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