George Washington: Special Prosecutor Mueller Is a Political Hack

As Lambert pointed out via e-mail:

There’s so much bad history that’s been normalized we become numb, and this is an impressive parade of horribles.

By George Washington. Originally published at his website

The New York Times characterizes special prosecutor Robert Mueller as being independent and fair:

Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness.

Let’s fact-check the Times …

Anthrax Frame-Up

Mueller presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI’s investigation was “flawed and inaccurate”.  The investigation was so bogus that a senator called for an “independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case.”

The head of the FBI’s anthrax investigation says the whole thing was a sham. He says that the FBI higher-ups “greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation”, that there were “politically motivated communication embargos from FBI Headquarters”.

Moreover, the anthrax investigation head said that the FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins.  On July 6, 2006, the FBI’s anthrax investigation FBI Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI’s Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:

(j) the FBI’s fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer; and, (k) the FBI’s subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence.

Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins’ guilt. These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions.

In other words, Mueller presided over the attempt to frame an innocent man (and see this).

Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil

Rather than saying “of course not!”, Mueller said that he wasn’t sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commented at the time:

One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.

***

He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: “Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution.”

Spying on Americans

Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history.  As we noted in 2013:

NBC News reports:

NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting records on every phone call made in the U.S.

On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search.

Remember, the FBI – unlike the CIA – deals with internal matters within the borders of the United States.

On May 1st of this year, former FBI agent Tim Clemente told CNN’s Erin Burnett that all present and past phone calls were recorded:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that “all digital communications in the past” are recorded and stored:

NSA whistleblowers say that this means that the NSA collects “word for word” all of our communications.

FBI special agent – and a 2002 Time Person of the Year – Colleen Rowley writes:

Mueller’s FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the lhttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=68066&action=editaw improperly serving hundreds of thousands of “national security letters” to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating “terrorism.”

Torture

FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out:

Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any “war crimes files” were made to disappear. Not only did “collect it all” surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller’s (and then Comey’s) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

Iraq War

Rowley notes:

When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War … Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included … CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey.

Post 9/11 Round-Up

FBI special agent Rowley also notes:

Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the “post 9/11 round-up” of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI “progress” in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists.

9/11 Cover Up

Rowley points out:

The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee … [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn’t say anything terribly embarrassing. …

But overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable. Indeed, Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable. Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable.

Rowley also said says:

TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a “bombshell memo” to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller’s having so misled everyone after 9/11.

In addition, Rowley says that the FBI sent Soviet-style “minders” to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation of 9/11, to make sure that she didn’t say anything the FBI didn’t like.  The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 confirmedthat government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this).

Mueller’s FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example,  an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location.  And see this.

And Kristen Breitweiser – one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks – points out:

Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry’s investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry’s investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.

Conclusion

Rather than being “above the fray”, Mueller is an authoritarian and water-carrier for the status quo and the powers-that-be.

As Coleen Rowley puts it:

It seems clear that based on his history and close “partnership” with Comey, called “one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen,” Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

Mueller didn’t speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn’t speak out against torture. He didn’t speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn’t tell the truth about 9/11. He is just “their man.”

Print Friendly
Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Facebook0Share on LinkedIn1Share on Google+1Buffer this pageEmail this to someone

54 comments

  1. Cripes

    Surprise, surprise.

    Washington’s blog does a fine job of archiving and assembling this kind of background, many pieces of which we all should remember, and make more sense together.

    1. Furzy

      Excellent run down of the 9/11 coverup:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ342GueSUg&feature=youtu.be

      15 Years Later: Never Forget 9/11 crimes were never thoroughly investigated…

      911InsideOut

      4,752 views

      Published on Aug 30, 2016
      After 15 years of meticulous research and analysis into the events and theories surrounding 9/11, this is a collection of all the best facts and evidence proving who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crimes we witnessed on September 11th, and who ought to be investigated if we ever hope to get to the bottom of it.
      Category
      People & Blogs
      License
      Standard YouTube License

      1. Roger Smith

        The standard defense for presentations like this is, “Come on, they could really get all those people in on it and no one would talk”

        Well my friends I would like you to observe the behavior of the current Democrats. These people have damaged society and their own control of our government, yet they continue to willfully ignore all of the exit signs to a better way. They just double down and keep losing and destroying for their own personal gains. While this behavior is not associated with any one “conspiracy” I imagine it is the same exact behavior that conspirators such as this would have displayed.

  2. UserFriendly

    Well of course he’s an evil SOB who has done horrible things in the name of this country, but he has done them for both parties; hence the ‘above the partisan fray’ line. You can’t be a partisan hack if you are hacking up dead bodies for both sides.

  3. integer

    Sigh.
    Yet another of the empire’s eunuchs steps up to the plate.
    Trump will prevail.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      I would not bet on that. The play seems to be to bait him into obstruction of justice or pressure him into a health crisis.

      1. johnnygl

        One of the lessons of the brazilian soft coup is that you don’t need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast.

        As you’ve pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive.

        1. RenoDino

          Driving down his popularity per se won’t harm him. Even the elites who want him out could care less about the vox populi. They need to remind congressional Republicans there is only one party, the governing class, and supporting Trump makes them guilty by association of colluding with Russia and obstructing justice. The end game is making Republicans fall in line with the establishment thus making way for impeachment. It’s their only hope and a long shot because the Republicans will be committing suicide.

          1. Art Eclectic

            Republicans are on a Bataan Death March either way. They either embrace the alt-right and make that the new party standard or the alt-right destroys them. Trumps campaign was about burning down the governing class without respect for party. Not that he will be allowed to do any such thing on a grand scale, there’s too much money at stake from donors who bought the governing apparatus fair and square.

            Forcing the Republicans to engage in internecine warfare is destroying them. Democrats are doing the job on their own without much help from Trump’s team. Both parties are under siege, which is not a bad thing. The bad thing is the destruction of education, energy, environmental, and financial policy. Instead of draining the swamp Trump has introduced swamp sharks to the predator mix.

            1. RenoDino

              Totally agree and I like introduction of swamp sharks as a new predator class. I envision them as a football with fins. The policies you mentioned were already bad to begin with. Trump’s tampering may make them worse at the margins.

          2. Waking Up

            The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing.

            New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result.

      2. Arizona Slim

        Pressure him into a health crisis? Hmmm, where have we seen that one before?

        Point of history: A few months after he left office (in disgrace), Nixon had a phlebitis attack and nearly died.

        And he wasn’t in the best of shape before he left the White House.

    2. Lambert Strether

      It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of “leadership” you read about in airport bookstores — and does it remind us of something? — erases).

      It’s going to be an expensive lesson though, and the political class might even double down on it; what we need is a virtuous CEO; like Zuckerberg, for example.

      * I suppose the counter-argument would be Bloomberg. Perhaps there’s a scale issue.

      1. JIm

        Virtuous? Zuckerberg, who feeds you news designed to condition your responses, and Bloomberg, who champions the ware on man-made CO2 climate change with two Falcon 900 jets?

        How about we trim down our FedGov? Where children uneducated before the establishment of the Department of Education?

        I’m not saying Trump is great or whatever, I’m just saying the solution to insanely bad govt is LESS govt, not counting on SuperMan/Woman/etc to show up and save you.

    3. integer

      Trump will prevail.

      I really should have added an “imo” to the end of that sentence, as it’s really nothing more than idle speculation. I do think, however, that the political establishment continues to underestimate Trump.
      Interesting times!

        1. Lambert Strether

          > Zuckerberg or bloomberg are virtuous? I hope you are joking or being sarcastic.

          I ladle my irony out with a shovel these days. It’s the only way to cope.

  4. EndOfTheWorld

    When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He’s not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest priority is simply avoiding assassination.

    Sometimes he will get on Twitter and say some belligerent stuff, but doesn’t he realize that he has the authority to hire and fire who he wants?

    1. Carolinian

      I don’t think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn’t helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics.

      Trump’s only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It’s the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil.

      1. EndOfTheWorld

        Right, when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment. But he had to: otherwise they would never have let him leave the convention with the nomination.

        I would have preferred to see him select somebody like Jesse Ventura or Nomi Prins or Alex Jones as veep and let the chips fall where they may. It’s not like he needs the job anyway.

        1. edmondo

          “…when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment.”.

          No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020.

          1. EndOfTheWorld

            They turned him down only because they believed he had no chance of winning. But he had to choose somebody entrenched with the Republican establishment, because as it was he barely made it out of Cleveland still the nominee.

            There were a lot of Republicans like Romney and Kasich who went to Cleveland but did not attend the convention. Obviously hoping for some kind of coup which would kick out The Donald.

          2. Kim Kaufman

            Chris Christie would have done it in a heartbeat. The establishment did sort of force or trick Trump into Pence as I recall.

    2. Jim

      Trump can reform health care any time he wants to. All he has to do is tell Jeff Sessions to prosecute parties under 15 USC Chapter 1. He did not do that. More to the point, his campaign web site line to “make health care pricing transparent” (my paraphrasing) supposedly vanished within hours of his victory.

      fixhc.org! Very opinionated, but like GWs posts a wealth of information that should not be forgotten…

      Yeah, I voted for him too. It’s not like I’ve never eschewed both establishment candidates (but the whole point of Trump was that he wasn’t a typical pol, was he?) Should have learned my lesson the first time I voted for one person primarily to keep another other out.

  5. Disturbed Voter

    People who want to be liked/loved are insecure demagogues. People who obey illegal orders or who initiate them, are no friend of the People. And yes, the real Deep State is bipartisan. Partisanship we see is kabuki.

    And most coverups aren’t Bourne Identity, they are just an incompetent bureaucracy covering its tracks.

  6. RRH

    “Hope” is not “You Will” when it comes to Flynn.
    Asking organizations that knew there was no connection to make it public is not “obstruction of justice,” it is exposing the deep state’s intense effort to keep the level of the swamp high. Telling Comey to get on with the investigation is not obstruction, but an effort to expedite the witch hunt to it’s logical conclusion so that the Administration can get on with it’s agenda. Deep state’s leaks are all against Trump. Statistically impossible.

  7. cocomaan

    Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic things I’ve ever read about.

    Good to see George Washington around these parts again, there’s few people as passionate about politics as him!

    1. Katniss Everdeen

      Here’s an interesting run through of mueller’s handling of the anthrax investigation, among other things. A fun bit:

      So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

      You’d think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who’d been convicted — and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who’d tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution’s dog handler “as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.”

      Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell — the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain” they weren’t making a mistake.

      http://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/21/comey-mueller-bungled-big-anthrax-case-together/

      It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the fix is in. BTW, Hatfill got $5+ million in taxpayer money thanks to mueller / comey’s dogged yet severely flawed pursuit of truth, justice and the american way.

      1. Alex Morfesis

        Hold on…had to open another roll to triple layer my tf hat…there…that’s better…

        If hatfill might lead to others, one has to work hard to create the legend and backstory to divert attention…

        Mueller is the typical insider designed to insure only the unwashed and uninitiated are thrown into the grinder to keep the news folks busy with filling the hole between the ads…

        Hatfill might not have been the direct person, but the south afrikans and boeremag around and associated with him…

        And those wondrous apartheidistas were allowed to keep their toys after most of them had their “matter” dismissed…

        Mueller is there to keep trump in check…the investigation will go on and on and on…feeding tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to a group of “approved” insiders who will occasionally on a late friday, burp out some pdf report before some major sporting event or just after some massive news story on a thursday…

        “Bungling” a case is the best way to cover it up when it might lead to unexpected further investigation…

        Back to the funny papers…yellow kid strikes again…

    1. lyman alpha blob

      Good catch – thanks for pointing that out.

      Mueller was also head of the FBI when post 9-11 it began framing impressionable young men by handing them phony weapons and then arresting them as ‘terrorists’ in an attempt to make it look like the spooks were keeping the country safe or some such nonsense.

      I would imagine Trump can expect the same treatment.

  8. Charles Yaker

    Just for the record Trump is being Trump just like Obama did what Obama wanted despite Progressive self denial.

  9. David Carl Grimes

    Does the obstruction of justice issue have any merit? I thought it was a nothingburger according to posts here in the NC

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Of all people, Alan Dershowitz says no because in the US the DoJ and the FBI report to the President. He can fire anyone he wants to. According to Dershowitz, he can also tell them to stop an investigation. He can also pardon anyone, including himself! The idea that they are independent is a canard the media has been selling and civics-challenged Americans have been buying.

      This is also not at all comparable to Watergate. There was an actual crime, as opposed to a protracted “Trump won when he shouldn’t have! Evil Rooskies must have engineered it! And on top of that, they must have a secret handshake with Trump!” that has yet to do anything beyond hyperventilate about Trump officials knowing and meeting some Russians. And the reason firing the Watergate special prosecutor was obstruction of justice was that that that investigator, Archibald Cox, had been appointed by Congress and therefore really was independent.

    2. Lambert Strether

      To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis. Dubious, at best. Anonymous leaks from “intelligence officials” are not enough. Nor is the Steele report, such as it is.

      1. Parker Dooley

        “To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis”

        Lambert, that is not how it works for the little people. Based on the gossip about Trump’s actual net worth, perhaps he has been pegged as one of “us”.

      2. Plenue

        Democrats have gone from “Russia did…something…AND WE HAVE PROOF!” to Maxine Waters admitting they don’t even have evidence that any crime was committed, but they all believe that something happened, so they just have ‘connect the dots’ and find actual evidence. This is some real presuppositional crap here; this is the type of ‘thinking’ that liberals are always mocking Creationists for. Over half of year with no evidence that anything even happened isn’t an investigation: it’s a fishing expedition.

      3. Bobby Gladd

        So many Bright Shiny Things out there for our distraction pleasure (golden shower hookers, Russian anti-Clinton email and election hacking, dirty money, Jared…). How about keeping Eyes on the Prize. General Flynn was conducting an illegal rogue solo privatized ad hoc foreign policy shop, for which he was getting handsomely compensated by foreign entities. Trump either knew it since the beginning of their relationship (and either didn’t care, or winky-winky greenlighted it), or suborned it when he later found out. Then he incontrovertibly started leaning on the investigations. Obstruction of Justice, if the phrase is to have any rational meaning. Whether the only remedy for that is impeachment is a separate issue (and is probably the case where Trump is concerned, notwithstanding that he’ll probably pardon Flynn and bet on not getting convicted by the Senate).

        1. Lambert Strether

          Since the whole thing is such a mass of confusion and conjecture, I don’t see how it’s clear what can have been “obstructed” or indeed what “justice” might mean. (Rhe “Russian hacking” of votes, for example, is so ludicrous it’s pointless to discuss it, even if around half of Clinton’s voters believe it)

          On Flynn, who Trump heaved over the side, the alternative theory is that Flynn was opening an independent channel to the Russians, and The Blob hates that, because they want to go to war with Russia. As far as “inconvertibly,” I always look adverbs like that. All I can tell is that great legal minds differ.

  10. Steven

    What the country and the world needs is someone who is actually serious about ‘Draining the swamp’ in Washington – and the editorial offices at the New York Times!

    P.S. I’m still reading Maureen Dowd’s The Year of Voting Dangerously. In a 2014 article Dowd provides a catalogue of sellouts by major Democratic Party players to Hillary and the Clintons, e.g. Elizabeth Warren, when it looked like the 2016 election was going to be a sure thing for HRC. The catalogue was so precise and devastating most likely the only thing that saved Dowd’s job at the NYT was the reverence for HRC’s ruthless pursuit of power with which she concluded the chapter (and, of course, Dowd’s prodigious talent as a writer) .

    1. Art Eclectic

      Draining the swamp in Washington would require removal of all sitting members of Congress. Those people ARE the swamp. They’re duly elected and funded by the donor class to make business decisions that will impact revenue for the winners. We hold elections to decide which businesses we want to win. The FIRE sector famously buys both sides of the table to hedge.

  11. Michael

    How crazy is the idea that Paul Ryan becomes Prez after the investigations conclude? We haven’t done that yet if I recall correctly. Would Pence be any good as a Prez? Or would the R party clean house and force him out? Could he select a new VP then? (I don’t know the answer to that one either) .

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Completely batshit but the Democrats keeping the upset dialed to 11 may get us there.

      Pence was not a very good governor but he’d be celebrated for looking Presidential and not being Trump. He’s also way more conservative and would get far more bills passed.

      The Dems have a much better chance with Trump in in 2018 than out. They are best served by keeping him on the defensive rather than actually succeeding in driving him out. Pence would be a much less powerful fundraising hook than Trump, for instance.

      1. Left in Wisconsin

        Dems want to make same mistake nationally they made here with Walker. Instead of giving voters til the next election to make up their mind, they prematurely instigated a recall, leading to the recall election being in the middle of summer instead of Nov 2012, and they lost because a majority of voters didn’t like the process.

        If they succeed in getting Trump out before 2018, there is likely to be a huge sympathy vote for Repubs when 2018 rolls around.

      2. Big River Bandido

        The Dems have a much better chance with Trump in in 2018 than out. They are best served by keeping him on the defensive rather than actually succeeding in driving him out.

        I think the Democrats have already blown 2018 and probably 2020 — by tripling down on failure and their own Comey degrangement, by supressing all honest self-examination, and by promoting those responsible for the political malpractice of the “party” (if that what you call the Democrats) and its special interest groups.

    2. gepay

      Such is the state of political affairs that one has to wonder what, if anything, is true. Did Trump select (?) Pence as VP in order to get some cooperation from the mainsteam Republicans? If he had picked someone like Ron Paul one might have thought there was a good chance he would “drain the swamp”. Goldman Sachs alumni, billionaires, and generals in his cabinet are not exactly “draining the swamp”. One couldn’t submit to HBO a series script with some general (affectionately lol) known as “Mad Dog” being the Sec of Def. So what part of the Powers That Be does Mueller work for? The part of which Soros is a visible element was not happy with Trump. It is possible that this whole circus is just a distraction rather than two different elements of the people who really decide things fighting. One clue is if damaging evidence comes out about either side. it is possible that the DNC and Podesta leaks were just from disillusioned Democrat (Bernie suppporters). Or they could be the evidence there is a real split.Did the revelations of former CFR (?ostracized) Steve Pieczenik of Trump being a counter coup to ;the Clintonistas have any value? FDR said, if it happens in the political world, it was planned, The only thing clear to me is when you get this kind hall of mirrors head confusion, then the CIA is at work.

  12. Bernard

    Trump is a businessman out to make a profit. Hillary is a con artist out to grift. otherwise, there isn’t that much difference betwixt the two. Hillary is straight forward with her “scam.” Trump uses Market strategy to con others . Hillary uses whatever it takes to “get” and “enjoy” Power.

    Trump’s kind of business “men” hire media who enable the “Right kind” of Calvanism/American “Thinking” which has bought Congress. These grifters “use” whatever it takes to get what they want. Since everything has a price, Everything is for sale to the highest bidder . outright theft, looting and pillaging legalized by Congress. Lies, mispeaking, and others means. “Whatever it takes!,” as someone said.

    we could not foresee exactly what kind of “Grifter in Chief” Trump would turn out to be until in office . The Blob has now ‘ensnared” Trump as blowback for “stealing” the Presidency. Hillary as the rightful heir is doing her part with her morally indignant, empty and vacuous righteousness, as if she possessed “morals” to begin with.

    Hillary has continued to play her part in the subterfuge, though it’s all out in the open, which lost her the deplorables’ vote she didn’t care about but she needed.

    watching people show surprise at either of these two actors shows how Americans are so easily “led/fooled” by the PR. Goebbels was just ahead of his time . St. Reagan, a Hollywood Actor, who played his “Role,” proved how easy it was to “sell’ us out to Big Business. Before St. Reagan, due to losing so many elections, the Republican Party just laid low and built the groundwork for the absolute oligarchy we ‘enjoy” courtesy of a bought and sold highest bidder Congress we see today.

    we cant be nice or respectful to those who despoil our country or planet, for profit. a profit the 99% pay. not calling a spade a spade is how we got to this despicable situation, and allows the Scam to continue. Vichy Democrats and Corporate Republicans need to be jailed. Polite criticism wont cut it.

    “For the many, not the few” is a belief we need here in America, too. though Americans are still buying the self-hating PR so-called Leaders Thatcher, St. Reagan sold. the young don’t, however, which could promise a hopeful future in England. maybe Bernie can help reconnect the Youth here in America. Obama destroyed that “Dream” in America for the Poor and Young, thank you,very much.

    Kent St. shows how the Blob responded to the Youth 50 years ago.
    power cedes nothing without unyielding force in America.

  13. Don Lowell

    Nothing will happen until we get rid of fixed elections. Suppression, kicking voters off the list, gerrymandering, no paper trail voting machine’s. We are screwed.

  14. dcblogger

    Mueller also play a notorious role in the Starr Chamber Whitewater witch hunt. Mueller is really truly awful. In some ways it is satisfying to see all the Republican hacks turn on one another.

  15. Bobby Gladd

    Busted for my typo. Fair enough. :)

    Flynn broke laws, repeatedly. I dimly recall some long ago “3rd rate burglary.”

    Trump is minimally trying to interfere with justice in regard to Flynn, for whatever reasons.

  16. witters

    “Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness.”

    So he was independent and fairness? Clearly laughable nonsense.
    So he was “cultivating a rare reputation” as such?
    OK: Does that mean for the NYT that “cultivating a rare reputation for X” is what is it TO BE X?
    In that case reality has collapsed into and become mere appearance.

    (No wonder listening to Putin on Stone’s movie is like listening to a different world.)

Comments are closed.