Justin Smith sums up Robert Mueller’s decrepit testimony
indicating law-breaking conspiracies perpetrated by Dem comrades against
President Donald Trump.
The July 24th 2019 testimony of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, before Congress, only further illuminated the fact that charges
against President Trump of "Russian collusion" were nothing less that
part of the Stop Trump Project initiated by President Obama
and Hillary Clinton, who had their
myrmidons, such as James Comey, James Clapper and John Brennan,
orchestrate and enact it through the FBI, CIA, DOJ and the Democratic Party
National Committee and the presstitutes of the various
mainstream media outlets that screamed "RussiaGate" and
"impeachment" at the top of their lungs. Furthermore, the six hours
of excruciatingly painful testimony made it clear that this two yearlong
"investigation" was just one more part of a public playing-out of
dark schemes intent on aiding the traitorous coup d’état attempted against
President Trump.
Most of Mueller's perfidious testimony came straight from
his 450 page great tome, which asserted the Russian government interfered in
"a sweeping and systematic fashion" to influence the 2016 election,
despite the fact that it contains absolutely zero evidence to support the claim.
This was even noted by a greatly annoyed U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in
her May 28th 2019 ruling, as she threatened Mueller and his team of
lawyers with sanctions if they persisted with public statements asserting
"Russian collusion" by the Internet Research Agency and its parent
company Concord Management, owned by Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, after the discovery process in this case
showed Mueller had no evidence.
In other words, Mueller presented a false indictment before
a federal court. If that's not a felony, it should be.
Robert Mueller folded on collusion and conspiracy before
moving into the absurd on obstruction and volume two of his report, that read
like a legal Chinese finger-trap. Mueller's "not exonerating" Trump
inverted "innocent until proven guilty" into "guilty until
proven innocent" and demonstrated the Special Counsel's extremely palpable
political prejudice.
Certainly all intellectually honest Americans can see that
Mueller's aspersion aimed at President Trump, suggesting Trump "might have
obstructed justice", lacks any evidence to support such a charge. Honest Americans will note just how corrupt
American law has become when it is possible to obstruct justice in the absence
of a crime, according to fools such as Mueller and his team of Hillary
Democrat lawyers. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]
Also, the subsequent release of 'The Largest Publication of
Confidential CIA Documents Ever', information recovered in the DNC hack,
revealed the UMBRAGE program. [Blog Editor: Of interest WND
article] This was a top-secret program that gave American
intelligence agencies the ability to mimic internet hacks from other countries,
including Russia. Yet, none of this was revealed in
the Mueller Report. Why?
One glaring omission during the Congressional hearing, not
one Congressman asked Mueller why U.S. computer forensic experts were never sent to seize the DNC servers.
This was only one of many such omissions.
Questioning by Republicans revealed that Mueller's Report
amounted to nothing less than political opposition research on behalf of the
Democratic Party and a concerted effort to gaslight America by way of its
bizarre and Orwellian deceptions, and Mueller could not have possibly run this
investigation, much less been briefed on it. Mueller had apparently never heard of
Fusion GPS[Blog Editor: Meaning
Mueller is an incompetent idiot or an inveterate liar --Either way it discredits Mueller Report as a
legal investigation] and the other useful idiots who delivered the whole
shebang's predicate documents in the Steele Dossier simultaneously to the FBI,
The Washington Post and The New York Times, beginning in 2016. Mueller's
testimony on July 24th gives new meaning to the term "useful
idiot".
Chris Stewart (R-Utah) asked Mueller why his team of angry
Democrats always leaked information detrimental to President Trump but never
leaked one single item that placed the President in a positive light. Other
Republicans questioned the extra-special "kid-glove" treatment
Mueller's team gave Hillary's "Dirty Dossier".
After Mueller's fumbling, bumbling testimony destroyed the
basis of the Democrat's sacred narrative, it was a curious thing to see Rep.
Jerold Nadler blubbering to Anderson Cooper on CNN about the supposed imminent
Russian takeover of America, as he continued on his fool's errand of
impeachment, which will only serve to further expose the criminal culpability
of the Democratic Party in this entire goddamned treasonous misadventure
against this America I love so well. And painful looks aside, it speaks volumes
that Cooper didn't once challenge any of Nadler's mendacious pratings.
Anyone remotely paying attention understands that the Steele
"Russian" Dossier on President Trump was financed by Hillary Clinton
and the DNC, and it was used to obtain the illegal FISA warrants to spy on
Trump's campaign and Carter Page, in order to find political dirt to prevent
Trump from winning the presidency. And then these FISA warrants were illegally
used to undermine President Trump's presidency.
Anyone paying attention now understands unequivocally that
this two year inquisition was run by
attorneys Andrew Weissmann and Jeannie Rhee,
two arch Hillary Clinton partisans, leading to the conclusion that Mueller was
merely a senile figurehead [Senator
Graham, Rush
Limbaugh & James
Clapper] for the investigation and the investigation itself was no
less a Clinton operation than the Steele Dossier. No one should be surprised if
it is later found that Hillary Clinton was in regular communication with
Weissmann and Rhee, either directly or through intermediaries, during the
course of the investigation.
Surely U.S Attorney General William Barr and his lead
investigator John Durham are acting as we speak to discover exactly who was in
contact with the Mueller team, and this must include the seizure of the Mueller
team's phone records to see who was in contact with them. They are already
reviewing everything that transpired from Comey's warped
"investigation" of the Clinton Email Security Breach to the present
coup d'état attempt against President Trump by the Deep State. A seditious conspiracy
of this size and scope demands the most severe punishments and grave
consequences for all involved.
President Trump must use the initiative in his hands to
prevent the Deep State and media whores from ever again attempting a coup
against our government, and good and decent Americans must not allow this
colossal damned mess to die in the fretful silence of the media whores, as
RussiaGate is now totally discredited and the momentum of history shifts
against the perpetrators of it. It is absolutely imperative that President
Trump moves the official, elected government back in full charge, by bringing
the full weight of American justice to bear against the conspirators and
indicting the rogues and traitors and their accomplices, including Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton, and making heads roll, in order to prevent the executive
branch, legislature and judiciary from becoming stage props for the Deep State.
President Trump must see the traitorous culprits brought to justice.
By Justin O. Smith
_____________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Text embraced by brackets and all source links are by the
Editor.
In my email alert today from the Clarion Project I discovered a petition to support the
Cruz/Cassidy Resolution. To be honest the Clarion
Project might be making an effort to collect email subscribers; however
imagine what the Clarion Project
might do if the petition response is immense.
I signed it!
Below is the cross post of the Clarion Project asking you to support the petition. OR if you are pinched
for time, you can go HEREto directly add your name.
Antifa members burn an American flag at a protest in
Washington, D.C. in August 2019 (Photo:
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
President Trump tweeted over the weekend that he is
considering designating Antifa as a terror organization.
Consideration is being given to
declaring ANTIFA, the gutless Radical Left Wack Jobs who go around hitting
(only non-fighters) people over the heads with baseball bats, a major
Organization of Terror (along with MS-13 & others). Would make it
easier for police to do their job!
Trump’s tweet comes on the heels of a resolution
proposed on July 19, 2019 Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy to designate
Antifa a terrorist group.
“Antifa is a terrorist organization composed of hateful,
intolerant radicals who pursue their extreme agenda through aggressive
violence,” Cruz said.
As noted by the president, Antifa is a radical Leftist group
known for using violence to propel their agenda. Most recently, they targeted
and attacked conservative journalist Any Ngo — among others — at a demonstration in
Portland, Oregon, sending Ngo to the hospital with a brain bleed.
The violent group also bashed heads of other
conservative demonstrators, including two elderly men who were severely hurt by
Antifa members.
Antifa has a history of using violence against those who
disagree with them. They previously commandeered streets in downtown Portland
while the police were given orders to stand down,
a decision supported by the mayor. At one point, activists chased down a
74-year old man after protesters pounded on his car and broke a window. A woman
in a wheelchair was verbally harassed.
At another demonstration, Antifa was even more violent [Blog
Editor: The below Clarion quote is from a Tweet removed by Twitter or its
author]:
Portland Antifa beats an elderly man bloody with a crowbar. As another man
attempts to help, he is hit in head with crowbar then sprayed in face with
mace.
Antifa was also responsible for the 2017 violent demonstration and
subsequent riots in
Berkeley. Its members were reacting to conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos
being invited to speak on campus. During the riots, Antifa members smashed the windows of
a Marine Corps recruiting office after sucker-punching someone who voiced
opposition to them.
Sign Our Petition to Designate Antifa as a Terror
Organization
The Clarion Project(formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit
organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the
growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human
rights for all peoples.
Clarion Project is a non-profit organization that
educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam.
Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than
125-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder,
subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution,
genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation
and cultural jihad— to threaten the West.
The ClarionProject.org web site delivers news, expert
analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a
platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against
extremism.
Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve
its goals.
Clarion Project is a registered 501(c)(3) organization
based in Washington, D.C.
One of my favorite WordPress blogs is Ares and Athena (let’s
abbreviate that as A & A). A & A often does the same thing I do in
cross posting from others subject matter that I find interesting.
A & A picked up a fascinating perspective from RedState blogger streiff.
To be honest I’m not exactly a frequent flyer at RedState, so I’m unfamiliar
about streiff writing. So I attempted to find something about the person.
I quickly realized that streiff is a pseudonym. I have no
idea if streiff is male or female. I discovered that streiff is a pro-Trump
blogger of some notoriety at RedState
and seems to have been a part of the controversy of a RedState purge of pro-Trump bloggers but has managed to find his/her
way back to RedState. If you are
unaware of the RedState firing of
bloggers, I’ll let you research the controversy because I really don’t care. As
I said, I’m not a RedState frequent flyer.
HOWEVER, this streiff post picked up by A & A does
disseminate a perspective on the Deep State coup attempt against President
Trump that more people should be aware of to note the tactics probably will
continue by other means.
Streiff builds his narrative by sharing some facts that I’ll
let you read in the cross post, but here is an excerpt of the streiff wants you
to grasp:
One could speculate that it was
more than a soft coup against Trump. If all the reports we’ve received are
correct, this resembles more of a decapitation strike aimed at taking out all
resistance to the Democrat party. If the Republican President, the NRA, and
other conservative groups can be alleged to have all been under the influence
of a foreign power, albeit a Third World kleptocracy with an GDP smaller than
New York State, then the entire opposition to the Democrats is discredited for
years to come. The reason I don’t find this far fetched is that four years ago
I would never have believed that the FBI and CIA would have interjected
themselves into a presidential election on the side of one of the candidates
and I never would have believed the UN Ambassador would be unmasking the
personal communications of American citizens at the rate of one per work day.
If that is the case, then a lot
of very powerful people need to be sharing a cell with… BE TANTALIZED AND READ THE CROSS POST.
Ares and Athena introduced the
streiff post with this (posted today 7/28/19):
Trump’s election threw
a huge roadblock on the highway to dystopia. Thus, a desperate
elitist/leftist attempt ensued to paint all opposition, especially Trump, as
Russian lackeys via false accusations and naked propaganda.
If they were successful, his
election would be invalidated. Thus, the festivities of the politically and
morally corrupt DC machine and their selling out of America for their own
gain could continue.
The following article reveals
some interesting information regarding one aspect of the plan and its
implication.
One of the saddest episodes to emerge from the anti-Russia
hysteria the Democrats and NeverTrump weenies managed to generate after the
2016 election is the case of Maria Butina. (You can chant “Russia is not our
friend” under your breath to create the correct ambiance.) Butina, a member of
a nascent Russian gun rights movement, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for
failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. She was never
accused of being an intelligence agent. She is in prison for doing what Tony
Podesta did for years and got White House invitations. Butina’s misfortune was
to be Russian and to be interested in working with the NRA. Because the NRA
supports Republicans, this became a convenient tool to claim the NRA was a
Russian influenced organization…a charge that was actually made on this very
site…and therefore illegitimate.
Yesterday, a pretty amazing thing happened. According to anexclusive
report by Sara Carter (who seems to be one of the very few
political journalists, liberal or conservative, not using Jake Tapper’s Twitter
timeline for story ideas) the FBI aimed an informant at Butina with orders to
begin a sexual relationship with her and then lied to Butina’s defense team
about the informant and what the informant said about her intent because his
reports undermined the government’s case.
This is the set up:
[Overstock.com CEO Patrick] Byrne
was a keynote speaker on July, 8, 2015 at Freedom Fest, a yearly Libertarian
gathering that hosts top speakers in Las Vegas. Shortly after his address,
Butina approached him. She was flattering and repeatedly told him she was a fan
of his, saying she was a graduate student that had studied the famous
libertarian Militon [sic] Friedman.
He spoke to her shortly and
“brushed her off.”
The young redheaded Russian
graduate student then approached him again over the course of the conference
and explained that she worked for the Vice Chairman of the Central Bank of
Russia and sent by them to make contact with Byrne.
She also said “did you know you’re
a famous man in Russia, we watch videos about you and your relationship with
Milton Freeman.”
She said she was appointed to lead
Russia’s gun right’s group by Lieutenant-General Mikhail Kalashnikov, who was a
Russian general, most notably known for his AK-47 machine gun design. The
designation by Kalashnikov is considered a huge honor and Byrne then had an
“extensive conversation about Russian history and I understood her designation
about Kalishnikov was significant.”
She wanted to invite Byrne to
Russia to speak at the Central Bank before dignitaries. The speaking engagement
would be at a major resort for three days. Butina told Byrne the event would
offer him the opportunity to meet senior Russian officials and oligarchs. He
didn’t accept the offer because of his security clearance. He then reported
Butina and her offer to the FBI.
Byrne was a little suspicious of everything because Butina
confided that she was afraid she was being monitored and thought it would be
best if they disguised their meetings as a romantic relationship. He also
reported it because Byrne was a part-time FBI informant.
When he contacted the FBI and then
subsequently for the next few months “instead what I got was vague instructions
that it would be ok to get to know her better.”
He said there was very little
response from the FBI after his initial contact, until Butina asked him to come
meet her in New York City. He told the FBI he didn’t want any vague
instructions on whether to meet Butina or not because “I didn’t want my
security clearance to get pulled.”
At that point the FBI gave him an
explicit “green light” to meet with her. He rented a hotel room with two
bedrooms because he was under the impression that the romantic texts were
simply her way to cover for communicating with him. However, she arrived at the
hotel beforehand, occupied the room before Byrne’s arrival, and when he
arrived, she made clear that her flirtatious texts were not simply a disguise.
Byrne said that the FBI agents made
clear they were skeptical that Butina might be of interest, dismissing her as
simply a normal 26 year old Russian graduate student. Over time, Byrne and
Butina developed an intimate relationship but at the same time he alleges he
was continuously reporting on Butina to the FBI in an effort to convince them
that it might be worthwhile to introduce her to some of his contacts at the
Council on Foreign Relations. He also noted he reported to the FBI his
interactions more frequently with Butina starting in December, 2015, both out
of a desire not to lose the possibility of something good coming from this
encounter, but also, because Butina was starting to speak more frequently of
meeting with big shots in Republican circles.
Ultimately, Byrne became convinced that Butina was basically
a very enthusiastic person doing exactly what she claimed to be doing: trying
to build linkages between this Russian gun rights group and the NRA and
conservative groups in the US and that she was not acting on behalf of the
Russian government.
After her arrest, her lawyer made a demand for so-called
“Brady” material and the FBI told them there was none. The FBI lying to sandbag
a defense attorney…can you see my shocked face?
But this is the interesting part:
Oddly, Byrne’s name was not
disclosed by prosecutors in the case or by the FBI. And despite the
government’s earlier efforts to paint Butina as a Russian spy attempting to
infiltrate Republican circles she was never investigated by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller’s probe, which charged 25 Russian agents with interfering in the
U.S. election. Further, the FBI, unlike convicted Russian bombshell spy
Anna Chapman, did nothing to stop Butina from meeting with high
level Republican and conservative figures. The bureau also didn’t warn those
conservative figures she had made contact with, even though they had her
under surveillance and allegedly Byrne had been reporting on her during that
time. As noted in a column by
The Hill’s John Solomon Chapman’s actions were handled differently than Butina.
When one of Chapman’s associates, who went by the name of Cynthia Murphy,
made contact with Alan Patricof, a major Democratic donor close to Hillary Clinton, the FBI acted swiftly to
arrest the entire cell.
[Butina attorney Robert] Driscoll
said there was suspicion that the FBI did not disclose all the information it
had on Butina and he stated that he believed “Patrick is not the only one” who
was giving information to the FBI.
Why does this matter?
We’re seeing a pattern. When the FBI suspected that Carter
Page was possibly compromised by the Russians, instead of following normal
procedure and giving then-candidate Trump a defensive briefing and the
opportunity to remove Page from the campaign, what did the FBI do? Nothing. We
know they did that service for John McCain in 2008 and why they elected not to
in 2015-16 is a question that needs to be answered. If Page had been fired from
the Trump campaign in 2015 much of what happened since then would not have
taken place.
Earlier this week the attorney for Joseph Mifsud intimated
that his client, the guy who allegedly kicked off “Crossfire Hurricane” by
telling George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton, worked for
western intelligence agencies. Bolstering this is the fact that Robert Mueller
never claims that Mifsud was working for the Russian government and Mueller
never charged Mifsud with lying to the FBI in interviews despite the fact that
he did (see Jim Jordan Fillets
Mueller On Joseph Mifsud Not Being Charged, Exposes Serious Credibility Issues
With The Probe).
And so the push by John Durham to interview Joseph Mifsud
and rumors that extensive exculpatory information existed on Page and
Papadopoulos that would have put their activities in a different light brings
new significance.
Back to Byrne. Why did he come forward?
Byrne’s decision to come forward
didn’t come lightly. However, he said it was necessary after watching what had
transpired between the FBI, the intelligence community and the probe into
President Trump’s campaign over the past several years.
“It was something I knew I had to
do,” he told this reporter. “Those running the operation were not honest and in
the end I realized I was being used in some sort of soft coup.”
One could speculate that it was more than a soft coup
against Trump. If all the reports we’ve received are correct, this resembles
more of a decapitation strike aimed at taking out all resistance to the
Democrat party. If the Republican President, the NRA, and other conservative
groups can be alleged to have all been under the influence of a foreign power,
albeit a Third World kleptocracy with an GDP smaller than New York State, then
the entire opposition to the Democrats is discredited for years to come. The
reason I don’t find this far fetched is that four years ago I would never have
believed that the FBI and CIA would have interjected themselves into a
presidential election on the side of one of the candidates and I never would
have believed the UN Ambassador would be unmasking the personal communications
of American citizens at the rate of one per work day.
If that is the case, then a lot of very powerful people need
to be sharing a cell with Tiny the White Supremacist Biker and their
organizations need to be burned to the ground. If it isn’t a global conspiracy
and just a series of events carried out by politically motivated law
enforcement and intelligence agents, they need to do hard time and everyone
associated with them reduced to penury.
I have to be honest. Working with the reality of numbers
often hurts my brain. I’m not good at. Justin Smith seems to have a great grasp
of number realities when it comes to deficit spending, the National Debt, Gross
Domestic Product and the need of a Balanced Budget.
Justin is displeased with the results of the Trump
Administration/Pelosi budget agreement and urges a Presidential veto. No matter
how much the numbers are painful, the inevitable result will be catastrophic if
this Federal accounting disparities continue.
However, the realities of America’s political divide
demonstrated by near even splits of opposing ideologies in Congress means
neither the Socialists nor the fiscal Conservatives will get what they want.
Perhaps an idiotic budget compromise keeps the government operating rather than
frozen. EVEN THOUGH it’s doom and gloom, if
voters DO NOT opt soon for fiscal responsibility a national catastrophe will
occur.
Trump’s hands are tied by political realities, if voters
want a different outcome untie divisive politics – OR ELSE.
A coward's financial agreement is the phrase that best
describes the budget deal recently agreed
upon by President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that just passed the House
with a vote of 284 to 149 at 2:14 CST on July 25th, since it avoids any real
battle over government spending by suspending the debt ceiling until July 2021.
It raises spending caps and lifts the debt ceiling in the name of avoiding a
fiscal crisis, but in reality and ignoring any lessons from 2008, this explodes
U.S. debt in a way never seen in U.S. history, and it exhibits President
Trump's willingness to meekly surrender to another massive expansion of the
federal budget, that creates a short term political "win" for the DC
Establishment of both parties and a long term loss for the American
people.
This deal received 65 Republican votes, and it spends $2.7
trillion over the next two years. It commits President Trump to signing
spending bills that add $320 billion above spending limits set in a 2011
agreement that established automatic spending cuts. This Pelosi Dream Deal also
says there will be absolutely no limit on how much new debt the federal government
can accumulate between now and July 31rst 2021.
The Washington Post was absolutely
correct, when it recently wrote that the budget and debt deal would not contain
actual spending cuts, since the $150 billion in new spending cuts demanded by
White House budget director Russell Vought soon materialized as only [about] 70 billion in actual cuts, that
don't go in effect for ten years and are likely to be reversed by Congress at a
later date. This marks a retreat for the White House.
Reported by the Wall Street Journal, Maya MacGuineas,
president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, stated on July
22nd: "This deal would amount to nothing short of fiscal sabotage." [Blog Editor: I found quote at USA
Today]
And yet, rather than debate the most serious issue of the
day and seek real solutions, the cowards of both parties hid behind
"bipartisanship", in an erroneous, corrupt and wrong-minded fashion,
and cooperated to serve their own personal political interests, as DC's
supposed "elite" elected class.
Incredibly, the federal government spent $3,355,970,000,000,
in the first nine months of this fiscal year, while running a $747,115,000,000 deficit.
President Trump's Treasury is currently issuing U.S. dollars faster than it did
in fiscal 2009 -- even when adjusted for inflation -- when President Bush
signed the bailout legislation for failing banks and President Obama signed a
Stimulus bill focused on ending our economic recession.
Noted by The Hill, grave concerns on the
economy were expressed by the Congressional Budget Office on July 23rd[Blog Editor: I could not confirm a
7/23/19 date, the links in thos paragraph relate to a 6/25/19 date], and
the CBO wrote in its budget projection that U.S debt is on
track to increase from 78 percent of the GDP to an "unsustainable" level of
144 percent of the GDP over the next thirty years, even if spending caps aren't
lifted and taxes are raised. Now, with the passage of this bill, we are on track
to see the debt rise to 219 percent of the GDP, unless President Trump can be
persuaded to send the bill back with a demand that more actual spending cuts
must be made.
Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) was upset with President
Trump for negotiating through Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, rather than
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. As reported by the
Wall Street Journal, Roy exclaimed, "The president
should be listening to (White House Chief of Staff) Mick Mulvaney and Russ Vought,
and he should not be listening to Steven Mnuchin, period." Roy added that
"Senate Republicans will never find a corner where they can go and
hide", implying that Senate Republicans are untrustworthy regarding fiscal
responsibility.
Once consumed by fiscal worries, this coward's agreement is
one more sign that makes it more than clear, both houses of Congress and both
the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have become Big Spenders, and
Congress is no longer concerned about the extent of the budget deficits or the
debt they add. The DC Establishment no longer cares, even as our national debt
hits one trillion annually and rapidly approaches $23 trillion.
According to the Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently stated: "Nobody has lost
an election by spending too much money", in regard to Chief of Staff Mick
Mulvaney's effort to pay for the spending deal.
After the last massive spending deal, President Trump vowed
never to sign another one. And yet, here he is again, at the ready and far too
willing. He just keeps confirming to the American people that he really is a
Big Government Guy and a Big Spender.
Today, America barely hears any objections over the
exorbitant debt. When Trump campaigned in 2016, he bragged about his ability to
prosper from his own debt. He told CNN, on May 4th 2016:
"I'm the king of debt. I love debt." ... adding the next day ...
"if the economy crashed, you could make a deal ... if the economy was
good, it was good ... you can't lose."
But that's not just the reality of matters for most
Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, and it is just not smart for anyone or
any nation to accumulate debt; at some point another bubble will burst in our
economy, since Wall Street hasn't stopped any of the bad business practices
that caused the 2008 crisis. And, an economic collapse of 2008 magnitude will
pale in comparison to the coming economic catastrophe that deals such as this
one are sure to create. Most of our national debt has been monetized, and any
bailout for the American people will be virtually non-existent.
Niall Ferguson, senior fellow at Stanford University's
Hoover Institute, has warned that empires fall
when interest on their debt equals what they spend on defense. According to the
Office of Management and Budget, this will happen around 2024. If interest
rates increase, it could arrive much sooner.
Unfortunately, America is currently a nation focused on
instant gratification, selfishness and greed, and seems oblivious to the
dangerous path it is on. Whether or not the nation can afford all the current
government benefits, plus the desired additional costs of free university
educations and free healthcare for all, and even though our credit card is
maxed out, Americans seem intent on voting for politicians who promise to
borrow money to give them what they want.
Everyone would do well to recall that in Psalm 37:21 it says, "The
wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and
giveth."
Noting that Congress's out-of-control spending "is
ripping off the American family", former Congressman Dave Brat recently delivered the following
observation to Tony Perkins at Washington Watch, as he looked
across the Atlantic: "There's evidence you can be pathetic for a long
time. And the evidence is called Europe. ... eventually ... debt will impinge
on your economic growth rate as it has been. And what's really missed in the
point is it's intergenerational theft. And I mean that quite literally. We are
stealing from our kids and the next generation to the extent that our deficit
is $1 trillion. We're spending $1 trillion and getting the goods from it right
now -- and the kids are going to have to pay for [everything] we're consuming.
And so it is literally theft. So they're going to have to work hard, pay their
taxes, get tax increases, pay off the debt, and pay all their own personal
bills for our runaway spending binge."
America has embraced reckless spending and She doesn't even
pretend to repay what She owes. She incurs more debt daily at an unprecedented
rate and most of Her current leaders do not acknowledge that this is even a
problem. And so, if our leaders have one shred of human decency and honesty, of
a personal or intellectual kind, rather than pander for votes, their bipartisan
action should warrant a majority of both parties to end this deal and move
forward on a deal that truly cuts all unnecessary spending, or President Trump
must reconsider this deal and veto it, rather than continue on a path that
watches our deficit soar and attacks our nation's solvency and the future
prosperity of America.
By Justin O. Smith
______________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the
Editor.
I watched Mueller’s entire testimony before two House
Committees Chaired by reprehensible Dems. The Dems pushed an Obstruction of
Justice theme committed by President Trump with Mueller – often cryptically –
agreeing Dem assertions. BUT as much as President Trump wanted to interfere in
Mueller’s witch hunt, the relevant Aids involved essentially did their jobs in
protecting the President from bad judgment calls but not doing the errors.
Which means as much as the President wanted to meddle in Mueller’s
investigation NOTHING obstructive HAPPENED relating to Trump’s righteous
indignation of being falsely accused of working with Russians to win the 2016
Election.
The Dems persisted though. As far as the Dems on the
Committees were concerned, thinking about interfering when you know you are
innocent is an obstruction crime. Going after the President for thought crimes
smacks of Orwell/Huxley inventing crimes to fulfill the agenda of an all-powerful
State. A Big Brother scenario updated to today’s DEEP STATE.
The Republicans on both Committees kept asking questions
essentially pointing to Russian interference BUT with the Dems and Crooked
Hillary paying a foreigner getting disinformation from Russia as if it were
facts. In ALL cases Mueller’s answer was not his purview or not getting into
that. Hmm… The Mueller Mandate from Rod Rosenstein ORDER
NO. 3915-2017 dated 5/17/17:
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED
MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in
me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge
my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice,
and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a)Robert
S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department
of Justice.
(b)The Special
Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI
Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
i.any links and/or
coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the
campaign of President Donald Trump; and
ii.any matters
that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
iii.any other matters
within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c)If the Special
Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized
to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d)Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the
Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
Once Mueller
determined that President Trump did not conspire with Russians to win the 2016
election, Mueller should have moved on to (b) ii. Which states “any matters
that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.
It is evident Mueller
chose to pursue any crime by people who has any association with Donald Trump
before the President’s election even if the crime had NOTHING TO DO with
Russian interference in the 2016 Election. If Mueller was actually
investigating Russian interference HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED into the Dem Campaign
managed by Crooked Hillary Clinton paying money to a foreign agent in
Christopher Steele acquiring Russian disinformation for the purpose of insuring
Crooked Hillary’s election as President.
Instead Mueller
utilized false Russian information to remove a duly elected President Donald J.
Trump from Office. NOW THAT HAS TO BE A CRIME of conspiracy committed by Robert
Mueller and his team of Clinton Donors/Supporters angry Democrat prosecutors.
Now below are some observations
from Conservative sources (Dems are unreliable) on the Robert Mueller House
testimony. All of the GOP Committee members did a great job demonstrating
Mueller bias and witch hunt agenda, but I begin with Rep. Jim Jordan pointing
out the obvious. Then I follow the Jordan/Mueller interchange with a quite
humorous The
United West parody of the same interchange.
Then after the video fun,
read further criticism of Mueller’s from Fred Lucas and Ann Coulter.
Rep. Jim Jordan,
R-Ohio, questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his July 24
testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about how the investigation
began. Mueller said in his opening statement that he could not address those questions.
Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016
election and possible ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign, agreed to
appear before Congress, but warned he would not go beyond what was already
documented in his final report.
Former special counsel
Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald
Trump and Russia before two House committees.
“It is not a witch
hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
He was referring to
his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored report released
in May to the public.
But many of Mueller’s
responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my
purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”
He also asked
constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.
Democrats on the
Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump
wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.
Democrats on the
intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping
Trump.
But neither of these
points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor
his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the
presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct
regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.
Intelligence Chairman
Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference
was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”
“True,” Mueller said.
Trump repeatedly has
called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow
“a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.
Here are eight key
takeaways from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.
1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ
on Exoneration
With regard to
obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly,
while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it
also does not exonerate him”
Rep. John Ratcliffe,
R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI director, when the Department of
Justice ever had had the role of “exonerating” an individual.
“Which DOJ policy or
principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not
exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively
determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director?
Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”
Mueller appeared not
to be clear about the question.
“Let me make it
easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example
other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an
investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”
Mueller responded: “I
cannot, but this is a unique situation.”
Ratcliffe followed up
by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until
proven guilty.
“You can’t find it
because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:
The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to
conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel
report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.
It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order.
It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of
Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not
in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together,
because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively
determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.
Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of
innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including
sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors
never, ever need to conclusively determine it.
“Donald Trump is not
above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.
“You wrote 180 pages
about decisions that weren’t reached,” Ratcliffe said, referring to the second
volume of the Mueller report, devoted to evidence of obstruction of justice.
Judiciary Chairman
Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pushed the point in his opening question after Mueller
was sworn in, saying the report specifically did not exonerate Trump of
obstruction of justice.
“Did you actually
‘totally exonerate’ the president?” Nadler asked at the beginning of the
hearing, quoting Trump.
“No,” Mueller
responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated
for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
Regarding obstruction,
ranking Judiciary member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked: “At any time in the
investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”
Mueller responded:
“No.”
Later, to drive the
point of a lack of obstruction further, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked:
“Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?”
Mueller began by
saying, “Not that I … ” then answered more directly: “No.”
Later that afternoon
during the intelligence committee hearing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked
about exoneration.
Mueller initially
said, “I’m going to pass on that.”
When pressed on the
question, Mueller said, “Because it embroils us in a legal discussion and I’m
not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.”
Turner noted that the
headline from Mueller’s morning testimony was that he did not exonerate Trump.
“You have no more
power to declare Trump exonerated than you do to declare him Anderson Cooper,”
Turner said, referring to the CNN personality.
2. Indicting a
President
Nadler, the Judiciary
chairman, asserted: “Any other person who acted in this way would have been
charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the
law.”
Other Democrats said
much the same during the day.
At first, during the
morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee, it appeared that Mueller
was contradicting Attorney General William Barr.
That impression was
left hanging for well over an hour before he clarified the issue at the outset
of the Intelligence hearing.
The Justice
Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued two legal opinions, most recently in 2000, stating
that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The second one reaffirmed a 1973 opinion at the height of the Watergate scandal.
Barr has stated on
multiple occasions that those official opinions were not the sole reason that
Mueller decided against seeking a grand jury indictment of Trump for
obstruction of justice. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein later decided the evidence was insufficient to make a case.
During the Judiciary
hearing, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked: “Could you charge the president with a
crime after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
Buck: “You believe
that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of
justice after he left office?”
Mueller: “Yes.”
Later in the hearing,
Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., followed up, citing the Office of Legal Counsel
opinions to determine whether Trump’s being president is the only reason he
wasn’t indicted.
“The reason, again,
that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [an] OLC opinion stating
that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?”
Mueller: “That is
correct.”
It wasn’t clear
whether Mueller was talking about indicting Trump, or speaking about legal
theory behind indicting any president under existing Justice Department policy.
Mueller tried to
clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing,
referring to what he had told Lieu.
“That is not the
correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We
did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
3. ‘Collusion’ and
‘Conspiracy’
The first part of the
Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and
the Russian government, which meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Collusion is not a
specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is,”
Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said. “In the
colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms,
correct?”
Mueller’s initial
answer was “No.”
Collins then referred
to page 180 in Volume 1 of the Mueller report, which states the two words are
“largely synonymous.”
“Now, you said you
chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?”
Collins asked.
“Not when I read it,”
Mueller responded.
“So, you would change
your answer to yes, then?” Collins asked.
“No,” Mueller said,
seeming somewhat unclear.
“I’m reading your
report, sir,” Collins said. “It is a yes or no answer. Page 180, Volume 1. This
is from your report.”
Mueller: “Correct. And
I leave it with the report.”
During the
Intelligence hearing in the afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked about
evidence of collusion with Russia.
Mueller, criticized on
social media and by cable news pundits for seeming a little off his game, had
some trouble answering.
“We don’t use the word
collusion. We use one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not
used,” he said haltingly.
Welch jumped in: “The
term is conspiracy?”
Mueller: “That’s
exactly right.”
“You help me, I’ll
help you,” Welch said, prompting laughter in the chamber.
4. Allusions to
Impeachment
Nadler, the Judiciary
chairman, made what seemed like a vague reference to impeachment during his
opening remarks.
“We will follow your
example, Director Mueller,” Nadler said. “We will act with integrity. We will
follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We
will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”
Rep. Jim
Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who noted he was also a member of the Judiciary
Committee during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, asked why Mueller
didn’t specify in his report whether there was impeachable conduct–as
then-independent counsel Ken Starr had in his report.
“We have studiously
kept in the center of the investigation our mandate, and our mandate does not
go to other ways of addressing conduct,” Mueller said. “Our mandate goes to
developing the report and turning the report in to the attorney general.”
Mueller, given many
openings by Democrats, refused to state that impeachment was what the report
means in referring to other venues to pursue evidence of obstruction of
justice.
Rep. Ted Deutch,
D-Fla., said Congress must do it’s duty to ensure Trump isn’t above the law.
Other Democrats made similar vague comments, but most did not outright call for
impeachment.
Later, Rep. Mike
Johnson, R-La., asked, “Mr. Chairman, was the point of this hearing to get Mr.
Mueller to recommend impeachment?”
Nadler responded:
“That is not a fair point of inquiry.
5. On When He
Put Conspiracy to Rest
Mueller asserted early
on that he would not talk about the origins of the Russia
investigation–currently under review by the Justice Department’s Office of
Inspector General.
“It is unusual for a
prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a
prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited,”
Mueller said.
“These matters are the
subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics
should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department,” he said, referring
to the contested origins of the investigation.
Rep. Andy Biggs,
R-Ariz., a Judiciary member, asked when the special counsel’s team determined
there was no conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Many Republicans argue
that Mueller could have issued that conclusion before the midterm elections, in
which Republicans lost control of the House.
“As you understand,
when developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information as you make your
case,” Mueller said. “When you make a decision on that particular case depends
on the factors. I cannot say specifically we reached a particular decision on a
particular defendant at a particular point in time.”
“We were ongoing for
two years.”
Biggs pressed: “That’s
my point, there are various aspects that happen. But somewhere along the pike,
you come to the conclusion there is no there there for this defendant.”
Mueller finally said:
“I can’t say when.”
The former special
counsel said he did not have knowledge of Fusion GPS, the opposition research
firm that hired former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who
compiled the so-called Steele dossier, an unverified, salacious collection of
information about Trump, including during a visit to Moscow. Both the
Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign
paid for that work.
Although President
Barack Obama’s Justice Department and FBI used the Steele dossier as the basis
for spying on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and the dossier is mentioned in
the Mueller report, the investigation apparently did not look into its origins.
6. What Else He
Didn’t Answer
Mueller declined
multiple times before both House committees to answer why his team did not
prosecute Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic who Republican lawmakers said had
lied to investigators. Mifsud in spring 2016 told Trump campaign adviser George
Papadopoulos that Moscow had some of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Mueller also declined
to answer questions about whether he interviewed Steele or Fusion GPS head
Glenn Simpson. During the Intelligence hearing, he refused to answer
whether he even read the Steele dossier.
Mueller repeatedly
answered that such questions were “outside of my purview.”
Among Democrats’
questions Mueller didn’t answer: whether the Trump campaign had turned its back
on the country, whether Trump told associates his 2016 campaign was an
“infomercial” for the Trump businesses, what would happen if Trump wins a
second term and serves beyond the statute of limitations for obstruction of
justice, and whether Trump had potential illegal ties to foreign banks.
He also declined to
speculate whether Russian meddling swayed the outcome of the presidential
election.
Rep. Eric Swalwell,
D-Calif., asked Mueller whether he agreed with an open letter in May signed by
about 1,000 former federal prosecutors that said Trump would be prosecuted for
obstruction of justice if he were anyone else.
Mueller
responded: “They have a different case.”
Swalwell seemed a bit
surprised, and asked whether Mueller would sign the letter.
Mueller again
responded: “They have a different case.”
7. Defending
Alleged Conflicts
Mueller responded to
questions about the number of Democratic lawyers, many of whom donated to
Democratic candidates, who worked on his staff.
“I’ve been in the
business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion
once to ask someone about their political affiliation,” Mueller said at one
point. “What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job.”
Trump has said several
times that after he fired James Comey as FBI director, he met with Mueller, who
wanted the job back.
Mueller testified that
he talked to Trump, but “not as a candidate” for the job, in response to a
question from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.
Rep. Greg Steube,
R-Fla., later asked: “Did you interview for the FBI director job one day before
you were appointed as special counsel?”
Mueller said he was
only advising Trump.
“My understanding, I
was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would
take to do the job,” Mueller said.
He also defended
Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer on his team and one of the hires
Trump and other Republicans criticize Mueller for.
“Let me say that
Andrew Weissmann is one of the more talented attorneys we had on board,”
Mueller said.
8. Trump’s
Responsibility and ‘New Normal’
Rep. Mike Quigley,
D-Ill., brought up Trump’s tweeted support of WikiLeaks and its hacking of
Clinton campaign staff emails. He quoted Trump as a candidate saying, “I love
WikiLeaks” and tweeting similar sentiments, then asked Mueller for his
response.
WikiLeaks is an online
operation that made its name on releasing confidential and secret government
information
After hesitating,
Mueller said: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in
terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be
illegal activity.”
The Mueller report
said the Trump campaign was aware of Russian election meddling and expected to
benefit from it.
Welch, the Vermont
Democrat and member of the intelligence panel, said he was concerned that Trump
may get away with not reporting Russian interference in the future.
“If we establish the
new normal for this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns,
so that if any one of us, running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S.
Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States are aware that a
hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report
that to the FBI or other authorities …, ” Welch began to ask, before Mueller
interrupted.
“I hope this is not
the new normal, but I fear it is,” Mueller said.
It is apparently part
of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as
“honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed
and confused” to his appellation.)
If it matters that
Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a
team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are
registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have
donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.
Congressman Steve
Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff
attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing. Here are a few from Chabot’s list:
·Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns
and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
·Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama
campaigns.
·Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the
Obama and Clinton campaigns.
·Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats,
contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign – and represented Hillary Clinton
and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.
·Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the
Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the
Clinton Campaign.
None had donated to
the Trump campaign.
The media brushed off
the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how
prosecutors are “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on
CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views
are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”
Obviously, no one
believes this – otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to
Mueller’s name.
In a fiery rebuke at
the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard
Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25
years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about
their political affiliation. It is not done.”
No kidding. He’s been
director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a
U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the
president before.
An independent counsel
investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors.
You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want
organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.
But lawyers on a
special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t
supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.
After the 2001 anthrax
attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS
pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real
culprit went about his life undisturbed – until he committed suicide when, at
last, the FBI zeroed in on him.
Mueller was deeply
involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the
case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The
Mirage Man” by David Willman.
During this multi-year
investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft,
as well as two U.S. senators, that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently,
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General
James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent
man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the
main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that
it was Hatfill.”
The hounding of Steven
Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of
dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s
FBI for its handling of the case.
Far from apologizing,
the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless
Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He
said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”
Maybe he can use that
line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia
investigation.
Eight days before the
2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly
report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in
Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.
Months later – too
late for Stevens’ political career – Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved
for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the
government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial
judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent
counsel to investigate the investigators.
Unlike the disastrous
Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is
less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S.
senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he
wasn’t – which is worse.
In addition to
“honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric
Holder.”
