~ Christina Rossetti (1836-1894)

We still called this occasion "Decoration Day" when I was in elementary school. It originated after the Civil War to honor those dead.

Veterans Day was called Armistice Day back then too.

Have we ever given official thanks to those who fought, suffered, bled, died and went broke during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812?

After the decisive victory won by The Allies in World War Two it seems downright criminal to me that even ONE American has had to die in the many staged Exercises in Futility we've been led to indulge in since for the benefit of Munitions Manufacturers and the International Bankers who play all sides against the middle to our great detriment.

We should all be armed to the teeth to repel foreign invaders and shoot to death anyone who dares intrude upon the sanctity of our homes.

Aggressors of any kind deserve nothing less than DEATH.

However, when we are duped into becoming aggressors, ourselves, in the name of some phony, trumped-up "cause" or manufactured international "crisis," our soldiers then become nothing more than pawns –– victims of the greed and corrupt ambition of the few who own and operate our leaders and dictate our policies for nefarious purposes of the their own behind the scenes.

Even so, a father, son, husband, brother, lover or friend killed in these Wars of Waste and Warped Ambition is no less deserving of our love, respect and reverence than those who died for genuine, noble causes.

Their sacrifice may have been in vain, but as Kipling said in The Charge of the Light Brigade:

"Theirs not to reason why;

Theirs but to do and die."

For that alone they deserve our love, respect and unending support. Courage and sacrifice are still what they are even when tragically –– or diabolically -- misdirected.

May God grant our people –– and ALL people –– access to Truth, and give them the wisdom to seek Truth, then act in accordance with Truth when at last it becomes known.

AMEN!

2018-05-24T04:00:00.000-04:00

Lest We Forget

The Fiasco Electing

D_O_N_A_L_D___T_R_U_M_P

Has Made It Possible

For Us To Avoid.

~ § ~

2018-05-20T00:00:00.000-04:00

HERE is the ROYAL WEDDING best suited to enhance your weekend

Fred Astaire, Jane Powell, Peter Lawford, and Sarah Churchill strut their stuff all over London E_N_J_O_Y_!
~ § ~
...___NOT___ THIS___ONE___ ...

Harry gives Mother England the finger. Bye bye Britain!

______ N_O_T_I_C_E ______

Any and All Denigratory References to

The CLINTONS

The OBAMAS

FELLOW BLOGGERS

PERSONAL INSULTS

OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS

TATTLING and LOOSE TALK

WILL BE SUMMARILY

D-E-L-E-T-E-D

ALSO Please Avoid Gratuitous Use of
VULGARITY and NAME-CALLING.

2018-05-18T05:00:00.000-04:00

PRACTICAL WISDOM

from POETRY

To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,

Old Time is still a-flying:

And this same flower that smiles to-day

To-morrow will be dying.

The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,

The higher he 's a-getting,

The sooner will his race be run,

And nearer he's to setting.

That age is best which is the first,

When youth and blood are warmer;

But being spent, the worse, and worst

Times still succeed the former.

Then be not coy, but use your time,

And while ye may, go marry:

For having lost but once your prime,

You may for ever tarry.

~ Robert Herrick (1591–1674)

____________ FINDING FUN ____________

It's easier to bitch than stitch,
It's easier to whine than mine.

It's easier to make noise than to exhibit poise.
It's easier to say "I'm fucked," than to construct.

To sit in the gutter counting your woes

In shit-caked jeans with a runny nose
Ranting in puddles of frozen piss
Demonstrates only that something's amiss.

So, in the bleak winter

Go shovel some snow ––

..... Cheer up the aged

...... And those who are caged

...... Some joy you might find

...... If you read to the blind

...... Don't play the whore,

...... Instead scrub the floor

Now get up and go!

In summer, each lazy laddie
And each slothful lass
Should get off their ass

And go mow the grass.

Don't pout and make wishes

Just go wash the dishes.
If you need to find labor,

Go help your neighbor.

Demanding is easy

Producing is hard
Protests are sleazy
Thus saith The Bard.

_________ EPILOGUE _________

There's always something you can do.
Don't succumb to feeling blue.

Salvation lies through helping others
Not thinking you deserve your druthers.

Never worry. Never fear.

Just do your best to spread good cheer.
Needed work is never done

Effort's where we find our fun.

And if you're old, and stuck at home,

You can always write a poem!

~ FreeThinke

2018-05-14T08:00:00.000-04:00

Do you really CARE whether
the Israeli Embassy is located
in Tel Aviv or Jersusalem,
and if so WHY?

Hero to Jews? Divisive Demon to Arabs? Which is it?

The New-Old Embassy in Jerusalem

______ N_O_T_I_C_E ______

Any and All Denigratory References to

The CLINTONS

The OBAMAS

FELLOW BLOGGERS

PERSONAL INSULTS

OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS

TATTLING and LOOSE TALK

WILL BE SUMMARILY

D-E-L-E-T-E-D

ALSO Please Avoid Gratuitous Use of
VULGARITY and NAME-CALLING.

2018-05-08T12:30:00.000-04:00

Do You See This As The

WAVE of the FUTURE?

If So, Are You

HAPPY at the PROSPECT?

Do You Think It Could Still be

AVOIDED, and if so, HOW?

And What Should We Do

About THEM?

2018-04-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

ROBERT MUELLER: UNMASKED

by Congressman Louie Gohmert

Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.

I do not make these statements lightly. Each time I prepared to question Mueller during Congressional hearings, the more concerned I became about his work ethic. Then as I went back to begin compiling all that information in order to recount personal interactions with Mueller, the more clearly the big picture began to come into focus. At one point I had to make the decision to stop adding to this or it would turn into a far too lengthy project. My goal was to share some first-hand information as other Republican Members of Congress had requested, adding,

“You seem to know so much about him.” This article is prepared from my viewpoint to help better inform the reader about the Special Prosecutor leading the effort to railroad President Donald J. Trump through whatever manufactured charge he can allege. Judging by Mueller's history, it doesn't matter who he has to threaten, harass, prosecute or bankrupt to get someone to be willing to allege something

Anything — about our current President, it certainly appears Mueller will do what it takes to bring down his target, ethically, or unethically, based on my findings. What does former Attorney General Eric Holder say? Sounds like much the same thing

I just said. Holder: “I’ve known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years; my guess is he’s just trying to make the case as good as he possibly can.” Holder does know him. He has seen Mueller at work when Holder was obstructing justice and acting in contempt of Congress. He knows Mueller’s FBI framed innocent people and had no remorse in doing so. Let’s look at what we know.

What I have accumulated here is absolutely shocking upon the realization that Mueller's disreputable, twisted history speaks to the character of the man placed in a position to attempt to legalize a coup against a lawfully-elected President. Any Republican who says anything resembling,

“Bob Mueller will do a good job as Special Counsel,” “Bob Mueller has a great reputation for being fair,” or anything similar; (A) wants President Trump indicted for something and removed from office regardless of his innocence; (B) is intentionally ignorant of the myriad of outrageous problems permeating Mueller’s professional history; or (C) is cultivating future Democrat votes when he or she comes before the Senate someday for a confirmation hearing.

There is simply too much clear and convincing information available to the contrary. Where other writers have set out information succinctly, I have quoted them, with proper attribution. My goal is to help you see what I have found.

Robert Mueller

In his early years as FBI Director, most Republican members of Congress gave Mueller a pass in oversight hearings, allowing him to avoid tough questions. After all, we were continually told, “Bush appointed him.” I gave him easy questions the first time I questioned him in 2005 out of deference to his Vietnam service. Yet, the longer I was in Congress, the more conspicuous the problems became. As I have said before of another Vietnam veteran, just because someone deserves our respect for service or our sympathy for things that happened to them in the military, that does not give them the right to harm our country later. As glaring problems came to light, I toughened up my questions in the oversight hearings. But first, let's cover a little of Mueller's history.

MUELLER’S MINIONS HELP MOBSTER WHITEY BULGER ELIMINATE MOB COMPETITORS

The Boston Globe noted Robert Mueller’s connection with the Whitey Bulger case in an article entitled, “One Lingering Question for FBI Director Robert Mueller.” The Globe said this: “[Mike] Albano [former Parole Board Member who was threatened by two F.B.I. agents for considering parole for the men imprisoned for a crime they did not commit] was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset…”

[ https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/1970/01/19/one-lingering-question-for-fbi-director-robert-mueller/613uW0MR7czurRn7M4BG2J/story.html ]

Mueller was the head of the Criminal Division as Assistant U.S. Attorney, then as Acting U.S. Attorney. I could not find any explanation online by Mueller as to why he insisted on keeping the defendants in prison that FBI agents— in the pocket of Whitey Bulger — had framed for a murder they did not commit. Make no mistake: these were not honorable people he had incarcerated. But it was part of a pattern that eventually became quite clear that Mueller was more concerned with convicting and putting people in jail he disliked, even if they were innocent of the charges, than he was with ferreting out the truth.

I found no explanation as to why he did not bear any responsibility for the $100 million paid to the defendants who were framed by FBI agents under his control. The Boston Globe said, “Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.”

[ https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/1970/01/19/one-lingering-question-for-fbi-director-robert-mueller/613uW0MR7czurRn7M4BG2J/amp.html ]

The New York Times explained the relationship this way: “In the 1980's, while [FBI Agent] Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a ’top-echelon informant.' Officials of the Massachusetts state police and the Boston Police Department had long wondered why their investigations of Mr. Bulger were always compromised before they could gather evidence against him, and they suspected that the FBI was protecting him.”

[ https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/24/us/trial-ending-for-boston-fbi-agent-accused-of-mob-ties.html ]

If Mr. Mueller had no knowledge that the FBI agents he used were engaged in criminal activity, then he certainly was so incredibly blind that he should never be allowed back into any type of criminal case supervision. He certainly helped continue to contribute to the damages of the framed individuals by working so hard to prevent them from being paroled out of prison even as their charges were on their way to being completely thrown out. Notice also evidence of a pattern throughout this article: the leaking of information to disparage Mueller’s targets. In the Whitey Bulger case, the leaks were to organized crime, the Mob.

One of the basic tenets of our Democratic Republic is that we never imprison people for being “bad” people. Anyone imprisoned has to have committed a specific crime for which they are found guilty. Not in Mueller’s world. He has the reverse list of Santa Claus; and, if you are on his list, you get punished even if you are framed. He never apologizes when the truth is learned, no matter how wrong or potentially criminal or malicious the prosecution was. In his book, you deserve what you get even if you did not commit the crime for which he helped put you away. This is one example, but as Al Pacino once famously said “I’m just getting warmed up!”

CONGRESSMAN CURT WELDON DEFEATED BY MUELLER’S FBI

During my first term in Congress, 2005-2006, Congressman Curt Weldon delivered some powerful and relentless allegations about the FBI having prior knowledge that 9-11 was coming. He alleged loudly and vociferously that there was documentary evidence to show that 9-11 could have been prevented and thousands of lives saved if the FBI had done their job. My recollection is that he may have even accused them of intentionally turning their heads. He held up documents at times while making these claims in speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I was surprised that FBI Director Mueller seemed to take those allegations without the major response that appeared to be appropriate, at least to me. It seemed he should either admit the FBI made significant mistakes or refute the allegations. Little did I know Mueller’s FBI was preparing a response, but it certainly was not the kind of response that I would have expected if an honorable man had been running that once hallowed institution.

Curt Weldon

You can read two of Congressman Weldon’s speeches on the House floor that are linked below. After reading the excerpts I have provided, you may get a window into the mind of the FBI Director or someone under Mueller’s control at the FBI. The FBI literally destroyed Congressman Weldon's public service life which foreclosed his ability to use a national platform to expose what he believed were major problems in the FBI fostered under the Clinton administration. Here is but one such excerpt of a speech wherein he spoke of the failure of the FBI leadership, then under the direction of the Clinton administration as it ultimately came within Mueller’s control right before 9-11. They failed to even accept from the military any information on the very terrorists who would later go on to commit the atrocities of theWorld Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the plane that landed In Pennsylvania and perhaps saved 3,000 lives and changed the course of world history. (Emphasis added)

[ https://www.congress.gov/crec/2005/10/19/CREC-2005-10-19.pdf ]

Curt Weldon gave speech after speech, recounting what he saw and what he knew,recounting the FBI and the Clinton administration failures in information sharing that ledto 9-11.

[ https://www.congress.gov/crec/2005/06/27/CREC-2005-06-27.pdf ]

Congressman Weldon tried to hold those accountable in the FBI and CIA that he felt mis-handled actionable intelligence which he said could have thwarted the 9-11 terrorists if only top officials at the FBI and others had allowed our rank-and-file law enforcement and military to engage in such a battle. He recounted many examples of how they failed to do so. Understand, I am not a 9-11 denier, nor a big conspiracy advocate. I am simply relaying things for which Congressman Weldon lambasted people at the top of the FBI and other places.

[ https://www.congress.gov/crec/2005/06/27/CREC-2005-06-27.pdf ]

In 2006, the Robert Mueller-led FBI took horrendously unjust actions to derail Curt Weldon’s re -election bid just weeks before the vote—actions that were later described as a “hit job” in this WND article:

“Each of Weldon’s 10 previous re-elections had been by sizable margins. Polls showed he was up by 5-7 points [in the fall of 2006]. Three weeks prior to the election, however, a national story ran about Weldon based upon anonymous sources that an investigation was underway against him and his daughter, alleging illegal activities involving his congressional work.

Weldon had received no prior notification of any such investigation and was dumbfounded that such a story would run especially since he regularly briefed the FBI and intelligence agencies on his work.

“People say those kinds of things just don’t happen in America…”

A week after the news story broke, alleging a need to act quickly because of the leak, FBI agents from Washington raided the home of Weldon’s daughter at 7 a.m. on a Monday morning… Local TV and print media had all been alerted to the raid in advance and were already in position to cover the story. Within hours, Democratic protesters were waving “Caught Red Handed” signs outside Weldon’s district office in Upper Darby.

In the ensuing two weeks, local and national media ran multiple stories implying that Weldon too must have been under investigation. Given the coverage, Weldon lost the election…

To this day, incredibly, no one in authority has talked to Weldonor his daughter about the raid or the investigation.

There was no follow up, no questions, no grand jury interrogation, nothing.

One year after the raid the local FBI office called Weldon’s daughter to have her come get the property that had been removed from her home. That was it…The raid ruined the career of Weldon and his daughter.” (Emphasis added)

[ http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/the-clinton-directed-fbi-hit-job/ ]

Though the WND article blamed the Clintons and Sandy Berger for orchestrating the FBI “hit job,” we can’t lose sight of the fact that the head of the FBI at the time was Robert Mueller. Please understand what former FBI officials have told me: the FBI would NEVER go after a member of Congress, House or Senate, without the full disclosure to and blessing of the FBI Director. Even if the idea on how to silence Curt Weldon did not come from Director Mueller himself, it surely had his blessing and encouragement, though and, at best, his silence and inaction.

The early morning raid by Mueller’s FBI with all the media outside, obviously alerted by the FBI, had achieved its goal of colluding to abuse the federal justice system to silence Curt Weldon by ending his political career. Mueller’s FBI worked it like a charm.

If the Clintons and Berger manipulated Weldon’s reelection to assure his defeat, they did it with the artful aid of Mueller, all while George W. Bush was President. Is any of this sounding familiar?

People say those kinds of things just don’t happen in America. They certainly seemed to when Mueller was in charge of the FBI and they certainly seem to while he is Special Counsel, as well.

It appears clear that President Obama and his myrmidons knew of Mueller’s reputation, that he could be used to take out their political opponents should such extra-legal actions become politically necessary.

To the great dismay of the many good, decent and straight arrow FBI agents, Obama begged Mueller to stay on for two more years than the 10 years the law allowed. Obama then asked Congress to approve Mueller’s waiver allowing him to stay on two extra years.

Perhaps the leaders in Congress did not realize what they were doing in approving it. I did. It was a major mistake, and I said so at the time. This is also why I objected strenuously the moment I heard Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed his old friend Bob Mueller to be Special Counsel to go after President Trump.

Rod Rosenstein

I was one of the few who were NOT surprised when Mueller started selecting his assistants in the Special Counsel’s office who had reputations for being bullies, for indicting people who were not guilty of the charges, for forcing people toward bankruptcy b y running up their attorney’s fees (while the bullies in the Special Counsel’s office enjoy an apparently endless government budget), or by threatening innocent family members with prosecution so the Special Counsel’s victim would agree to pleading guilty to anything to prevent the Kafka-esque prosecutors from doing more harm to their families. The pattern is there. Are you seeing it?

MUELLER’S ILLEGAL RAID ON CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES

There is a doctrine in our experiment in self-government mandating that all parts of the government must have oversight to prevent power from corrupting and absolute power from corrupting absolutely. The Congress and Senate are accountable to the voters as is the President. All the massive bloated bureaucracy is supposed to be accountable to the Congress.

A good example would be complaints against the Department of Justice or, specifically,the FBI. If constituents or whistleblowers within those entities have complaints, a Congressman’s office is a good place to contact. Our conversations or information from constituents or whistleblowers are normally privileged from review by anyone within the Executive Branch. It must be so. If the FBI could raid our offices anytime an FBI agent were to complain to us, no FBI agent could ever afford to come forward, no matter how egregious the conduct they are wanting to disclose. Whistle blowing FBI Agents have to know they are protected. They always have known that in the past.

As I learned from talking with attorneys who had helped the House previously with this issue, if the FBI or another law enforcement entity needed to search something on the House side of the Capitol or House office buildings, they contacted the House Counsel, whether with a warrant or request. The House Counsel with approval of the Speaker, would go through the Congress Members documents, computers, flash drives, or anything that might have any bearing on what was being sought as part of the investigation. They would honestly determine what was relevant and what was not, and what was both irrelevant and privileged from Executive Branch review. Normally, if there were a dispute or question, it could be presented to a federal judge for a private in-chamber review to determine if it were privileged or relevant. If the DOJ or FBI were to get a warrant and gather all computers or documents in a Congressman’s office without the recovered items being screened to insure they are not privileged from DOJ seizure, the DOJ would be risking that an entire case might be thrown out because of things improperly recovered and “fruit of the poisonous tree,” preventing the use of even things that were not privileged.

However, FBI Director Mueller seemed determined to throw over 200 years of Constitutional restraints to the wind so he could let Congress know he was the unstoppable government bully who could potentially waltz into our offices whenever he wished. In the case of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, Mueller was willing to risk a reversal of a slam dunk criminal case just to send a message to the of Congress: you don’t mess with the Zohan, if the Zohan is Bob Mueller.

That Congressman Jefferson was guilty of something did not surprise most observers when, amidst swirling allegations, $90,000 in cold hard cash was found in his freezer. As we understood it, the FBI had a witness who was wired and basically got Jefferson on tape taking money. They had mountains of indisputable evidence to prove their case. They had gotten an entirely appropriate warrant to search his home and had even more mountains of evidence to nail the lid on his coffin, figuratively speaking.

The FBI certainly did not need to conduct an unsupervised search of a Congressman’s office to put their unbeatable case at risk. Apparently, the risk was worth it to Mueller so he could show the Members of Congress who could harass or destroy them whenever he wished. Apparently, the FBI knew just the right federal judge who would disregard the Constitution and allow Mueller’s minions to do their dirty work.

[ http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/jefferson/index.html ]

I read the Application for Warrant and the accompanying Affidavit for Warrant to raid Jefferson’s office, as I did so many times as a felony judge. I could not believe they would risk such a high-profile case just to try to intimidate Members of Congress. In the opinion of this former prosecutor, felony judge and Appellate Court Chief Justice, they could have gotten a conviction based on what they had already spelled out in the very lengthy affidavit.

The official attorneys representing the House, knowing my background, allowed me to sit in on the extremely heated discussions between attorneys for the House, DOJ attorneys, and, to my recollection, an attorney from the Bush White House, after Jefferson’s office was raided. The FBI had gathered up virtually every kind of record, computerized or otherwise, and carted them off. I was not aware of the times that the DOJ and House attorneys, with the Speaker’s permission, had cooperated over the years. No Congressman is above the law nor is any above having search warrants issued against them which is why Jefferson’s home was searched without protest. However, when the material is in a Congressional office, there is a critical and centuries’ old balance of power that must be preserved.

The Mueller FBI spokespeople along with the DOJ choir assured everyone that everything was fine. They were going to have some of the DOJ’s attorneys review all the material and give back anything that was privileged and unlawful for the DOJ to see. Then they would make sure none of the DOJ attorneys who participated in the review of materials (that were privileged from the DOJ’s viewing) would be allowed to be prosecutors in Jefferson’s case. If you find that kind of thinking terribly flawed and constitutionally appalling, you would be in agreement with the former Speakers of the House, the Vice President at the time, and ultimately, the final decisions of our federal appellate court system. They found the search to be illegal and inappropriate. Fortunately for the DOJ, they did not throw the entire case out. In retrospect, we did not know at the time what a farce a DOJ “firewall” would have been. Now we do!

MUELLER’S FIVE YEAR UP-OR-OUT POLICY

In federal law enforcement, it takes a new federal agent or supervisor about five years or so after arriving at a newly assigned office to gain the trust and respect of local law officers. That trust and respect is absolutely critical to doing the best job possible. Yet new FBI Director Robert Mueller came up with a new personnel policy that would rid the FBI of thousands of years of its most invaluable experience. In a nutshell, after an FBI employee was in any type of supervisory position for five years, he or she had to either come to Washington to sit at a desk or get out of the FBI. In the myriad of FBI offices around the country, most agents love what they do in actively enforcing the law. They have families involved in the community; their kids enjoy their schools; and they do not want to move to the high cost of living in Washington, DC, and especially not to an inside desk job.

What occurred around the country was that agents in charge of their local offices got out of the FBI and did something more lucrative. Though they really wanted to stay in, they were not allowed to do so if they were not moving to DC. Agents told me that it was not unusual for the Special Agent in Charge of a field office to have well over 20 years of experience before the policy change. Under Mueller’s policy that changed to new Special Agents in Charge having five to ten years of experience when they took over.

If the FBI Director wanted nothing but “yes” men and women around the country working for him, this was a great policy. Newer agents are more likely to unquestioningly salute the FBI Mecca in Washington, and the Director, and never boldly offer a suggestion to fix a bad idea and Mueller had plenty of them. Whether it was wasting millions of dollars on a software boondoggle or questionable personnel preferences, agents tell me Mueller did not want to hear from more experienced people voicing their concerns about his ideas or policies. An NPR report December 13, 2007, entitled, “FBI'S 'Five-And-Out' Transfer Policy Draws Criticism” dealt with the Mueller controversial policy:

“From the beginning of this year (2007) until the end of September (2007), 576 agents found themselves in the five-and-out pool. Less than half of them — just 286 — opted to go to headquarters; 150decided to take a pay cut and a lesser job to stay put; 135 retired; and five resigned outright.”

In the period of nine months accounted for in this report, the FBI ran off a massive amount of absolutely priceless law enforcement experience vested in 140 invaluable agents. For the vast part, those are the agents who have seen the mistakes, learned lessons, could advise newer agents on unseen pitfalls of investigations and pursuit of justice. So many of these had at least 20-30 years of experience or more. The lessons learned by such seasoned agents were lost as the agents carried it with them when they left.

In the 2007 NPR report, the FBI Agents Association indicated that the Five-Year-Up-or-Out program hobbles field offices and takes relationships forged there for granted. In other words, it was a terrible idea.

The incalculable experience loss damages the FBI by eliminating those in the field in a position to write to or meet with the FBI Director to advise him against some of the mounting judgment errors on his part which were listed in the NPR article. But this was not the only damage done. If an FBI Director has inappropriate personal vengeance in mind or holds an inappropriate prejudice such as those that infamously motivated Director J. Edgar Hoover, then the older, wiser, experienced agents were not around with the confidence to question or guide the Director away from potential misjudgment. I also cannot help but wonder if Mueller had not run off the more experienced agents, would they have been able to advise against and stop the kind of abuses and corruption being unearthed right now that occurred during the Obama administration.

Rather than admit that his Five Year Up or Out Policy was a mistake, Mueller eventually changed the policy to a Seven Year Up or Out Program.

I once pointed out to him at a hearing that if he had applied the Five Year Up-or-Out Policy to literally everyone in a supervisory position, he himself would have had to leave the FBI by September of 2006. He did not seem to be amused.

One other problem remained that will be discussed in more detail later in this article. Before Mueller became Director, FBI agents were trained to identify certain Muslims who had radicalized and become dangerous. Mueller purged and even eliminated training that would have helped identify radical Islamic killers. By running off the more experienced agents who had better training on radical Islam before Mueller, “blinded us of the ability to identify our enemy,” as I was told by some of them, Mueller put victims in harm’s way in cities like Boston, San Diego and elsewhere.

NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER ABUSES

National Security Letters (NSL) are a tool that allows the DOJ to bypass the formality of subpoenas, applications for warrants with affidavits in support, and instead simply send a letter to an individual, business or any entity they so choose to demand that records or documents of any kind must be produced and provided to the sender. The letter also informs the recipient that if the recipient reveals to anyone that the letter was received or what it requires to be produced, then the recipient has committed a federal felony and will be prosecuted. It is a rather dramatic event to receive such a letter and realize that this simple letter could have such profound power and consequences.

The Committee in the House of Representatives that has oversight jurisdiction over the DOJ is the Judiciary Committee of which I am a member. We have grilled DOJ personnel in the past over the potential for NSL abuse, but both the House and Senate Committees were reassured that there were no known abuses of this extra-constitutional power.

Unfortunately, the day came when we learned that there had been an extraordinary number of abuses. Apparently, some of Mueller’s FBI agents had just been sending out demands for records or documents without any probable cause as the Fourth Amendment requires. Some agents were on outright fishing expeditions just to find out what different people were doing. We were told that there may have even been thousands of NSL’s sent out to get documents without following either the Constitutional requirements or the DOJ’s own policy requirements.

When the Inspector General’s report revealed such absolutely outrageous conduct by FBI agents, some of us in Congress were absolutely livid. An NBC News report on March 9, 2007, had this headline and sub-headline: “Justice Department: FBI acted illegally on data; Audit finds agency misused Patriot Act to obtain information on citizens.”

[ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11100916/ns/us_news-security/t/justice-department-fbi-acted-illegally-data/#.WsY9YYjwaUk ]

The report went on to say, “FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was to blame for not putting more safeguards into place. ‘I am to be held accountable,’ Mueller said. He told reporters he would correct the problems and did not plan to resign. ‘The inspector general went and did the audit that I should have put in place many years ago,’ Mueller said.”

Some of us Republicans wanted to completely eliminate such an extraordinary power that was so widely abused. Nonetheless, I could not help but wonder that if Mueller had not run off thousands of years of experience though his “Five Year Up-or-Out Policy,” perhaps young, inexperienced agents would not have been so tempted to vastly abuse the power of the NSL. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lost his job over the widespread, pervasive abuses under Mueller’s supervision. In retrospect, Mueller probably should have been gone first. It was his people, his lack of oversight, his atmosphere that encouraged it, and his FBI that did virtually nothing to hold people accountable.

Senator Ted Stevens

With Mueller as his mentor and confidant, is it any surprise that we’re now finding James Comey’s FBI found additional ways to monitor Americans and plot with Democrat loyalists in an attempt to oust a duly-elected President?

and had some mental issues, we are expected to simply accept that he was definitely the Anthrax killer and drop the whole matter. That's a difficult ask after taxpayer money paid off Mueller’s previous victim. Mueller had relentlessly dogged Dr. Hatfill using life-destroying, Orwellian tactics. Either Mueller was wrong when he said it would be a mistake, “to say there were mistakes,” in the railroading of Hatfill or Mueller did intentionally and knowingly persecute an innocent man.

THE FRAMING OF SCOOTER LIBBY

In 2003, during yet another fabricated and politically-charged FBI investigation, this one "searching" for the leak of CIA agent Valery Plame's identity to the media. Robert Mueller’s very dear close friend James Comey was at the time serving as the Deputy Attorney General. Comey convinced then Attorney General John Ashcroft that he should recuse himself from the Plame investigation. At the time, Ashcroft was in the hospital.

After Deputy A.G. Comey was successful in securing Ashcroft's recusal, Comey then got to choose the Special Counsel. He then looked about for someone who was completely independent of any relationships that might affect his independence and settled upon his own child’s godfather and named Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the source of the leak. So much for the independence of the Special Counsel. The entire episode was further revealed as a fraud when it was later made public that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, FBI Director Mueller, and Deputy Attorney Comey had very early on learned that the source of Plame’s identity leak came from Richard Armitage. But neither Comey nor Mueller nor Fitzgerald wanted Armitage’s scalp. Oh no. These so-called a political, fair-minded pursuers of their own brand of justice were after a bigger name in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Yet they knew from the beginning that these two men were not guilty of anything.

Nonetheless, Fitzgerald, Mueller and Comey pursued Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as a path to ensnare the Vice President. According to multiple reports, Fitzgerald had twice offered to drop all charges against Libby if he would ‘deliver’ Cheney to him. There was nothing to deliver.

Is any of this sounding familiar? Could it be that these same tactics have been used against an innocent Gen. Mike Flynn? Could it be that Flynn only agreed to plead guilty to prevent any family members from being unjustly prosecuted and to also prevent going completely broke from attorneys’ fees? That’s the apparent Mueller-Comey-Special Counsel distinctive modus-operandi. Libby would not lie about Cheney, so he was prosecuted for obstruction of justice, perjury, making a false statement. This Spectator report in 2015 sums up this particularly egregious element of the railroading:

[ https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/judith-miller-scooter-libby-and-the-trouble-with-special-prosecutors/ ]

“… By the time Scooter Libby was tried in 2007 it wasn’t for anything to do with the Plame leak —everyone then knew Armitage had taken responsibility for that— but for lying to federal officials about what he had said to three reporters, including Miller.

It is relating to this part of the story that an extraordinary new piece of information has come to light. After her spell in prison, and with her job on the line, Miller was eventually worn down to agree to hand over some redacted portions of notes of her few conversations with Libby. Several years on, she could no longer recall where she had first heard of Plame’s CIA identity, but her notes included a reference to Wilson alongside which the journalist had added in brackets ‘wife works in Bureau?’ After Fitzgerald went through these notes it was put to Miller that this showed that the CIA identity of Plame had been raised by Libby during the noted meeting. At Libby’s trial Miller was the only reporter to state that Libby had discussed Plame. His conviction and his sentencing to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine, rested on this piece of evidence.

But Miller has just published her memoirs. One detail in particular stands out. Since the Libby trial, Miller has read Plame’s own memoir and there discovered that Plame had worked at a State Department bureau as cover for her real CIA role. The discovery, in Miller’s words, ‘left her cold’. The idea that the ‘Bureau’ in her notebook meant ‘CIA’ had been planted in her head by Fitzgerald.

It was a strange word to use for the CIA. Reading Plame’s memoir, Miller realized that ‘Bureau’ was in brackets because it related to her working at State Department. (Emphasis added)

What that means is that Scooter Libby had not lied as she originally thought and testified. He was innocent of everything including the contrived offense. For his honesty and innocence, Scooter Libby spent time behind bars, and still has a federal felony conviction he carries like an albatross. The real culprit of the allegation for which the Special Counsel was appointed, and massive amounts of tax payer dollars expended was Richard Armitage. A similar technique was used against Martha Stewart. After all, Mueller’s FBI developed both cases. If the desired crime to be prosecuted was never committed, then talk to someone you want to convict until you find something that others are willing to say was not true. Then you can convict them of lying to the FBI. Martha Stewart found out about Mueller’s FBI the hard way. Unfortunately, Mueller has left a wake of innocent people whom he has crowned with criminal records.

History does seem to repeat itself when it is recording the same people using the same tactics. Can anyone who has ever actually looked at Robert Mueller’s history honestly say that Mueller deserves a sterling reputation in law enforcement? One part of his reputation he does apparently deserve is the reputation for being James Comey’s mentor.

MUELLER’S ‘COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’ WITH DOJ ALLEGED Co-CONSPIRATORS OF TERRORISM

In 2011, in one of the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight hearings, FBI Director Mueller repeatedly testified during questioning by various Members about how the Muslim community was just like every other religious community in the United States. He also referenced an “Outreach Program” the FBI had with the Muslim community.

When it was my turn to question, I could not help but put the two points of his testimony together for a purge question:

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haayF4jmthU ]

GOHMERT: Thank you, Director. I see you had mentioned earlier, and it's in your written statement, that the FBI’s developed extensive outreach to Muslim communities and in answer to an earlier question I understood you to say that you know Muslim communities were like all other communities, so I'm curious as the result of the extensive outreach program the FBI's had to the Muslim community, how is your outreach program going with the Baptists and the Catholics?

MUELLER: I'm not certain of, necessarily the rest of that, the question I would say -- there are outreach to all segments of a particular city or county or society is good.

GOHMERT: Well do you have a particular program of outreach to Hindus, Buddhists, Jewish community, agnostics or is it just an extensive outreach program to –

MUELLER: We have outreach to every one of those communities.

GOHMERT: And how do you do that?

MUELLER: Every one of those communities can be affected by facts or circumstance

GOHMERT: I've looked extensively, and I haven't seen anywhere in anyone from the FBI's letters, information that there's been an extensive outreach program to any other community trying to develop trust in this kind of relationship and it makes me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem like that that the FBI has seen in that particular community.

MUELLER: I would say if you look at one of our more effective tools or what we call citizens academies where we bring in individuals from a variety of segments of the territory in which the office operates . . .look at the citizens’ academy, the persons here, they are a cross-section of the community, they can be Muslim, could be Indian, they can be Baptists –

GOHMERT: Okay but no specific programs to any of those. You have extensive outreach to Muslim community and then you have a program of outreach to communities in general is what it sounds like.

Congressman Louie Gohmert

We went further in the questioning. The 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, linked the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Because of this affiliation, the FBI issued policy and guidance to restrict its non-investigative interactions with CAIR in an effort to limit CAIR’s ability to exploit contacts with the FBI. As a result, FBI field offices were instructed to cut ties with all local branches of CAIR across the country.

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation case that linked the Council on American-Islamic relations, CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and the North America Islamic Trust to the Holy Land Foundation?

MUELLER: I'm not going to speak to specific information in a particular case. I would tell you on the other hand that we do not

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the case, Director?

[CROSSTALK]

MUELLER:– n relationship with CAIR because of concerns

GOHMERT: Well I've got the letter from the Assistant Director Richard Powers that says in light of the evidence - talking about during the trial – evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, including its current president emeritus and executive director and the Palestine committee, evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine committee and Hamas, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence, he says, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and FBI. Well now it's my understanding, and I've got documentation, and I hope you've seen this kind of documentation before, it's public record, and also the memo order from the judge in turning down a request that the unindicted co-conspirators be eliminated from the list, and he says the FBI's information is clear there is a tie here, and I'm not going to grant the deletion of these particular parties as unindicted co-conspirators. So, I'm a little surprised that you're reluctant to discuss something that's already been set out in an order, that's already been in a letter saying we cut ties in light of the evidence at this trial. I'm just surprised it took the evidence that the FBI had, being introduced at the trial in order to sever the relationships with CAIR that it (the FBI) had that showed going back to the 1993 meeting in Philadelphia, what If a Mueller-trained FBI agent got a complaint about a potential radical Islamist who may pose a threat, the agent must immediately recognize that the one complaining is most likely an Islamophobe. That means the agent should first investigate whether the complainant is guilty of a hate crime. Too often it was AFTER an attack occurred that Mueller-trained FBI agents would decide that there really was a radical Islamic threat to the United States. The blinding of our FBI agents to the domestic threat of radical Islam is part of the beguiling damage Robert Mueller did as FBI Director. That is also the kind of damage that got Americans killed, even though Mueller may have avoided offending the radical Islamists who were killing Americans. As terrorism expert Patrick Poole continually points out in his “Known Wolf” series, the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are committed by those the FBI has interviewed and dismissed as a threat. Here are three of the more high-profile cases:

[ https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/09/28/known-wolf-terrorism-a-dozen-cases-of-fbi-failure-on-obamas-watch/]

ORLANDO: The mass killer who attacked the Pulse nightclub in June2016, Omar Mateen, had been interviewed by the FBI on THREE separate occasions.

The open preliminary investigation in 2013 lasted 10 months, after Mateen had told others about mutual acquaintances he shared with the Boston bombers and had made extremist statements.

He was investigated again in 2014 for his contacts with a suicide bomber who attended the same mosque. At one point, Mateen was placed on TWO separate terrorism databases. He was later removed from them.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Detroit-bound Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 with 289 other passengers wearing an underwear bomb intended to murder them all. He was well-known to U.S. intelligence officials before he boarded. Only one month before the attempted bombing, Abdulmutallab’s father had actually gone to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and met with two CIA officers. He directly told the CIA that he was concerned about his son’s extremism. Abdulmutallab's name was added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database’ However, his name was not added the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database. Or even the no-fly list. So, he boarded a plane.

When asked about the near-takedown of the flight and these missteps, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano remarkably told CNN that “the system worked.” The only "system" that worked in this incident: a culture that values bravery, already instilled in the passengers who acted.

BOSTON: Prior to the bombing of the Boston Marathon by Tamerlanand Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in April 2013 that killed three people and injured 264 others, the FBI had been tipped off. Twice.

Russian intelligence warned that Tamerlan was “a follower of radical Islam.” Initially, the FBI denied ever meeting with Tamerlan. They later claimed that they followed up on the lead, couldn’t find anything in their databases linking him to terrorism, and quickly closed the case. After the second Russian warning, Tamerlan’s file was flagged by federal authorities demanding “mandatory” detention if he attempted to leave or re-enter the United States. But Tsarnaev's name was misspelled when it was entered into the database.

An internal FBI report of the handling of the Tsarnaev’s case –– unsurprisingly –– saw the FBI exonerate itself.

When I asked at yet another House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, Mueller himself admitted in response to my questioning, that the FBI had indeed gone to the Boston mosque the bombers attended. Of course, The FBI did not go to investigate the Tsarnaevs. The bombers' mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston, was incorporated by known and convicted terrorists. The incorporation papers were signed by none other than Abduram Al-Amoudi who is currently serving 23 years in a federal prison for funding terrorism. One of the members of the Board of Trustees included a leader of the International Muslim Brotherhood, Yusef al-Qawadari, who is barred from entering the United States due to his terrorist ties.

Did Mueller’s FBI go to the Boston bombers’ mosque to investigate the Tsarnaevs? This is from the House Judiciary oversight hearing transcript:

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/113-32-81462-1.pdf

GOHMERT: The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks. If the Russians tell you that someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosque that they went to, then you get the articles of incorporation, as I have, for the group that created the Boston mosque where these Tsarnaevs attended, and you find out the name Al-Amoudi, which you will remember, because while you were FBI Director this man who was so helpful to the Clinton administration with so many big things, he gets arrested at Dulles Airport by the FBI and he is now doing over 20 years for supporting terrorism.

This is the guy that started the mosque where the Tsarnaevs were attending, and you didn’t even bother to go check about the mosque? And then when you have the pictures, why did no one go to the mosque and say, who are these guys? They may attend here. Why was that not done since such a thorough job was done?

MUELLER: Your facts are not altogether

GOHMERT: Point out specifically.

MUELLER: May I finish my

GOHMERT: Point out specifically. Sir, if you’re going to call me a liar, you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong.

MUELLER: We went to the mosque prior to Boston.

GOHMERT: Prior to Boston?

MUELLER: Prior to Boston happening, we were in that mosque talking to the imam several months beforehand as part of our outreach efforts.

“Outreach efforts”? Yes. That is apparently Mueller’s efforts to play figurative patty-cake with the leaders and tell them how wonderful they are and how crazy all those Islamaphobes out there are, but they surely got assurance that Mueller’s FBI is after those bigots. Maybe they sat around on the floor and had a really nice meal together. One thing for certain, they weren’t asking about the Tsarnaevs! But the hearing got even worse:

GOHMERT: Were you aware that those mosques were started by Al-Amoudi?

MUELLER. I’ve answered the question, sir.

GOHMERT. You didn’t answer the question. Were you aware that they were started by Al-Amoudi?

MUELLER. No . . .

Then my time for questioning expired, leaving many questions unanswered. Why was the FBI unaware of the origins of the mosque attended by the Boston bombers? This was arguably the most traumatic Islamic terrorist attack in America since 9-11 because the explosions happened on live television at the Boston Marathon. When did the FBI become an outreach-to-terrorism organization to the detriment and disregard of its investigations? Under Director Robert Mueller’s tenure, that’s when! In Director Mueller’s efforts to appease and please the named co-conspirators of terrorism, he was keenly attuned to their complaints that the FBI training materials on radical Islam said some things about Islamic terrorists that offended some Muslims. Never mind that the main offense was done to the American people by radical Islamists who wanted to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. Mueller wanted to make these co-conspirators feel good toward Mueller and to let them know he was pleased to appease.

Director Mueller had all of the training materials regarding radical Islam “purged” of anything that might offend radical Islamic terrorists. So, in addition to using his “Five Year Up-or-Out” policy to force out so many experienced FBI agents who had been properly trained to identify radical Islamic terrorists, now Mueller was going even further. He was ensuring that new FBI agents would not know what to look for when assessing potentially radicalized individuals.

When some of us in Congress learned of the Mueller-mandated “purge” of FBI training materials, we demanded to see what was being removed. Unfortunately, Mueller was well experienced in covering his tracks, so naturally the pages of training materials that were purged were ordered to be “classified,” so most people would never get to see them.

After many terrorist attacks, we would hear that the FBI had the Islamic terrorists on their radar but failed to identify them. Now you are beginning to see why FBI agents could not spot them. They were looking more at the complainant than they were at the radical Islamist because that is what Mueller had them trained to do. Michele Bachmann and I were extremely upset that Americans were being killed because of the terribly flawed training. We demanded to see the material that was“purged” from the training of FBI agents regarding radical Islam. That is when we were told it could not be sent over for review because the purged material was “classified.”

We were authorized to review classified material, so we demanded to see it anyway. We were willing to go over to the FBI office or the DOJ, but we wanted to review the material. We were told they would bring it over and let us review it in the Rayburn Building in a protected setting. They finally agreed to produce the material. Members of Congress Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, and I went to the little room to review the vast amount of material. Lynn was not able to stay as long as Michele and I did, but we started pouring through the notebooks of materials.

It was classified so naturally I am not allowed to disclose any specifics, but we were surprised at the amount of material that was purged from training our agents. Some of the items that were strictly for illustration or accentuation were removed. A few were silly. But some should clearly have been left in if an FBI agent was going to know how and what a radical Islamic terrorist thinks, and what milestone had been reached in the co-conspirators feel good toward Mueller and to let them know he was pleased to appease.

It was clear to Michele and me as we went through the purged materials that some of the material really did need to be taught to our FBI agents. For those densely-headed or radical activists who will wrongly proclaim that what I am writing is an Islamophobic complaint, please note that I have never said that all Muslims are terrorists. I have never said that, because all Muslims are NOT terrorists. But for the minority who are, we have to actually learn exactly what they study and learn how they think.

As Patton made clear after defeating Rommel’s tanks in World War II, he studied his enemy, what he believed and how he thought. In the movie, “Patton,” he loudly proclaims, “Rommel, you magnificent ___, I read your book!” That is how an enemy is defeated. You study what they believe, how they think, what they know. Failure to do so is precisely why so many “Known Wolves” are able to attack us. Clearly, Mueller weakened our ability to recognize a true radical Islamic terrorist. As one of my friends in our U.S. Intelligence said, “We have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy! You cannot defeat an enemy you cannot define.” Robert Mueller deserves a significant amount of the credit for the inability of our federal agents to define our enemy.

PURGING THE ADVANCED COUNTER-TERRORISM AGENTS’ TRAINING MATERIALS

FBI Special Agent Kim Jensen had spent a great deal of his adult life studying radical Islam. He is personally responsible for some extraordinary undercover work that remains classified to this day. He was tasked with putting together a program to train our more experienced FBI agents to locate and identify radicalized Muslims on the threshold of violence. Jensen had done this well before Mueller began to cozy up with and pander to groups such as CAIR.

Complaints by similar groups caused Mueller to once again demand that our agents could not be properly instructed on radical Islam. Accordingly, Jensen’s approximately 700-pages of advanced training material on radical Islam were eliminated from FBI training and all copies were ordered destroyed. When Director Mueller decides he wants our federal agents to be blind and ignorant of radical Islam, they are indeed going to be blind and ignorant.

Fortunately, in changing times well after Mueller’s departure as FBI Director, a new request went out to Mr. Jensen to recreate that work because at least someone in the FBI needed to know what traits to look for in a terrorist. It still did not undo the years of damage from Mueller’s commanded ignorance of radical Islam.

MUELLER’S UNETHICAL ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Robert Mueller had more than one direct conflict of interest that should have prohibited him from serving as the Special Counsel to investigate President Donald Trump. For one thing, President Trump fired his close friend and confidante, disgraced FBI Director James Comey. Mueller had long served as a mentor to Comey, who would most certainly be a critical witness in any investigation of Donald Trump. Mueller and Comey had also been exceedingly close friends beyond the mentor relationship. But Comey’s insertion of himself into so much of the election cycle and even its aftermath in conversations he had with the President himself made him a critical witness in the investigation. There is no way Mueller could sit in judgment of his dear, close friend’s credibility, and certainly no way he should be allowed to do so.

Gregg Jarrett explained one aspect of this situation quite clearly and succinctly at FoxNews.com in an article titled,“Gregg Jarrett: Are Mueller and Comey ‘Colluding’ against Trump by acting as co-special counsel?” A portion of that article said the following:

The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has a “conflict of interest.” Even the appearance of a conflict is disallowed. The same Code of Federal Regulations defines what constitutes a conflict. That is, “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” (28 CFR 45.2).

Comey is that person. He was substantially involved in the conversation with President Trump who may be the subject of an obstruction investigation. In fact, the former Director is the only other person involved. There were no witnesses beyond himself. A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Here, it sets up a clash between the special counsel’s self -interest or bias and his professional or public interest in discharging his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner. His close association with the star witness raises the likelihood of prejudice or favoritism which is anathema to the fair administration of justice.

Mueller has no choice but to disqualify himself. The law affords him no discretion because the recusal is mandatory in its language. It does not say “may” or “can” or “might”. It says the special counsel “shall” recuse himself in such instances. An excellent post by Robert Barnes, a constitutional lawyer, identifies five statutes, regulations and codes of conduct that Mueller is violating because of his conflict of interest with Comey. Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner recounts in detail the close personal relationship between Mueller and Comey which gives rise to the blatant conflict of interest.

[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/12/gregg-jarrett-are-muller-and-comey-now-acting-in-concert-as-co-special-counsel.html ]

Another deeply troubling aspect of Mueller’s conflict of interest is and was his role in the investigation of Russia’s effort to illegally gain control of a substantial part of United States’ precious supply of uranium. That investigation was taking place within the Mueller FBI, which should have had a direct effect on prohibiting Secretary of State Clinton from participating in the approval of the uranium sale into the hands that were ultimately the Russian government.

Of course, then U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein had direct control over that Russia-uranium investigation in conjunction with FBI Director Mueller. It certainly appears that with what they had gleaned from that undercover investigation, they should never have been involved in any subsequent investigation that might touch on potential collusion and millions of dollars paid to the Clinton’s foundation by the very beneficiaries of the Russians' uranium schemes. Rosenstein and Mueller’s failure to warn against or stop the sale reeks of its own form of collusion, cooperation, or capitulation in what some consider a treasonous sale.

Quite the interesting little duo now in charge of all things investigatory surrounding their own actions. In fact, Rosenstein and Mueller are now in a position to dissuade others from pursuing THEM for their own conduct.

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MUELLER HIRED EXTREMELY BIASED ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS WHO WORKED TO STOP TRUMP’S ELECTION

Through it all, Mueller’s modus operandi does not seem to have ever changed. He has hired nine Democrat-supporting lawyers and NO Republicans. Sure, all attorneys likely have political views and that is not a problem so long as they do not affect their job. But not a single Republican was worthy of Mueller’s selection? Were there no establishment Republicans who wanted to join him in railroading President Trump?

Mueller’s hand-picked team of Democrats reveal political views that distinctly conflict with Trump and the conservative agenda, raising questions about Mueller’s bias and his ability to conduct a fair investigation. At least nine members of Mueller’s team made significant contributions to Democrats or Democratic campaigns, while none contributed to Trump’s campaign and only James Quarles contributed to Republicans in a drastically smaller amount than what he gave to Democrats. Analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, Andrew Goldstein, James Quarles, Elizabeth Prelogar, Greg Andres, Brandon Van Grack, Rush Atkinson, and Kyle Freeny all contributed over $50,000 in donations to Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s Presidential campaigns, various Democratic non-presidential candidates, and the Democratic National Convention. Mueller also has surprisingly strong personal ties to a number of the lawyers he hired. Three former partners with Mueller at the Boston law firm of Wilmer Hale are on the payroll: Aaron Zebley, Jeannie Rhee, and James Quarles.

In addition to strong personal ties to Mueller, many of the attorneys have potential conflicts in working for persons directly connected to the people and issues being investigated. Jeannie Rhee represented Ben Rhodes, ex-Obama National Security Adviser, and the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit, as well as Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit probing her private emails.

Aaron Zebley, former Chief of Staff to Mueller while Director of the FBI, represented Justin Cooper in the Clinton email scandal as he was responsible for setting up Clinton’s private email server. He admitted to physically damaging Clinton’s old mobile devices. Andrew Goldstein joined the team after working under major Trump critic Preet Bharara in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York. Bharara became a strong critic after Trump fired him as an Obama-holdover and spoke on ABC News that “there’s absolutely evidence to launch an obstruction of justice case against Trump’s team with regard to the Russia probe.” Does he sound a bit prejudiced?

Andrew Weissman, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissman shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined.

Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi. Additionally, Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election-night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weisman was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans.

Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after more than 10,000 texts between him and former Mueller investigator Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. They were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming President and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected.

GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN

Michael Flynn is a man who was caught up in manufactured controversy from the moment he stepped into his role in the Trump administration. The circumstances surrounding his take-down have become one of the more puzzling aspects of the Trump-Russia investigation. His career took him from three decades in the U.S. Army to overseeing the Pentagon’s military intelligence operation and directing the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was more than qualified to act as the first national security adviser in a new administration. However, his influence and zeal made him a clear target for the Trump-Russia investigation.

As a strong supporter and friend of Donald Trump’s from the onset, he campaigned and publicly supported then-candidate Trump throughout 2016.

As best I can sort it out through the media hype and hysteria, having no first-hand knowledge like the rest of America: after the successful election, during the transition period, in December 2016, Flynn reportedly conversed with a Russian ambassador. He was “accidentally” swept up in an intelligence foreign surveillance recording. When this happens, the names of American citizens are supposed to be masked in the transcripts. Somehow Flynn’s name was magically unmasked, which apparently allowed the Obama administration to peruse his meetings and conversations.

Parts of the classified transcript of that conversation were leaked to the media by rogue Deep State law breakers (criminals who Mueller seems completely disinterested in). This appears to be what fueled the media-driven narrative of Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia because Flynn had a discussion with a Russian ambassador, which conversation is absolutely legal and advisable. A media-generated doubt clouded Flynn’s reputation, as the discussion was long-reported as having taken place during the campaign (which could possibly be illegal) but was later proven to have been after the election and during the transition which should not have been illegal.

After a complete pounding of media-driven hysteria, in mid-February of 2017, Flynn resigned having served only 23 days as National Security Advisor. Mueller targeted Flynn using illicitly-gathered and leaked foreign intelligence and surveillance as evidence.

Nine months later after Flynn and his family were subjected to Mueller’s usual threats and intimidation, a financially exhausted Flynn entered a guilty plea on one count of lying to the FBI—the result of a Mueller-technique perjury trap as was used on Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart.

What is Flynn guilty of? He apparently misremembered a conversation that took place 33 days previously? The FBI had a transcript of that conversation and already knew what information was there. They went into a conversation with Flynn not seeking answers to questions, but to try to trip him up on exact statements made in a conversation when they were already in possession of the transcript. Flynn's unmasking has become the center of a controversy wherein those transcripts were procured under exceedingly questionable circumstances before a judge who had a questionable and undisclosed relationship with part of Mueller’s team. That judge was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the secretive court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allows federal law enforcement to seek secretive warrants to surveil foreign persons outside of the United States who are suspected of terrorism. But the Obama administration and Mueller seemed to find it much more politically expedient to use the secret court to go after Americans who were part of the Trump team for actions that did not occur while they were part of the Trump campaign team. Strange goings-on. One could argue that Judge Rudolph Contreras, the federal judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, conveniently misremembered that he also served on the FISA court as a judge and conveniently misremembered his friendship with the FBI agent whose interview was used as evidence against Flynn. As it turns out, the FBI interview notes of that very encounter with Flynn may exonerate Michael Flynn, crushing Mueller’s case against him, not to mention the highly questionable hearing before a judge who may well have been recused much too late to save the Flynn prosecution.

A FISA JUDGE TOO CLOSE TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS INVOLVED

The FISA-authorized FISC is built upon the principle that highly delicate cases dealing with government surveillance of foreign agents and officials would be handled in an unbiased and respectful environment where secrecy at all costs was critical. There is supposed to be an added precaution to prevent any potential for bias in a FISA Judge by having a rotation of judges. That is why it is such a shock to find out now that Mueller’s case against Michael Flynn would happen to end up before the “randomly selected” very dear close personal friend of FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who hated President Trump with a passion, as evidenced in his text messages with colleague and paramour, Lisa Page.

U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, or “Rudy” as Strzok likes to refer to him, should have recused himself from such a highly sensitive case involving the ultimate attempted removal of the duly-elected President of the United States who happened to be despised by the very people who by law were required to prosecute with fairness. He was later forced to ‘recuse’ himself and be removed from the Flynn proceedings, without public explanation.

This forced recusal was an unmistakable indication that he never should have been involved in the Michael Flynn plea agreement. Judge Contreras’ conflict of interest has yet to be explained by the court.

Contreras is one of only three local FISA court judges, and by default, is likely one of the judges who have on four occasions approved the Title I surveillance of another characterin this melodrama, Carter Page. This is the case where the FBI is known to have

intentionally misled the FISA court by using as evidence the illustrious “Steele Dossier,” a sordid opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Oh, what a tangled web of crime Special Prosecutor Mueller’s team appears to have helped weave, and of which Mueller appears to be completely disinterested, all while he searches high and low foran elusive crime to pin on the President.

MUELLER IGNORES APPARENTLY PROVABLE CRIMES INVOLVING THE CLINTONCAMPAIGN, THE FBI, THE FISA COURT, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES

Strategically timed leaks of selective classified information are being used to target individuals for investigation in order to create the appearance of some sinister crime having been committed. Upon closer scrutiny, the cases fall apart. Yet, slam dunk federal criminal cases of leaking classified material are going on under Mueller’s nose, and by those within his purview and his team. When we think of all the leaks from Mueller’s investigation, it brings to mind Wilford Brimley’s quote from Absence of Malice: “You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.”

Case in point: Eric Prince.

As Lee Smith put it in a recent article from TabletMag.com, Robert Mueller’s Beltway Cover-Up: News that special counselor Robert Mueller has turned his attention to Erik Prince’s January 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles with a Russian banker, a Lebanese-American political fixer, and officials from the United Arab Emirates, helps clarify the nature of Mueller’s work. It’s not an investigation that the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading—rather, it’s a cover- up…

Mueller is said to believe that the Prince meeting was to set up aback channel with the Kremlin. But that makes no sense. According to the foundational text of the collusion narrative, the dossier allegedly written by former British spy Christopher Steele, the Kremlin had cultivated Trump himself for years. So what’s the purpose of a back channel, when Vladimir Putin already had a key to the front door of Mar-a-Lago?

Further, the collusion thesis holds that the Trump circle teamed with high-level Russian officials for the purpose of winning the 2016 election. How does a meeting that Erik Prince had a week before Trump’s inauguration advance the crooked election victory plot? It doesn’t—it contradicts it.

The writer goes on to point out that serious crimes have been committed that Muelleris purposefully ignoring. Prince was thrown into the middle of Russiagate after an April 3, 2017, Washington Post story reported his meeting with the Russian banker. But how did anyone know about the meeting?

After the story came out, Prince said he was shown “specific evidence” by sources from the intelligence community that the information was swept up in the collection of electronic communications and his identity was unmasked. The US official or officials who gave his name to the Post broke the law when they leaked classified intelligence. “Unless the Washington Post has somehow miraculously recruited the bartender of a hotel in the Seychelles,” Prince told the House Intelligence Committee in December, “the only way that’s happening is through SIGINT [signals intelligence].”

Prince’s name was unmasked and leaked from classified signals intelligence. Oddly enough, it’s the same modus operandi used in the targeting of President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

It is a federal felony to publish leaked classified information.

Ask WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about that particular unequal application of the law.

The Deep State felons who are strategically leaking this information have politically weaponized our justice system and should be brought up on charges of high treason for their attempts, with malice of forethought, to manufacture the overthrow of a duly-elected President of the United States.

The leaks and publication of classified information alone warrant investigation and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law in this matter, yet Mueller is uninterested in those crimes even as they go to the very heart of the credibility of the supposed justification of his investigative mandate.

Yet, as I’ve demonstrated here, the man put in charge of the investigation of this Russia “collusion” case, Robert Mueller, has perfected the art of abuse of the justice system for personal and political gain. He is uninterested in any criminal activity that does not further his cause of damaging this President. If you think that is harsh, consider the criminality of the FISA court abuses by the Obama Department of Justice and FBI.

We have all heard ad nauseum about the infamous “Steele Dossier,” the opposition research document paid for by the Clinton campaign that was used to manufacture the Russia collusion narrative and spark what became the Mueller investigation into our President. On June 18, 2017, Muller protégé and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the Clinton campaign-funded document, telling Congress that the document was,“salacious and unverified.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295 )

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, created a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to allow secret warrants to surveil agents of foreign governments, be they U.S. citizens or non-U.S. actors. In October of 2016, the Obama DOJ/FBI successfully applied for one of these secret warrants to surveil Carter Page, a short-time Trump campaign volunteer. Since these warrants against U.S. citizens are outside of the bounds of the Constitution, they have to be renewed by applying to the court every 90 days after the first warrant application is approved. These secret warrants are so serious they have to be signed off on at the highest levels. The applications in question would have been signed off on by Obama administration FBI and DOJ officials including then FBI Director James Comey. At least one of the renewal applications would have been signed off on by our current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. At the time of signing, they all would have had the knowledge and/or the professional and legal duty to know that the dossier was used as evidence and also had the legal duty to know the evidence origins.

The same would apply to the knowledge of the penalty for submitting unverified information to the FISC for the purpose of obtaining a warrant.

It is a crime to submit under the color of law an application to the FISC that contains unverified information. 50 U.S. Code § 1809m

[ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1809 ]

Comey’s “salacious and unverified” testimony before the Senate occurred eight months after the Clinton campaign-funded dossier was used in the first successful FISA court application to obtain a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a Trump campaign volunteer for several months. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence examined the documentation submitted to the court and concluded that the unverified information contained in the Steele dossier was in fact used in the FISC application, without disclosing to the court that it was an opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf

Neither the initial application in October of 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

The timing of the applications, the inclusion of material the DOJ/FBI knew to be unverified at the time, and the successful result after this fraudulent inclusion speak to the level of criminal corruption of those who sought to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and still seek to destroy his subsequent Presidency when their initial efforts failed. The widespread abuse of the FISA-authorized court, FISC, was laid bare in a court memorandum of review of these abuses that was declassified in 2017 that went virtually unnoticed by the media because it didn’t fit their narrative.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

These are serious crimes that, left unchecked, lead nations down the path to tyranny at the hands of people who think they know better than we do what is best for us. It’s an age-old struggle America’s Founding Fathers knew well and did everything they could to keep us from experiencing.

The FISC judges themselves have a duty to police their own courts and call to account these bad actors who, by all facts in the documentation I’ve personally seen, have committed a fraud upon the court. If these judges do not have the integrity to self-police in this matter, we in Congress must hold them accountable. using the power granted to us in the Constitution, Congress has created every single federal court in the country except the Supreme Court. We have the duty to phase out, then disband the FISC, while developing a better solution to address the authorization of this sort of surveillance of foreign agents and actors. We have got to clean up the mess that the Obama administration showed is far too easy to create.

If you want answers, and you CAN handle the truth, join me in demanding those answers from “Special Counsel” Robert Mueller, along with his resignation. If he were to resign, it could well be the only truly moral, ethical and decent action Mueller has under take in this entire investigation,

________________ FINIS ________________

MEANWHILE...

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE to MIKE FLYNN'S

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

The out-of-control over-zealous Robert Mueller has virtually BANKRUPTED General Michael T. Flynn –– and turned him and his family out of their home –- and all because General Flynn, who serveed our country honorably and with distinction for more than 35 years in the military, had the unmitigated gall to accept an appointment from our then-new, duly-elected president Donald Trump for whom the D.C. Establishment and their myrmidons harbor an unethical, unprincipled, frankly pathological animus.

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE to MIKE FLYNN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND. IT'S A WORTHY CAUSE.

Instructions may be found at the following link:

https://mikeflynndefensefund.org/

EVEN A SINGLE DOLLAR

WOULD BE WELCOME.

2018-04-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

We Dedicate This Post To

KID

Whose Determination to Keep His Gaze Fixed Firmly on the Stars Has Helped All His Readers Gain a Better Sense of Perspective about Our Own Rightful Place in the Universe.

Great Music like The Planets

Should Help Us Do the Same.

We All Need to Focus on Things Greater Than Ourselves, if We Hope to Keep Our Sanity.

We hope the wonder and glory of this awe-inspiring suite of symphonic tone poems helps you to focus more on Eternity than petty grievances, the blindness and stupidity of politicians and the ever present challenges
of day-to-day living.

2018-04-23T07:00:00.000-04:00

The Naked Maja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja!

Sharing Nude Photos of Current or Ex-Partners Protected Under First Amendment

by Lloyd Brumfeld

DALLAS NEWS

Is distributing intimate photos of current or previous sexual partners without their consent protected by the First Amendment?

A state appeals court says yes.

Now it will be up to the state attorney general's office to defend the state's "revenge porn" law, which was passed in 2015 and punishes those who post intimate images from previous or current relationships online.

The Tyler-based 12th Court of Appeals said the law is unconstitutional because it's too broad and infringes on free speech, The Texas Tribune reported.

In his findings in the case, Chief Justice James Worthen said the First Amendment usually prohibits "content-based" restrictions.

The court also said that the law was vague and infringed on the rights of third parties who might unwittingly share intimate images, according to the Associated Press.

Ladies, this could be yours.

WELCOME
to the
GENITAL AGE!

PHEW!

2018-04-20T05:00:00.000-04:00

THE

ENEMEDIA

NEVER SLEEPS

WEAPONS of MASS DECEPTION

WEAPONS of MASS DISTRACTION

WEAPONS of MISPERCEPTION

WEAPONS of MISDIRECTION

666
SICK! SICK! SICK!

James Comey´s memos leaked. Read them here

Bound to happen.

Before He Was Fired, James Comey Told Trump

‘I Don’t Leak, I Don’t Do Weasel Moves’

So says the perpetrator of the largest

weasel move in American politics

Comey´s other target in new book: Rudy Giuliani

Sanctimonious Comey warns Rudy

of excessive pride and ego.

Links and Quips Courtesy of Lucianne.com

News Forum Homepage

2018-04-18T00:00:00.000-04:00

Barbara Bush (1925-2018)

Beloved source of character and strength.

An asset to her family and our nation

Refreshing for her lack of agitation.
Barbara lived a good life of great length.

A life patrician, gracious, down-to-earth

Regal, yet a quintessential mother

A fount of strong opinion like no other,

But muted, disciplined, and tinged with mirth.

Unusually poised in public life

She had an inner beauty very rare.

Happy to have prematurely aged

Resplendent in her crown of snow white hair

In no way mean, her mind always engaged,

Proud, yet humble, and always the ideal wife.

~FreeThinke

Married 73 years

Please don't miss Brit Hume's wonderful hearftfelt tribute
to Barbara Bush

2018-04-17T05:00:00.000-04:00

But What if Teddy Didn't

Want to be Great?

by Mark Steyn

JEWISH WORLD REVIEW

April 16,2018

I had minimal expectations of Chappaquiddick The Movie, which opened despite the best efforts of the Kennedy family and their various retainers and enablers. I have always been revolted by the fact that Ted, after killing Mary Jo Kopechne, did not have the decency to do a John Profumo and retire from public life for the rest of his days - and I was even more revolted by the way Massachusetts voters did not have the decency to impose that choice upon him.

But utter contempt for your protagonist doesn't make for very interesting drama. So it is to the film's benefit that its director, writers and Jason Clarke in the lead role manage to locate enough humanity in the empty waddling husk of Teddy to make a compelling story. Mr Clarke is Australian, his director John Curran is American but has spent much of his career Down Under, and the screenwriters Taylor Allen and Andrew Logan are two first-timers born a decade after Chappaquiddick and who'd apparently never heard the word until 2008. That combination of outsiders and neophytes may be one reason why this film is considerably more gripping and potent than a cookie-cutter limousine-liberal yawnfest like The Post.

In the shorthand of history, Chappaquiddick is a stand-alone event, but it occurred, in fact, on the July weekend in 1969 that Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon - and it arose from a reunion of the "Boiler Room Girls", the devoted young ladies who'd worked on Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign of the previous year.

So Teddy, the youngest Senate Majority Whip in history, is nevertheless staggering in the shadow of both his dazzling brother's recent assassination and the fulfillment of his other assassinated brother's most audacious challenge. He is there, ostensibly, to compete in the Edgartown Yacht Club's annual regatta, in the family sailboat Victura, which his other dead brother, Joe Jr, killed in the war, first sailed over thirty years earlier.

One feels entirely confident that, if the Kennedy patriarch - old Joe, stroke-afflicted but still running the show - had expressed a preference over which of his four sons would be the only one to survive, Teddy would have been last on the list.

Handome is as handsome does.

We meet him early on, in his room at the Shiretown Inn, climbing into his swim trunks and checking himself in the mirror before heading for the beach and the girls. Pushing forty, he still seems to have his puppy fat, a soft and doughy middle-aged child.

There is, as it happens, another brother - or "brother": Kennedy cousin Joe Gargan, who lost his parents at a young age and was raised by Teddy's parents as (almost) one of their own.

As played by Ed Helms, Joe is the conscience of the picture: he doesn't exactly do the right thing, but he's broadly in favor of others doing the right thing, which, in the moral universe of the Kennedys, gives him a sporting chance of winding up a couple of circles of hell further out from where the rest of them are headed. He's officially Ted's lawyer but more importantly his fixer. So we see him in the payphone outside the Shiretown Inn, on the line to the Senator in Washington, reassuring him that the bedroom for "the girl" has been taken care of.

Phone booths are a kind of motif of the picture and its milieu: 1969 is the pre-cellular age, and too many nosy desk clerks like to listen in on the room lines. Ted isn't good at a lot of things (he flubs the sailboat race after steering the Victura into a buoy) but he knows where the payphones are, and he knows how to work them.

The Senator is married, of course, but it's understood by all that Joan Kennedy never comes to regatta weekend. When her husband gets into trouble, she's prevailed upon to show up, because it's part of the deal. But she's a prop, and in this film almost a non-speaking part: She has just one line, three words delivered to Ted when he climbs into the car and thanks her for coming. She responds by suggesting he, er, do to himself what he's done to her and almost every other woman he's used and discarded over the years.

Jason Clarke's is not exactly a sympathetic portrait, but it is rounded: his Teddy is self-absorbed and self-loathing, both aware of his weakness and cowardice, and yet unable to overcome the Kennedy family's sense of its own indispensability. You get a sense of the peculiarly isolating quality of American politics at its upper echelons, so different from the unglamorous parliamentary life of other countries.

This Ted is a lonely man who's never alone, buffed and polished by a round-the-clock retinue. He's a brand, assumed to be a shoo-in for the '72 presidential nomination, though he himself seems to have no particular enthusiasm for it, and, by comparison to their love for Bobby, even the girls' encouragement seems pro forma and dutiful. His wheelchair-bound speech-afflicted father, in a gothic performance by Bruce Dern, manages to loose off one complete sentence in the picture, albeit a word longer than Joan Kennedy's: "You'll. Never. Be. Great." Forced through his slack, hanging lips to his last son, there must surely be, for a Kennedy scion, no more damning indictment.

But what if Ted doesn't want to be great? What if he'd just like twenty minutes away from it all sitting on the hood of his Olds parked on the edge of a deserted beach with a girl who seems to feel a connection to him.

Ah, but even then the talk is only of politics and destiny…

What happened is well known: The party to thank the Boiler Room Girls of his late brother's campaign is well lubricated. He leaves with a blonde, and then, instead of turning left for the ferry to Edgartown, he swings right onto a dirt road leading to a deserted beach.

At a wooden bridge with no guard rails Teddy makes his own personal moon shot: the car sails through the air and lands upside down in a dark tidal pond. The guy gets out and makes it to the surface. He leaves the girl down there. All this has been the subject of innumerable books and magazine articles and newspaper columns, but it is shocking to see it, in heartless, prosaic, unsparing, detail.

The sodden Senator walks all the way back to the party, past houses with lights burning, full of people who could have called for help, who themselves could have helped. Instead, he totters on to his fixers, and tells them, self-pityingly, "I'm never going to be president.”

Mary Jo Kopechne is something of a cipher in her own story: She led a short, varied life, but, as played by Kate Mara, she's mainly there to look the part, "the girl". John Curran, directing with unflashy efficiency, nevertheless conjures the horror of her final hours: We see Mary Jo in the car at the bottom of the pond, then Ted back in the inn soaking in the tub; Mary Jo pressed up against the shrinking air pocket, Ted adjusting his tie and combing his hair; Mary Jo sobbing and gasping out her last "Hail, Mary" at the hour of her death, Ted heading down to breakfast with supporters in the hotel dining room - until he's interrupted by Joe Gargan, aghast to discover it's the morning after and that Kennedy still hasn't reported the accident.

And yet Joe too slips reflexively into damage-control mode.

The normal reaction is that of the Chappaquiddick fisherman and his son rounding the bend. The kid is first to spot the upturned Oldsmobile: "Dad!" And the guy tells him to run, run to the nearest house, and the boy pounds the dusty road as fast as he can. But that's why he's a fisherman, not a fixer man. Even before the body's brought up, Mary Jo is fading from the drama: She's no longer a flesh-and-blood human being, no longer "the girl"; she's just a problem, to be fixed - permanently.

Ted returns to Hyannis Port for what he assumes will be a spot of afternoon tea with his dad, but, when the nurse motions him into the sitting room, he discovers a vast army of Camelot courtiers lined up behind the chintz sofa - Ted Sorensen, Sargent Shriver, and pre-eminently Bob McNamara, irresistibly conjured by Clancy Brown and smoothly transferring his talents from the Bay of Pigs to a bay with only one pig.

Joe Kennedy's called in the heavyweights, A-list fixers who despise Ted's fixers as Z-list fixers.

This is a more sophisticated and blackly comic view of the nature of politics than, say, George Clooney's Ides of March. The acidic glamour of power corrodes even Mary Jo's fellow Boiler Room Girls. No sooner are they informed that their friend is dead than one of them steps forward to volunteer: "What can we do to help the Senator?"

The ladies themselves, having kept their silence for half-a-century, are said to deny this version of events, and the words themselves are put in the mouth of a fictional Boiler Roomer created for the movie: "Rachel" (Olivia Thirlby). But, whatever their motivations, the actions of almost everyone in this tale facilitate the replacement of one victim by another: Edward M Kennedy.

The Lion of the Senate according to John McCain

Chappaquiddick is an excellent film that deserves to find an audience. John Curran tells his tale in a matter-of-fact semi-procedural style, punctuated by moments when Teddy seems to be, so to speak, floating dreamily through his own drama: At the height of the crisis, the camera alights on him flying a kite, blank-eyed and beaming and far away from dad's schemes of greatness.

The film's visual language subtly underlines the journey he's on: the Edgartown scenes are bright and airy, all sun-dappled porches and spacious vistas, innocent and optimistic.

Back at Hyannis Port, the sitting room is literally smoke-filled, the airless, darkened corridors and landings have turned their faces from the world, the better to construct an alternative reality and impose it on the actual facts.

In Jason Clarke's performance, Teddy's self-doubt is his most (only?) human quality. But the aim of Joe's fixers is to get the last son to the point where he stops feeling conflicted and unsure, and understands that he's a Kennedy and that that trumps all.

As I wrote way back when:

Ted's the star, and there's no room to namecheck the bit players. What befell him was a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in The Boston Globe:

'Like all figures in history , and like those in the Bible, for that matter‚ Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.’

Actually, Peter denied Jesus, rather than 'betrayed' him, but close enough for Catholic-lite Massachusetts. And if Moses having a temper never led him to leave some gal at the bottom of the Red Sea, well, let's face it, he doesn't have Ted's tremendous legislative legacy, does he?

As I mentioned the other day, that bit turns up in the new movie. Joan Vennochi's words are put in Ted's mouth: He says defensively that all men are flawed - "Moses had a temper, Peter betrayed Jesus." And my cheap riposte - "Moses didn't leave a girl at the bottom of the Red Sea" - is given to the outraged Joe Gargan, already on his way out, supplanted by better, colder, harder fixers. When the guy gets out and leaves the girl at the bottom of the sea, it offends the natural order: Joe is telling him he's not a man.

And Ted barely reacts: The angry words fall off him like water off a Chappaquiddick duck's back. Because human feeling is for humans. And he doesn't have to be a man; he's a Kennedy.

The wrong person died in this car accident.

[NOTE: Mark Steyn is an international bestselling author, a Top 41 recording artist, and a leading Canadian human rights activist. His latest book is "The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don't Say You Weren't Warned"]

2018-04-14T06:30:00.000-04:00

The FreeThinke Owlette

TODAY at the DRUDGE REPORT

Trump orders strikes in Syria...

Claims 'proof' of gas attack...

Blasts in capital...

Syria Launches Counter Attack...

FLASHBACK: All The Times Trump Warned AGAINST Bombing...

Maddow Raises 'Wag the Dog' Possibility...

TODAY at LUCIANNE.COM

Allies Hit Three Facilities to Degrade Syria's
Chemical Weapons Program
(Washington Examiner)

Huge Explosions’ in Damascus as AIRSTRIKES Fall on Syria After Donald Trump’s Announcement

Daily Express [UK]

WHADDAYATHINK?

FreeThinke

Comments to This Post are Now Closed

2018-04-11T05:00:00.000-04:00

When Government-Authorized Thugs Break Into An Aattorney's Office to Impound Confidential Files in an Ongoing Politically-Motivated Investigation

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA

must be declared

OVER and DONE WITH

SILVER FIDDLE Posted the Following

at Always On Watch Yesterday

Donald Trump became the target of a hitjob conspiracy--planned from inside government--at the time of his nomination.

The conspiracy failed, he became president, and now the conspirators had a big mess to clean up.

Slow-rolling appointment approvals was one tactic, but the iron-clad weapon of diabolical brilliance was getting Mr. Magoo and the co-conspirator GOOPers to appoint a Special Prostitutor.

The Special Prostitutor is Comey's BFF and he's staffed up with Hillary voters, but we're supposed to believe he's "beyond reproach."

Besides providing cover for the conspirators, this keeps President Trump tangled up, smothers all good news, and given abusive lawfare prostitutors' proven ability to "indict a ham sandwich," will take down the President and everyone around him.

It is clear: We were not supposed to elect Donald Trump. The Establishment is correcting a voter mistake.

The federal government is shot through with arrogant criminals who think they are above the law, because they are above the law.

We are a nation of men and women, not a nation of laws.

The waters are now permanently poisoned; reason and charity have flown; people will never again believe anything good about their political enemies, suspicion will reign, and all future politicians will be de facto illegitimate in the eyes of the half of voters who opposed them.

The lawyers have made a mockery of the law. It is a sword of Damocles to the powerful: Stay in line, don't defy the cabal, or we will get you.

Donald J. Trump was not supposed to be President--the corrupt cartel that runs this nation is correcting the voters' mistake.

And make no mistake; this also serves as a warning to others outside the political class:

DON’T TRY IT.

We will destroy you. No business person can withstand the legal and personal scrutiny. No one.

The elites pick acceptable candidates for us so we can enjoy our sham elections every four years.

It sickens me to see this happening. See all the rage-filled haters, blood in their eyes, cheering this on? That is our future.

The only consolation is the entire project is fiscally unsustainable and will eventually collapse.

FT’s RESPONSE to SILVER FIDDLE:

An excellent summation, Silver. It deserves to be the centerpiece of a post all its own. I would only have said that it seems most likely that Mr. Trump was a target for this sort of Persecution by "Kangaroo Justice" from the moment he made it clear he was serious about seeking the nomination.

I have to say that I saw all this for what it is from the moment all the obviously-fabricated BILGE about "Collusion with Russia" started to dominate the scene. The unmistakable scent of freshly-laid BS has choked us, and befouled the air ever since.

From the journalistic coup d'etat we call WATERGATE. –– through the spurious, trumped-up fracas over the Iran-Contra Investigation, which was OBVIOUSLY ginned up for the sole purpose of trying to UNSEAT President Reagan, –– through the absurd Carnival-style Pornographic Sideshow of the Moronica Lewinsky Affair leading to B.J. Clinton's Impeachment and Disbarment, but which backfired badly on the GOP, because they refused to CONVICT BJ in the senate –– through the seemingly endless dispute over Hanging Chads, which developed from AL GORE's REFUSAL to CONCEDE the election to George W. Bush, –– to the PRESENT Crisis of Confidence manufactured in a nefarious attempt to GET RID of PRESIDENT TRUMP ––– ALL these unwelcome, unwarranted machinations form a PATTERN:

Those in Permanent Positions of Power (i.e. "The Deep State") now openly bare their fangs and unsheath their claws in a PUBLIC DISPLAY of stubborn UNWLLNGNESS to ACCEPT the RESULTS of an ELECTION followed by a lengthy, often brutal campaign to OVERTURN the RESULTS of that ELECTION by any and all means possible short of an ARMED PALACE COUP –– and who knows when THAT may soon appear in the horizon?

Slowly-but-surely for the past one-hundred years the LEFT in the guise of Progressivism has been chipping away at the CONSTITUTION. If this monstrous coup d'etat against President Trump is allowed to succeed, the minions advocating DICTATORSHIP by an OLIGARCHY of PERMANENTLY ESTABLISHED ELITES–– many of whom may not even be U.S. CITIZENS –– will have established itself as our NEW form of government.

This means the Representative Republic designed by our Founding Fathers will be forever LOST, and We the People will be rendered powerless. We will have lost ALL our RIGHTS, and will become SUBJECTS instead of CITIZENS for the foreseeable future.

2018-04-09T05:00:00.000-04:00

Many here may not know that WHO'S YOUR DADDY? has suspended operations for an indeterminate period of time, because blogowner LISA'S HUSBAND has been stricken with CANCER.

Lisa was kind enough to tell us that, and briefly reopened her blog hoping participants would behave more kindly, politely, and thoughtfully than usual in light

of her present circumstances.

Be kind, for everyone you meet
is fighting a hard battle - Plato

NEEDLESS to SAY HER WISHES were CALLOUSLY DISREGARDED, and so WYD is NOW CLOSED.

WE HOPE YOU WLL TAKE THIS NOTICE as an OPPORTUNITY to TELL LISA HOW SORRY YOU ARE that this HAS HAPPENED, to WISH HER HUSBAND WELL, and, PERHAPS to REFLECT on WHAT SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE CONDUCT in the BLOGSPHERE and ELSEWHERE.

MESSAGE from LISA

just posted at

HER BLOG

Paul is doing well with is treatments. He had a tough first week but is slowly bouncing back. He has 3 more chemo treatments and is finished with radiation which he had to his head and lower back. No more lower back pain and the Dr is hopeful the radiation will eradicate the brain lesions. One more spot on the lung that they are hoping to shrink with the chemo and then eradicate with radiation.

They haven't seen it anywhere else so that's a good thing.

So once he is off the steroids he will feel more normal again. Those steroids have some crappy side effects but are necessary. He also received immune therapy drugs in the chemo IV which is has been successful in the experimental stages. That is a pretty new thing they do now. and another drug that stimulate the bone marrow all to search out and destroy cancer cells.

So far we are doing ok and the other good thing is that his treatments are only 20 minutes away as we live very close to the North Shore Technology Center .

Thank you all for your prayers and good wishes . Please continue to wish us luck as we continue down this unfamiliar territory.