One's Name Is Mud

by

Gadfly

            The title of this essay is an idiom that can be traced to several sources.  The one most common to Americans relates to the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth.  After shooting the President, Boothe jumped from Lincoln’s box seat onto the stage at Ford Theater, breaking his leg.   Doctor Samuel Mudd provided medical aid and was later accused of being a co-conspirator in the crime.  To this day, individuals receive the moniker, “one’s name is Mud,” when determined to be “in disgrace or embroiled in scandal.”

            Today, at a no Q & A nine-minute speech, Robert Mueller may have earned the “one’s name is Mud” moniker as his legacy.

            No doubt, in the short-term, Mueller is a hero to the impeachment-obsessed Democrats.  His speech did not put his 400+ page report to rest.  He sent a clear signal (“dog whistle”?) to House Democrats that he failed to complete a legal assassination but that his report was deliberately worded to fuel a political assassination.

            In the longer term, Mueller’s tactic will be trampled by clear and overwhelming evidence (contrary to his “insufficient evidence” distraction) that members of the Administrative State actually conspired to remove a duly elected President.  As some of the evidence becomes public, it is inevitable that “the law” will prevail over politics.  The challenge will be organizing the abundance of evidence along a timeline that tells the real story.  And as Democrat-led, House committee chairs issue their abusive subpoenas, they might soon be surprised when the DOJ investigating net reaches into Congress, where Congressmen and staff members may also receive subpoenas to testify as to what they knew and when they knew it.  Democrats will quickly learn that, as they love to say, “No one, even the President, is above the law,” the same maxim applies to members of Congress and the Administrative State.

            Two very well-researched articles provide a lot of the emerging evidence.  One of the major strawmen in the political assassination attempt is the notion that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server.  After the Wikileaks release, Russia was blamed for providing this information after allegedly hacking into the DNC server.  Hillary Clinton and the DNC refused to give FBI forensic experts access to their server to verify the Russia hacking.  Rather, Clinton and the DNC hired a private company called Crowdstrike to do the analysis.  So, when you hear Brennan, Comey, and Clapper say Russia hacked into the DNC server, they are repeating what the DNC and Crowdstrike want the public to believe.  For a very credible analysis that debunks this claim, read “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack,” The Nation, August 9, 2017.  Drawing upon technical analysis provided by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), their conclusion was that “the theft of the DNC e-mails was not a hack, but some kind of inside leak that did not involve Russia.” Here is a lengthy excerpt for the article:

In the meantime, VIPS has assembled a chronology that imposes a persuasive logic on the complex succession of events just reviewed. It is this:

·        On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

·        On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.

·        On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.

·        On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.

It does not require too much thought to read into this sequence. With his June 12 announcement, Assange effectively put the DNC on notice that it had a little time, probably not much, to act preemptively against the imminent publication of damaging documents. Did the DNC quickly conjure Guccifer from thin air to create a cyber-saboteur whose fingers point to Russia? There is no evidence of this one way or the other, but emphatically it is legitimate to pose the question in the context of the VIPS chronology. WikiLeaks began publishing on July 22. By that time, the case alleging Russian interference in the 2016 elections process was taking firm root. In short order Assange would be written down as a “Russian agent.”

Note: DNC staffer Seth Rich was assassinated on July 12, 2019.  He was a Bernie Sanders supporter and apparently not happy about how the DNC rigged the primary.

Excerpt continued:

But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

·        There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them, they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

            The second major article with abundant evidence is far more recent:  “Joe diGenova Discusses Declassification and Origin of Obama Political Surveillance Operation…,” The Last Refuge, May 27, 2019.  It is a lengthy article with links to sources/evidence.  It implicates the usual suspects, to include Robert Mueller.

            What the left continues to count on is a complicit media that is doubling down on the removal of President Trump and an unwitting public that remains somewhat content in learning only part of the story.

 

The left’s tortured logic can only last so long.  When someone does something dishonest, lying about it is not counterintuitive behavior.  Of course, it helps to be so corrupted by power that being unscrupulous is a necessary trait.  Here are just two examples of the left’s tortured logic.

            First, on Mueller’s obstruction logic, he says that, because the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel claims a sitting president cannot be indicted, he chose not to decide on the obstruction evidence, which is an insult to jurisprudence because intent to commit a crime is an antecedent to an actual crime. If there is no crime, intent is irrelevant.  No evidence that a crime was not committed is something to be found only in Alice and Wonderland.  The legal standard is sufficient evidence to support a crime, which is consistent with the legal standard that one is presumed innocent until and only when sufficient evidence determines a crime has been committed.  To say that he could not exonerate the President because there was no evidence to prove his innocence is not the way jurisprudence is supposed to take place in America.  Even the President is entitled to due process, despite his real crime of getting elected.

Mueller claimed that because there could be no court conviction from an indictment against the President, he would not decide on obstruction; yet, he still indicted Russian players who will never see a day in court.  Is this an example of Orwellian Doublespeak?

 

Part II of Mueller’s report consists of over 200 pages of text, citing many news articles based on anonymous government leaks (and manufactured evidence) as their source.  Mueller established a compelling picture that there “appeared” to be obstruction, so he clearly signaled to the Democratic House that even though there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of obstruction, he was passing the baton to Congress for a political trial, called impeachment.  On the notion of colluding with Russia, he did decide, based on “insufficient evidence,” that there was no collusion.  In other words, although there was some evidence, it did not rise to an indictable threshold.  To even the most casual observer, there is blatant incongruity in the decisions for Parts I and II of the Mueller report.  In pursuing this path, Mueller is demonstrating that in today’s America, politics can trump the law.

            The second example of tortured logic is the reminiscing about past impeachment experiences such as Nixon and Clinton.  The only thing these two experiments had in common was an intent to impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

In the Nixon case, he had just won a landslide reelection, both in the popular vote (60.7% to 37.5%) and Electoral College (520 to 17).  Against this backdrop, some who were associated with this apparent wave of political power engaged in tremendously stupid stunts, the most egregious of which were orchestrated by John Dean (an older media darling on the scale of today’s Michael Avenatti).  There was no crime by Nixon as the predicate for impeachment proceedings.  While the House made a strong case for a cover-up by Nixon of crimes committed by others, Nixon was essentially tried in the court of public opinion thanks to “show trial” hearings (something Congressman Nadler has already teed up) and strategic releases of information to the media.

 

There is a far more accurate story about the Watergate scandal, revealed by others who, unlike anonymous sources cited by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, interviewed actual people and mentioned them by name.  Len Colodny, among other reputable investigative reporters, published incriminating details in his book, Silent Coup:  The Removal of a President.  Dean, Woodward, and The Washington Post sued Colodny and St. Martin’s Press unsuccessfully to keep the actual truth silent.  Geoff Shepard in his book, The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot That Brought Nixon Down, argues that based on new evidence members of the judicial system conspired with the House Judiciary Committee to engage in illegal activities to remove Nixon.  By the way, the FBI’s Mark Felt was conveniently outed as “Deep Throat” by Bob Woodward when he passed away.  As they say, “dead men tell no lies.”  For those who have taken the time to read Colodny’s book, “Deep Throat” was General Alexander Haig, serving as Nixon’s Chief of Staff at the time.  I discuss details in another essay, “A Praetorian Guard?”

So, how was the William Clinton impeachment different?  After an independent counsel’s investigation (which reported to the US House of Representatives, not the Attorney General), Clinton was found to have committed felony crimes.  The Kenneth Starr report found 11 grounds (criminal evidence) for impeachment.  The Republican-led House forwarded two charges for impeachment—perjury and obstruction of justice-- to the Senate for conviction.  Sixty-seven votes were needed for a conviction.  There were insufficient votes to convict because votes were based mostly on political party affiliation.  Not a single Democrat voted to impeach Clinton—for actual crimes.

         

During his impeachment proceedings, Bill Clinton was defended by Cheryl Mills.  Sound familiar?  Mills was also involved in Hillary Clinton’s legal issues with the DOJ and FBI.  Lawyer-client confidentiality were sanctified in this case while perverted for Trump and his lawyers.

Why did Mueller call for a press conference today?  He wanted to send a signal.  He failed to find a legal means for removing Trump, something he clearly wanted to happen.  He allowed or ensured his 400+ page report to keep the political coup alive.  It is now a race between the Attorney General’s investigation into the investigators and Nadler’s show trials.

 

          Two years ago, I suggested a more plausible Mueller report.   Regardless of the outcome of the race between Nadler’s show trials and Barr’s investigation of the investigators, Mueller chose a side.  He will forever be known as “one’s name is Mud.”          

Twenty-Four Notes

by

Gadfly

            Taps consists of merely 24 notes, still touching millions of lives as we honor those who gave their lives for a greater cause.  This is an American tradition that blossomed from earlier European practices called tattoos.  Among other occasions, taps are played at dusk at American military installations and at the funerals for those killed in combat and for veterans.

            What is that greater cause for which our veterans have served?

After seven years of brutal combat during the Revolutionary War and learning of an anonymous letter circulating among his officers to mutiny or to leave their posts, George Washington urged his soldiers to stay the course.  On March 16, 1783, Washington assembled his officers to address the issue.  While rebuking the anonymous letter, he did not demean the officers.  He inspired them to stay the course.  Eric Metaxas observes in his book, If You Can Keep It:  The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, “Washington’s language is a far cry from anything we hear today.  I am not referring to his lofty and ennobling style of speech…But far more important is his use of specific words and phrases like ‘reputation,’ ‘patient virtue,’ ‘dignity,’ ‘glory,’ and ‘sacred honor.’”  The cause for their devotion and sacrifice was inspired by our Declaration of Independence.  That cause was enshrined in these words, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Our Founders did not equivocate as to the source of these rights, explicitly acknowledging the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”  Our Founders placed great faith in a future that would unfold, based on a government designed to protect these inalienable rights.

Facing imminent battle against a larger formation at Gettysburg, Joshua Chamberlain, formerly a rhetoric professor at Bowdoin College in Maine and a colonel in the Union Army, calmly justified to his men what they were about to do.  He told his men that they were up against a formidable force and that they would suffer great casualties, possibly defeat; but, they were engaged in an important effort “to set other men free.”  It was their moral duty to do the right thing.  After running out of ammunition, Chamberlain directed his men to attach bayonets, and then charged the opposing force.  The visible display of courage and determination compelled the opposing force into retreat.

The battle of Gettysburg witnessed brave actions and sacrifices by both sides of the conflict regarding the morality of the institution of slavery.  The vast majority of those who fought for the South were not slaveholders.  Many were conscripted to fight for the South.  In hindsight, we can better understand the complexities and distinctions between loyalty to certain principles and the notion of patriotism to one’s culture.  This is why multiculturalism in today’s America is so dangerous, especially if it is encouraged for whatever reason.

John Stuart Mill captured this complexity in his famous 1862 essay, “The Contest in America”:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.   

Abraham Lincoln recognized and clearly understood the significance of the American sacrifice at Gettysburg.  Lincoln captured the essence of our Civil War with his famous address on November 19, 1863:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate -- we cannot consecrate -- we cannot hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Lincoln understood the importance and power of a Constitutional Republic and its potential for a way of life that would allow free citizens in a free and just society to pursue their own futures.  Ironically, Speaker Pelosi believes the cause for which fellow Americans gave their last measure of devotion is for a better future that is envisioned by political elite.  On May 23, she asked that as we approach Memorial Day, we need “to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.”  Lincoln believed our government was designed to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—and a future that each of us individually envisions for ourselves and our families.

As a 34-year veteran, I served to protect the Constitution of the United States and the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for each and every American, as well as for the people of other nations living under the oppression of tyrannical governments.  America is not perfect and never will be despite the delusional notions of progressives and socialists.  However, the idea of America is an ideal worth comprehending and for which to strive and fight.

When taps is played at my funeral, I hope to have been worthy of the lyrics developed for these 24-notes:

Day is done, gone the sun,
 From the lake, from the hills, from the sky;
 All is well, safely rest, God is nigh.

Meanwhile, I sincerely thank and respectfully salute all those we celebrate on this Memorial Day.  I also thank their family members and loved ones who were loyal to their devotion to America and for which it stands; they gave and sacrificed as well.

Dear Mom: Your Son Is Dead

by

Gadfly

Dear Mom,

            Reminiscing my days as an OV-10 Bronco Forward Air Controller (FAC) in the early 80s and at the height of the Cold War in Western Germany, I listened with great affection to the fraternal and patriotic tribute to OV-10 Bronco FACs, “Dear Mom, Your Son Is Dead” (a rendition of which is located here).  This group committed their lives in deference to a greater cause:  freedom versus communism.

I regret to inform you that your son (or at least his brain) appears to have bought the farm, likely during his grooming at The London School of Economics and further necrosis at The New York Times.  His propaganda piece in yesterday’s edition provides sad evidence.  I understand that he has sacrificed his personal reputation for a greater cause; but, not all causes pursue the common good.

Let me point out some examples of David’s necrosis, its implications, and its toxic effect on truth.

·         David begins by asserting that Special Counsel Mueller is honorable and patriotic.  Attorney General Barr presented findings (quoting from the actual text) based on Mueller’s investigation report.

 

·         Timing a leak to The Washington Post (now owned by “anti-Trump” Jeff Bezos) for maximum effect, the Mueller team released an internal letter to Barr the night before he was scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Keep in mind, that under the current special counsel statute, Mueller worked for the Attorney General—no one else.

 

·         What the left fails to understand, let alone embrace, is the role loyalty plays in a virtuous society.  An apparent inquiry by Trump about Comey's loyalty was after all the first obstruction consideration by the Mueller team.  But, then again, perhaps the left has a different concept:  loyalty to them is to an ideology that promotes the rule by men rather than a system based on the rule of law.  “No one is above the law” really gets most people to the very core of their gut.  Yet, some, like your son, forget “no one is below the law” either.  This is why our Constitution guarantees “equal protection” and “due process.”  Unless, that is, if the ruling elite does not accept a duly elected President, then they apparently can do whatever they need to do (to include distorting public narratives, illegally colluding for dossiers, and spying with national intelligence and law enforcement assets).  This is why the left asserts Barr is acting as Trump’s personal lawyer, his “fixer.”

     

·         The release of Mueller’s letter was designed to control the public narrative; in other words, Mueller and Barr have different takes on the report.  Barr was focused on the legal bottom line; Mueller was focused on the circumstantial context to inject a preponderance of perceptions of misconduct that are of secondary importance (and most likely irrelevant) in criminal proceedings (unlike civil cases).  As David has already asserted, Mueller is honorable and patriotic; therefore, Barr must not be so.  During the hearing, Barr explained that he had offered the four-page summary of findings to Mueller for review and approval before releasing it to the public.  Mueller declined.  Why?  With the left's feeding frenzy to establish collusion and obstruction, what was Mueller’s motive for declining to review Barr’s four-page summary, abruptly followed by his letter disagreeing with Barr's summary?  Mueller could not disagree with Barr's findings:  they were direct quotes from the Mueller report.  Is Mueller obstructing truth?  Is he non-compliant with the special counsel's controlling statute that mandates a confidential report to the attorney general.  Does the Mueller letter leak to The Washington Post violate the statute?

·         Mueller knew he had to appease the side that controls the narrative.  This is why: (a) he held the “no collusion” finding until after the 2018 midterm elections; and (b) he refused to assert a similar finding for obstruction.

·         The Mueller report was a $35 million distraction and presented a tautological argument for the left.  Remember, it was Comey’s firing that triggered the investigation.  The lead argument was that Trump obstructed an investigation into Russia collusion (even though the record shows that Comey told Trump he was not the target of an investigation).  Thus, the left now claims, (a) “no evidence of collusion” does not mean that it did not happen—"look at all the examples in the report”; and (b) since there was no definitive statement that there was insufficient evidence to assert obstruction; but (c) Mueller said Trump could not be exonerated; therefore, (d) Trump is in fact guilty of a crime.  While the left’s attempts to obfuscate what actually happened, Trump’s real crime was getting elected.

·         Is David’s brain so necrotic that he sees no irony in Comey presenting a case where Hillary Clinton committed a range of criminal acts but “exonerated” her because no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her for these crimes?  Which Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole does he do his reasoning?

·         If Mueller is truly an honorable man, then why did his investigation not report actual collusion and obstruction committed by others and well known for quite some time?  The evidence, not mere allegations, is overwhelming.  This was Mueller’s mission to follow the evidence; and, if criminal activity was established, then prosecution should follow.  The excuse that a sitting President cannot be indicted does not justify Mueller’s nebulous conclusion on obstruction.  Mueller failed to establish a case for a legal solution and he deliberately crafted the report to do the best he could to allow the left to keep control of the narrative.  This is why the left must now pursue a political solution:  impeachment.

·         Impeachment is complicated, and the left’s leadership now finds itself in a dilemma.  Trump, Barr, and others are not playing the left’s game.  The “removal of a president” script developed and rehearsed during Watergate is not working as expected.  What to do now?  For the American public, watch:  Trump's side is the tortoise of legal accountability in a race against time with the left's hare of political payback (thanks to Aesop's enduring wisdom).

     

In an effort to redeem your family name, I would encourage you to read and evangelize among the left and those who control the narrative and political power in the Washington D.C. establishment, a speech by Professor John Marini, “Politics by Other Means:  The Use and Abuse of Scandal,” published in the March 2019 edition of Hillsdale College’s Imprimus.  We can liberate ourselves from manufactured legends (Watergate and the left’s hopeful, pressing Russia-gate scandal) that stifle the truth and justice promised by the only Constitutional Republic among the hundreds of nations.  Truth and justice represent the objective arbiter in the contest between payback’s vices and accountability’s virtue.

In closing, “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace” (Numbers 6:24-26, NKJV).

Sincerely,

Gadfly