John R. Houk
© December 6, 2017
There is a slew of revelations exposing that Robert Mueller, Team Mueller, Obama Administration and all thing crooked Clinton family becoming available. These revelations are being pooh-poohed by the Dems and the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) as nothing to see here, move along, don’t believe your eyes etc., etc. and etc.
A few examples:
Gregg Jarrett: How an FBI official with a political agenda corrupted both Mueller, Comey investigations – 12/5/17
Massive criminal conspiracy unravels: Hillary Clinton took $145M from Russians to sell out the U.S. uranium supply to America’s enemies (and the FBI knew all along) – 10/18/17
FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow - 10/17/17 06:00 AM EDT
POLITICAL PROSECUTION: Mueller’s Hit Squad Covered For Clinton And Persecutes Trump Associates – 12/6/17 1:09 PM
Mueller deputy praised DOJ official after she defied Trump travel ban order: 'I am so proud – 12/5/17
The question that must be asked: Can the swamp be drained with such Leftist Deep State infiltration embedded in the Government (with the aid of Leftist MSM) be overcome by a President devoted to change the paradigm of Marxist-Socialist propaganda indoctrination of younger Americans?
This is a question to mull over while you decide to uphold America’s Founding Fathers’ paradigm of personal Liberty and a government accountable to WE THE PEOPLE or to keep flowing with Obama’s fundamental transformation of American culture and law to fit a Living Constitution paradigm that enables government elitists (Executive and Judicial Branches) to tell what to believe, think and say. Your decision probably will define America’s future.
Your decision will determine how you feel about this so far mythical speech about President Donald Trump firing Robert Mueller to preserve the United States Constitution.
[The NY Sun post below is excellent but is a bit too erudite for my own good. I am going to assume at least a few of you are in the same position. So when you read a word in bold text followed by an asterisk (*), a very important definition will be below the NY Sun post.]
JRH 12/6/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Private Group: WorldChatNews Email List)
The Mueller Firing Speech
Editorial of The New York Sun
December 5, 2017
Following is the text, drafted by The New York Sun, of remarks it would like to see President Trump deliver:
Good evening: A year ago next month I took the Constitutional Oath that has been sworn by every president since George Washington. It binds me to do two things: To faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It’s an oath I swore before God.
Now I have concluded that, to redeem those two vows, I must dismiss the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, and the officers he has assembled, ostensibly to look into allegations that there may have been collusion between my campaign and the Russian camarilla(*). I have this morning placed the prosecutors’ premises under federal seal, pending a decision by House Judiciary Committee.
From the beginning, I never believed the appointment of such a prosecutor was necessary, or even justified. It was always perfectly within the authority and competence of the Justice Department to investigate and, if due cause were found, prosecute any wrongdoing by any member of my administration — including my daughter and son-in-law.
I acquiesced in the initial work of Mr. Mueller’s office because I believed that I was not a target of the investigation. As Mr. Mueller’s work has unfolded, however, suggestions have been made that his office may be investigating my own conduct. Given that possibility, I believe that the investigation must be halted, and, if it is to be resumed in respect of my own conduct, may be recommenced only by the House.
That is a constitutional bright line. My opponent in the recent campaign brought before her nominating convention the Gold Star father Khizr Khan to ask whether I had even read the Constitution. The answer is yes. I would not hold myself out as a constitutional scholar. I know, though, that it is only the House of Representatives that can investigate a sitting president for crimes and misdemeanors.
That is a provision of the same Constitution that I have sworn an oath to preserve protect and defend. That oath, incidentally, is different from the requirement of the members of Congress and the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Constitutions requires them to swear only to support the Constitution. Only the president is required by the Constitution to swear to preserve, protect, and defend our national parchment.
I had barely sworn that oath when it became apparent to me that the Constitution needs protecting — and not just from our external foes but also from those who would seek to subvert it by refusing to accept the results of the election that Vice President Pence and I won. This quickly became apparent to me after the vote by a campaign of leaks of the most sensitive conversations I was conducting.
And by the emergence of what its adherents are fain(**) to call a “resistance” against the decision of the voters. We have just learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s office itself have been infected by political sentiments and colluded to keep from the Congress knowledge of the political sentiments against me being expressed by a senior FBI figure in the investigation.
This is a shocking development. It was exposed not by the Republican press but by the Washington Post and the New York Times. They reported over the weekend that the special prosecutor had kept from House investigators the discovery that a senior investigator in the special prosecutor’s office was demoted for sending anti-Trump messages to a mistress.
I commend to you the editorial in the nation’s most trusted newspaper. Not only did the special prosecutor withhold evidence of that from Congress but he did so despite a subpoena that could have led to the disclosure of this perfidy. That is obstruction of Congress, a prosecutable offense. So I have decided to uphold my oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Effective immediately, the special prosecutor and his subordinates are relieved of their duties and trusts under the United States. I have instructed federal officers to secure their premises pending any subpoena from the House, which is the body that is constitutionally authorized to investigate — and decide whether to impeach — the president. This administration will play no games with the House.
Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States requires, inter alia(***), preserving, and protecting each branch of its government, including the presidency. I have learned much in the past year, but nothing more clearly than how important it is to protect the office I hold. This means — under what the courts call the “rule of necessity” — that I have a responsibility to act even when it is awkward.
Our country is on the brink of war in Korea, and being maneuvered against by determined enemies on every continent. These challenges may be no more pressing than the workaday assignment to rebuild our economy. All, though, are pressing. Which is why our Founding Fathers decided against dividing the executive powers among a committee or splitting them with a special counsel. They chose instead to vest them in a single president — a principle that, to the best of my ability, I am preserving, protecting, and defending today to make America and its Constitution great again.
MACMILLAN DICTIONARY - a group of advisers, usually a secret group who are involved in a plot
Wordnik.com - from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
n. A group of confidential, often scheming advisers; a cabal.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
n. A secret, usually sinister, group of conspiring advisors close to the leadership; a cabal
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
n. The private audience chamber of a king.
n. A company of secret and irresponsible advisers, as of a king; a cabal or clique.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
n. A company of secret counselors or advisers; a cabal; a clique.
n. Synonyms Faction, Junto, etc. See cabal.
n. A small chamber or cell, as in the brain.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
n. a clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue
1 archaic: happy, pleased
2 archaic: inclined, desirous
3 a: willing
§ he was very fain, for the young widow was "altogether fair and lovely … " —Amy Kelly
b: being obliged or constrained: compelled
§ Great Britain was fain to devote its whole energy … to the business of slaying and being slain —G. M. Trevelyan
Law.com - (in-tur eh-lee-ah) prep. Latin for "among other things." This phrase is often found in legal pleadings and writings to specify one example out of many possibilities. Example: "The judge said, inter alia, that the time to file the action had passed."
Preserve American Experiment – FIRE Mueller
John R. Houk
© December 6, 2017
The Mueller Firing Speech
© 2002-2017 TWO SL LLC, New York, NY. All rights reserved.