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.”          

The Mueller Report: June 15, 2018

            IM:  Gentlemen, I had an interesting dream last night.  It involved a report by newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein.  It summarized findings stemming from his investigation.  With Rosenstein’s permission the report was allowed to be made public at a national press conference on Friday, June 15, 2018 at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

            AM:  I suspect, as Democrats have been pining for, Mueller's report sought prosecution of President Trump and some of his lieutenants.  After all, when Mueller was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), he actually reported to Comey when Comey was the Deputy Attorney General.  News reports indicate they had a cozy relationship. In the left’s opinion, prosecution would be suitable retribution for colluding with the Russians to steal the election.

            

          Old Gadfly:  IM, before we hear about your dream, let me remind you that there is a reason we have heard members of the left refer to the current developments as “Nixonian” or “shades of Watergate.”  There have been deliberate actions by Democrats that parallel efforts to take down Nixon.  The media amplified the effect then as now. On the 10^th of May, this was a New York Times headline:  “In Trump Firing of James Comey, Echoes of Watergate.”  Today’s Democrats essentially held Rod Rosenstein hostage to the idea of a special counsel in order to secure confirmation.  Similar actions took place when Democrats held hostage Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus for attorney general and deputy attorney general, respectively.  This took place during Senate confirmation hearings as Watergate was unfolding.  Although this may sound like a strange connection, Richardson’s so called “independent prosecutor,” Archibald Cox, was cozy with Democrats, actually inviting Senators Ted Kennedy and the widow of Robert Kennedy to his swearing in ceremony.[1]  One would think that Cox would take the necessary precautions to avoid appearing partisan. 

As I explained in a previous discussion, in the 1950s U.S. Congressman Richard Nixon was the lead investigator that led to the conviction of Alger Hiss, a Communist agent for the Soviet GRU but a close friend of highly placed Democrats.  According to Philip Elman, in 1943, he, Alger Hiss, and Archibald Cox worked together under Dean Acheson at the State Department.[2]  Do you get the drift? 

Unfortunately, a lot of what we know about Watergate is folklore.  More recent historians secured access to recently released original documents that indicate Nixon was innocent of any crimes yet unjustly convicted based on fabrications and manipulation of the public narrative.  In other words, Nixon was tried and convicted in the public court, orchestrated by power centers on the left:  Democrats (elected and in judicial roles) and the media.  In the process, laws were broken in terms of conspiracy and collusion by prosecutors and judges.[3]  And the media loves leaks now as they did then.  Tell me again.  How are The New York Times and The Washington Post different from Wikileaks?

            

           AM:  They are worse—they betray the essence of freedom of the press in America.  However, there is some irony and an abundance of truth in Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s observation that American newspapers are like the Communist newspapers of the former Soviet Union.  So Trump is screwed!!  Déjà vu all over again!!  

           

           IM:  Take a breath guys.  Let me tell you my dream.  You are going to find this hard to believe.  Here goes . . .

Going into the summer of 2018, Democrats were projected to rout Republicans in the mid-term elections—nationally and at the state level.  The media was already spiking the football as public figures from the left talked about the final phase of a transformed America.  Finally, one political party was on the verge of completely dominating political values for America.  America was about to become Soviet America, adopting the Communist Party USA’s slogan:  people and planet before profit.

Democrats kept investigations going in the House and Senate, periodically giving press reports that they were close to completing them, that they were convinced of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  Every week there was some bombshell report in The New York Times or Washington Post based on leaks from anonymous sources within the government.  Hillary Clinton began building a campaign staff for the 2020 elections.  Surprisingly, throughout this time, Mueller provided absolutely no reports on the investigation.  Miraculously, there were no leaks from his staff.

Then, on Thursday, June 14, 2018, Mueller announced that he would publicly present the results of the investigation the next day at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.  Not known for drama, Mueller requested a coliseum and maximum coverage on all the networks.  Republicans and Trump supporters were already preparing for the bad news.  Democrats and the media were already talking about lengthy prison terms and celebrating final retribution for stealing the election.

The appointed time arrived.  Mueller took the stage and announced two major findings.  First, there was no evidence of collusion with Russia.  Second, the investigation into any evidence of obstruction of justice revealed serious violations of the law.  Commentators on MSNBC and CNN wanted to be the first to start listing names of those they believed were involved:  President Trump when he suggested that “I hope you can let it go,” Lt General Flynn, Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, and so forth. 

Then, Mueller looked into the camera and declared the investigation revealed a network of conspirators with an overwhelming rabbit trail of incriminating evidence.  Secret grand juries had already been held, gag orders were issued to all parties involved. 

The thread for this aspect of the investigation began with Comey.  Mueller wanted to know if the Wikileaks material had any other source other than Russia.  He discovered that the Washington DC police had been investigating the death of Seth Rich, an idealistic 27-year old staff member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) but had been pressured by Comey to back off since the FBI was already investigating this issue in light of the broader Russian collusion investigation.  Mueller discovered that while Russia had in fact hacked into the DNC email system, the actual material from Wikileaks actually came from Seth Rich.  Rich was found with two bullets to the back.  His wallet was intact with cash and credit cards—clearly the appearance of an assassination.  Authentic emails from Podesta previously expressed the intent to make an example of a leaker, “whether or not we have any real basis for it.”  This communication was more than circumstantial and far more egregious than President Trump’s “I hope you can let it go” request of Comey.  The Clinton campaign insisted upon not working with the press, unless they could directly control the narrative.  Yet, when it came to their attempt to spin the news with the trumped up Russian dossier on candidate Trump, I became very concerned that the FBI actually contributed to the narrative by leaking it to the press.

Obviously, we opened the aperture and justified reopening the Clinton email case.  We reversed immunity granted to various members associated with this case.  Despite an aggressive attempt to destroy evidence—an act that is obstruction of justice—we gathered sufficient evidence to seek indictments from a grand jury.  Besides Hillary, husband William, John Podesta, Sidney Blumenthal, and a host of other associates, we will be pursuing prosecutions and maximum sentences.  Commentators on MSNBC and CNN were visibly shocked.  Some began to cry uncontrollably.

Mueller continued.  The thread of our investigation led to other criminal activity within the Justice Department, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the National Security Council (NSC), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  Although Lois Lerner deserved prosecution for her role in censoring voices on the right, we granted immunity to get evidence that took us not only to the political officer appointed to the IRS, but to members of the White House staff.  Valerie Jarrett immediately sought immunity to provide evidence that proved Barack Obama was involved in covering up illegal activity in Fast and Furious, the Benghazi attack, prisoner exchanges with Afghanistan and Iran, and other less known activities.  Attorneys General Holder and Lynch also conspired to support political actions contrary to public law.  These were the big fish in the conspiracy.  Since the evidence is irrefutable, we are pressing forward with these prosecutions as we also continue to follow the thread throughout the conspiracy, to include leakers within the NSC, the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA.  We are also considering seditious behavior considerations for journalists who collaborated in these activities knowing the motive or intent of the leakers was to subvert the legitimacy of a constitutionally elected President.

Although I did not vote for President Trump, nor do I even appreciate his agenda or style, as a man of the law, I had no other moral obligation but to enforce actions in his attempt to drain the swamp.  That completes my presentation; I will be taking no questions.

AM:  Wow.  Your dream is wishful thinking.

Old Gadfly:  Cicero observed similar dangers in his own day.  We would be wise to recognize the similarities captured in Cicero's statement:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

Let us hope that Mueller understands this caution and helps our nation save its soul.   

---

[1] For a well-documented history on Archibald Cox and his Watergate connection, see Archibald Cox. (2017, May 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:50, May 18, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archibald_Cox&oldid=780960548

[2] Norman I. Silber, With All Deliberate Speed:  The Life of Philip Elman:  An Oral History Memoir in Mr. Elman’s Words, (Ann Arbor, MI:  The University of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 140.

[3] For instance, see Geoff Shepard, The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot that Brought Nixon Down, (Washington, DC:  Regnery History, 2015).