Robert Mueller: the fix is in 4

Mueller and Comey: Two Denizens of the Swamp

The very fact that many voices were raised on the Left and among “NeverTrumpers” in praise of Robert Mueller should have been a warning sign to Republicans that he is not the right person to appoint as “special counsellor” to investigate allegations against President Trump. The allegations themselves are little more than slanderous rumors (summed up in the article quoted below as “Russia-gate”). Congressional committees are looking into them. No “special counsellor” was needed. But if there was going to be one, whose job must necessarily involve investigating the decisions and actions of the recently fired FBI chief  James Comey, why choose a former director of the FBI itself and a buddy of Comey?

Cliff Kincaid writes at Canada Free Press:

The Washington Post, a mouthpiece for Obama holdovers in the CIA and other agencies, reports that “sources” say a current White House official is under investigation as “a significant person of interest” in Russia-gate, but that the sources “would not further identify the official”.

This is a case of anonymous officials talking about an anonymous official.

Interestingly, the term “person of interest” was used by the FBI against scientist Steven Hatfill in the post-9/11 anthrax letters case. He was totally innocent and the Department of Justice paid him $5.8 million in damages.

After dismissing Hatfill and several others as suspects, the FBI blamed a dead U.S. Army scientist, Bruce Ivins. However, evidence indicates that the more likely culprits were al-Qaeda operatives who got the anthrax from a U.S. lab. The truth was too embarrassing for the FBI to reveal.

Read more details about the anthrax case in the full article here.

The new Russia-gate special counsel, former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, presided over this fiasco. What’s more, Mueller was sued for malfeasance in the case by FBI agent Richard Lambert who was put in charge of the anthrax investigation.

Yet, here is what we read about Mueller, who was FBI director under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama:

  • “Widely respected by members of both parties” and “an unflinching advocate for facts,” claims The New York Times.
  • “Skilled and upright,” writes Kimberley A. Strassel of The Wall Street Journal.
  • “Widely respected” and “highly regarded by both parties,” writes Andrew McCarthy of National Review.
  • “Uniquely suited to the task,” says The Washington Post.

These comments reflect the consensus of what President Trump would call the “swamp.”

A New York Times editorial was titled “Robert Mueller: The Special Counsel America Needs”. Making no mention of the anthrax debacle, it called Mueller “one of the few people with the experience, stature and reputation to see the job through”.

The New York Times trusts him. To do what? What else but to find something damaging against President Trump? If it didn’t trust him to do that, it wouldn’t praise him.

A far different opinion is offered by Carl M. Cannon, executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics, who noted that the FBI director fired by Trump, James Comey, and Mueller “have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest.”

Cannon pointed to their work on the anthrax case, saying, “Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people…”

Like Mueller, Comey, who was deputy attorney general, declared Hatfill guilty.

President Trump has called James Comey a nut-job. We think that is a fair description, considering his extremely odd behavior. Reviewing it, we too have concluded that James Comey is deranged.

Leaving aside Comey’s mishandling of another major investigation, the Hillary emails, consider his conduct and behavior.

While President Trump has been attacked for calling Comey a “nut job” and “crazy,” Comey friend Benjamin Wittes says the former FBI director tried to hide in the curtains during a White House visit for a ceremony honoring law enforcement officials who provided security at the inauguration.

Weird! But he did not even try to hide behind curtains, which may have actually hidden him. He apparently tried to hide in front of them because he was wearing dark blue and the curtains are dark blue, and he so he imagined himself to be camouflaged. Even weirder!  

 

The New York Times reported, “Mr. Comey — who is 6 feet 8 inches tall and was wearing a dark blue suit that day — told Mr. Wittes that he tried to blend in with the blue curtains in the back of the room, in the hopes that Mr. Trump would not spot him and call him out.”

Was the 6 foot 8 inch Comey so crazy that he went to a White House event with Trump but tried to hide from him in the drapes?

Wittes, in his own words, says that Comey: “Felt that he could not refuse a presidential invitation, particularly not one that went to a broad array of law enforcement leadership. So he went. But as he told me the story, he tried hard to blend into the background and avoid any one-on-one interaction. He was wearing a blue blazer and noticed that the drapes were blue. So he stood in the back, right in front of the drapes, hoping Trump wouldn’t notice him camouflaged against the wall. If you look at the video, Comey is standing about as far from Trump as it is physically possible to be in that room.”

However, Comey was wearing a red tie that stood out like a sore thumb. His suit was darker than the drapes. Plus, Comey is so tall that he is hard to ignore, even with drapes behind him. Frankly this is nothing more than a diversion from the real issue—FBI corruption.

Reporters would rather write about the drapes than investigate the corruption under Comey and his predecessor, Mueller.

“Corruption under Comey and his predecssor, Mueller.”  Now Mueller is to investigate corruption under Comey? And that guarantees a totally unprejudiced finding?

Who is Benjamin Wittes? He is the co-author of The Future of Violence: Robots and Germs, Hackers and Drones — Confronting A New Age of Threat. He discusses the anthrax attacks in the book.

Five years after the FBI “closed” the case, Wittes doesn’t seem to accept the verdict that Bruce Ivins was the villain. He refers to Ivins as the FBI’s “suspect,” quickly adding, “or whoever else may have been responsible for the attacks”.

So why didn’t Comey reopen the case? One possible explanation is that he didn’t want to upset Mueller and the FBI officials who engaged in the cover-up. He had approved their targeting of, and conclusions about, Hatfill.

In return, Mueller, as special counsel in Russia-gate, can be expected to do Comey a big favor. He will not probe Comey’s malfeasance in using the phony “Trump Dossier” to investigate President Trump and his team. That is the real story — how Hillary donors financed by pro-Russian interests hired a former British agent to concoct an assortment of charges against Trump.

One has only to read the dossier (here) to see what a load of nonsense the concocted assortment of charges really is.

Mueller is a company man; he will protect the FBI and its former director and friend. The fix is in.

This is a far more important story than Comey hiding in the drapes. Writing about drapes may sound silly, but it is yet another way for the media to suggest that Comey was afraid of Trump trying to influence his inquiry into Russia-gate.

The story is not how Trump influenced the investigation, but rather how Comey used the phony “Trump Dossier” to go down dead-end roads and produce no results. It’s the anthrax investigation all over again.

Mueller’s job is to pump life into Comey’s fiasco, and turn the tables on Trump for firing Comey.

Meanwhile, corruption in the FBI goes unreported, and Congress fails to do adequate oversight of the intelligence community, which is supposed to keep us safe.

Mueller has fooled a lot of people. His appointment is good news for the Swamp but bad news for Trump.

Carl M. Cannon seems to think the outcome is preordained, noting the attitude of “official Washington” and what the “insiders” want to see happen — impeachment leading to Trump’s ouster. 

*

Update:

Headline:

Comey will speak to special counsel Mueller before testifying publicly, Chaffetz says

Read the story – manifesting not the least trace of suspicionhere.

  • Jake Murrin

    The most interesting aspect of this collective hysteria, to me, remains Sally Yates’s bizarre legal theory that the FBI had to “grill” Michael Flynn because his “lying” to the Vice President about his conversation with Sergey Kislyak rendered him susceptible to “Russian blackmail.” It was difficult to watch Yates’s recent testimony before Congress–in which the Democrats likened the 18-day interval between Yates informing White House counsel that Flynn had mislead Pence, and Flynn’s termination, with the infamous 18-minute gap in the “Nixon Tapes”–precisely because not a single Republican saw fit to challenge that farcical pretense. Outside of Robert Gates, who describes Yates’s rationale as “kind of a stretch,” hardly anyone of note has pointed out the obvious: If the Trump administration had access to transcripts of everything Flynn told Kislyak due to routine surveillance, by definition the Russians would have had nothing they could use to blackmail him to his superiors, at least once Flynn was made aware of the existence of the transcripts. After Yates notified White House counsel, Flynn was immediately confronted about the discrepancy between his recorded statements and Pence’s public assurances that the topic of sanctions never came up. Even taking Yates’s “blackmail” fears at face value, any possible Russian leverage over Flynn would have then instantly evaporated, so why are Yates and her acolytes insisting that Trump retaining Flynn for 18 additional days is some sort of scandal? More importantly, what are we to make of the fact that–when Trump initially refused to comply with the expectation that Flynn be fired immediately for “lying”–someone working under Yates at the Department of Justice or FBI feloniously leaked derogatory material on Flynn to The Washington Post (“the CIA’s favorite newspaper”)–thereby forcing his ouster? An actual whistleblower would have at least had the courtesy to leak the entire transcript, yet it was apparently not considered damaging enough to suit the purposes of the leakers: Anonymous sources initially implied that Flynn had promised Kislyak a quid pro quo in which the Trump administration would lift the sanctions Obama imposed on Russia in December 2016 in exchange for Russia not retaliating, but The New York Times later reported that “the transcript was ambiguous enough that Mr. Trump could have justified either firing or retaining Mr. Flynn” as “[Flynn] never explicitly promised sanctions relief.” (And for good reason: The sanctions are still in effect!) As Paul Sperry has observed, it appears as though “Sally Yates was the real blackmailer”–but even this is just the tip of the iceberg, as several other factors need to be addressed.

    We don’t know whether it was Flynn or Kislyak that raised the issue of Obama’s last-minute sanctions; either way, Flynn’s boilerplate warning to Kislyak not to dig an even deeper hole was utterly routine and hardly uncommon in the context of Presidential transitions. No-one has ever been convicted for violating the Logan Act–like the Alien and Sedition Acts, a legacy of John Adams’s desire to stifle political dissent–which only made sense, if it ever did, during a time in which diplomacy was conducted by ship and credentials were difficult to verify. Indeed, Obama’s attempt to tie his successor’s hands vis-à-vis Russia is at least as problematic as anything Flynn was accused of. Finally, in light of Trump’s tweet the day following the relevant Flynn-Kislyak exchange–in which Trump praised Putin’s non-response to the Obama administration’s provocative measures–as well as subsequent revelations about how Pence was systematically kept out of the loop regarding various Flynn controversies, it’s highly probable that Trump himself was always aware of Flynn’s actions and that many more Trump administration officials were complicit in misleading Pence than Flynn alone. (This would also explain why Flynn answered the FBI’s questions honestly, despite his alleged “lapses of memory” when addressing Pence.)

    Other neglected information about America’s current Russia Hysteria: As Alan Dershowitz points out, “colluding” with Russia to push an anti-Hilary Clinton message would be completely legal (albeit unsavory) even if any evidence of such collusion existed, unless the Trump campaign was directly involved in hacking the DNC or Podesta (so we have a special prosecutor without a crime); the FBI-DHS “Joint Analysis Report” is an incompetent mess of random IP addresses–almost half of which are simply Tor exit nodes and the majority of which are located in the U.S.–and freely available Ukrainian malware; the FBI-CIA-DHS “Intelligence Community Assessment” is based on garbled reasoning and incoherent logic, devoting significant space to portraying RT’s coverage of the election as a form of “interference” and asserting that Putin must have been trying to elect Trump (rather than, say, undermine the legitimacy of a Hilary Clinton presidency) because he supposedly once called Trump a “genius,” although that misquotation had been long-refuted; there is considerable reason to believe that the Intelligence Community Assessment was rigged to include the predetermined conclusions of “hand-selected” (i.e., cherry-picked) officials at just three intelligence agencies with no dissenting analysis (contra a Hilary Clinton lie inexplicably rated “True” by Politifact, no, not “all 17” U.S. intelligence agencies were involved; while Russian hacking is hardly the purview of Coast Guard Intelligence, there is no reason why INR or DIA should have been excluded, particularly when even the infamous 2002 NIE on Iraqi WMD was the product of 11 agencies).

    Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi is concerned that the intelligence community is orchestrating a “soft coup” against the President of the United States: “I confess to finding Monday’s detailed account of what President Trump discussed with Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov, which included corroborating material that likely did more damage than the information that was actually shared, highly suggestive of the possibility that something like a conspiracy is, in fact, functioning. Given the really tight-security control of that transcript after it was determined that it contained sensitive information, one might reasonably assume that the leaks to the media came directly out of Donald Trump’s own National Security Council or from the highest levels of the office of the DNI, CIA, or FBI.

    Yesterday, the anonymous sources struck again, revealing that ‘Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race.’ That sort of information had to come from the top level of the FBI and would have been accessible to only a few, but even though the leaks of what constitutes highly-classified information have been recurring for many months, no one has been fired or arrested.

    The emphasis on Russia derives from the government and media consensus that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers that led to the exposure of what the DNC was doing to destroy the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. There is also a related consensus that the Russian hacking was intended to damage American democracy and also to help the Trump campaign, a narrative that the president has described as a ‘made-up thing,’ a view that I share. All of these assertions are regarded as unquestionably true as measured by inside-the-beltway groupthink, with even the White House now conceding that there was Russian interference in the election.

    I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has wanted to do so for quite some time. If that is true, I believe that they have been operating with that goal in mind for at least the past year. It is not a traditional conspiracy or cabal in that it does not meet and conspire together, but I suspect the members know what they are doing in a general sense and are intervening whenever they can to keep Trump off balance. Their program is simple: convince the nation that the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if demonstrable even if not necessarily true, would provide grounds for impeachment. They are motivated by the belief that removing Trump must be done ‘for the good of the country’ and they are willing to do what they consider correcting a mistake made by the American voters. They are assisted in their effort by the mainstream media, which agrees with both the methods employed and the overall objective and is completely on board with the process.

    Saving the country from Trump is certainly an attractive notion. I suspect the Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans, together with a host of former senior officers who appear regularly on television, if they were involved, see themselves as great patriots. But they must understand that the blunt instrument they are using is far more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more threatening to our democracy than anything Donald Trump or even the Russians can do.”

    (Note: I originally provided links to all of my sources, but Disqus flagged it as spam.)

    • This is all extremely interesting, and plausible, and we thank you for the time and trouble you have taken to provide it to us.

      We do not agree that “saving the country from Trump is certainly an attractive notion”. It was marvelous luck that when the hour of great need came, the man came too. The only man who could save essential liberty-founded America from the rot of Leftism that has destroyed Europe. No intellectual, no smooth-talking son of the Establishment could do it, even if such a person existed who could understand what needed to be done. It had to be someone whom tens of millions of American patriots would vote for.

      But we do agree that there is no case against Trump. No case against Flynn. The Democrats are trying to deflect attention from some terrible crime of their own. I suspect the assassination of Seth Rich has something to do with it. His assassination is not that crime, – though a crime in itself of course – but a sign of it. Who needed him dead? What did he know that could not be told?

      • liz

        The murder of Seth Rich is one in a long line of suspicious deaths left in the trail of the Clinton Crime Family. It’s obvious he gave the information to Wikileaks on the DNC rigging Hillary’s nomination, so they offed him, then concocted the Russian yarn to distract from it.
        What really burns me is that not only do they just shamelessly make up completely baseless garbage and throw it out there, they do it while burying evidence of the many ACTUAL “high crimes and misdemeanors” committed by both Obama and the Clintons.

  • liz

    This is why “Your Fired!” Trump should have fired not only Comey but every other holdover from Obama’s administration on his first day in office.
    By letting them remain, he’s allowed this sabotage to happen. The longer they remain, the more character assassination will be concocted against him.
    He gets enough of that already from the lying media – why help them out?