ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Four

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MUELLER HIRED EXTREMELY BIASED ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS WHO WORKED TO STOP TRUMP’S ELECTION

Through it all, Mueller’s modus operandi does not seem to have ever changed. He has hired nine Democrat-supporting lawyers and NO Republicans. Sure, all attorneys likel have political views and that is not a problem so long as they do not affect their job. But not a single Republican was worthy of Mueller’s selection? Were there no establishment Republicans who wanted to join him in railroading President Trump?

Mueller’s hand-picked team of Democrats reveal political views that distinctly conflict with Trump and the conservative agenda, raising questions about Mueller’s bias and his ability to conduct a fair investigation. At least nine members of Mueller’s team made significant contributions to Democrats or Democratic campaigns, while none contributed to Trump’s campaign and only James Quarles contributed to Republicans in a drastically smaller amount than what he gave to Democrats.

Analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, Andrew Goldstein, James Quarles, Elizabeth Prelogar, Greg Andres, Brandon Van Grack, Rush Atkinson, and Kyle Freeny all contributed over $50,000 in donations to Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s Presidential campaigns, various Democratic non-presidential candidates, and the Democratic National Convention.

Mueller also has surprisingly strong personal ties to a number of the lawyers he hired. Three former partners with Mueller at the Boston law firm of WilmerHale are on the payroll: Aaron Zebley, Jeannie Rhee, and James Quarles.

In addition to strong personal ties to Mueller, many of the attorneys have potential conflicts in working for persons directly connected to the people and issues being investigated. Jeannie Rhee represented Ben Rhodes, ex-Obama National Security Adviser, and the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit, as well as Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit probing her private emails.

Aaron Zebley, former Chief of Staff to Mueller while Director of the FBI, represented Justin Cooper in the Clinton email scandal as he was responsible for setting up Clinton’s private email server. He admitted to physically damaging Clinton’s old mobile devices.

Andrew Goldstein joined the team after working under major Trump critic Preet Bharara in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York. Bharara became a strong critic after Trump fired him as an Obama-holdover and spoke on ABC News that “there’s absolutely evidence to launch an obstruction of justice case against Trump’s team with regard to the Russia probe.” Does he sound a bit prejudiced?

Andrew Weissman, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissman shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined. Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi.

Additionally, Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election- night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weisman was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans.

Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after more than 10,000 texts between him and former Mueller investigator Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. They were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming President and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected.

GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN

Michael Flynn is a man who was caught up in manufactured controversy from the moment he stepped into his role in the Trump administration. The circumstances surrounding his take-down have become one of the more puzzling aspects of the Trump- Russia investigation.

His career took him from three decades in the U.S. Army to overseeing the Pentagon’s military intelligence operation and directing the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was more than qualified to act as the first national security adviser in a new administration. However, his influence and zeal made him a clear target for the Trump-Russia investigation. As a strong supporter and friend of Donald Trump’s from the onset, he campaigned and publicly supported then-candidate Trump throughout 2016.

As best I can sort it out through the media hype and hysteria, having no first-hand knowledge like the rest of America: after the successful election, during the transition period, in December 2016, Flynn reportedly conversed with a Russian ambassador. He was “accidentally” swept up in an intelligence foreign surveillance recording. When this happens, the names of American citizens are supposed to be masked in the transcripts. Somehow Flynn’s name was magically unmasked, which apparently allowed the Obama administration to peruse his meetings and conversations.

Parts of the classified transcript of that conversation were leaked to the media by rogue Deep State law breakers (criminals who Mueller seems completely disinterested in). This appears to be what fueled the media-driven narrative of Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia because Flynn had a discussion with a Russian ambassador, which conversation is absolutely legal and advisable.

A media-generated doubt clouded Flynn’s reputation, as the discussion was long- reported as having taken place during the campaign (which could possibly be illegal) but was later proven to have been after the election and during the transition which should not have been illegal. After a complete pounding of media-driven hysteria, in mid-February of 2017, Flynn resigned having served only 23 days as National Security Advisor. Mueller targeted Flynn using illicitly-gathered and leaked foreign intelligence and surveillance as evidence.

Nine months later after Flynn and his family were subjected to Mueller’s usual threats and intimidation, a financially exhausted Flynn entered a guilty plea on one count of lying to the FBI—the result of a Mueller-technique perjury trap as was used on Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart.

What is Flynn guilty of? He apparently misremembered a conversation that took place 33 days previously? The FBI had a transcript of that conversation and already knew what information was there. They went into a conversation with Flynn not seeking answers to questions, but to try to trip him up on exact statements made in a conversation when they were already in possession of the transcript. Flynn’s unmasking has become the center of a controversy wherein those transcripts were procured under exceedingly questionable circumstances before a judge who had a questionable and undisclosed relationship with part of Mueller’s team. That judge was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the secretive court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allows federal law enforcement to seek secretive warrants to surveil foreign persons outside of the United States who are suspected of terrorism.

But the Obama administration and Mueller seemed to find it much more politically expedient to use the secret court to go after Americans who were part of the Trump team for actions that did not occur while they were part of the Trump campaign team. Strange goings-on. One could argue that Judge Rudolph Contreras, the federal judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, conveniently misremembered that he also served on the FISA court as a judge and conveniently misremembered his friendship with the FBI agent whose interview was used as evidence against Flynn.

As it turns out, the FBI interview notes of that very encounter with Flynn may exonerate Michael Flynn, crushing Mueller’s case against him, not to mention the highly questionable hearing before a judge who may well have been recused much too late to save the Flynn prosecution.

A FISA JUDGE TOO CLOSE TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS INVOLVED

The FISA-authorized FISC is built upon the principle that highly delicate cases dealing with government surveillance of foreign agents and officials would be handled in an unbiased and respectful environment where secrecy at all costs was critical. There is supposed to be an added precaution to prevent any potential for bias in a FISA Judge by having a rotation of judges. That is why it is such a shock to find out now that Mueller’s case against Michael Flynn would happen to end up before the “randomly selected” very dear close personal friend of FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who hated President Trump with a passion, as evidenced in his text messages with colleague and paramour, Lisa Page.

U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, or “Rudy” as Strzok likes to refer to him, should have recused himself from such a highly sensitive case involving the ultimate attempted removal of the duly-elected President of the United States who happened to be despised by the very people who by law were required to prosecute with fairness. He was later forced to ‘recuse’ himself and be removed from the Flynn proceedings, without public explanation. This forced recusal was an unmistakable indication that he never should have been involved in the Michael Flynn plea agreement. Judge Contreras’ conflict of interest has yet to be explained by the court.

Contreras’ is one of only three local FISA court judges, and by default, is likely one of the judges who have on four occasions approved the Title I surveillance of another character in this melodrama, Carter Page. This is the case where the FBI is known to have intentionally misled the FISA court by using as evidence the illustrious “Steele Dossier,” a sordid opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Oh, what a tangled web of crime Special Prosecutor Mueller’s team appears to have helped weave, and of which Mueller appears to be completely disinterested, all while he searches high and low for an elusive crime to pin on the President.

MUELLER IGNORES APPARENTLY PROVABLE CRIMES INVOLVING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THE FBI, THE FISA COURT, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES

Strategically timed leaks of selective classified information are being used to target individuals for investigation in order to create the appearance of some sinister crime having been committed. Upon closer scrutiny, the cases fall apart. Yet, slam dunk federal criminal cases of leaking classified material are going on under Mueller’s nose, and by those within his purview and his team. When we think of all the leaks from Mueller’s investigation, it brings to mind Wilford Brimley’s quote from Absence of Malice: “You call what’s goin’ on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.”

Case in point: Eric Prince.

As Lee Smith put it in a recent article from TabletMag.com, Robert Mueller’s Beltway Cover-Up:

News that special counselor Robert Mueller has turned his attention to Erik Prince’s January 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles with a Russian banker, a Lebanese-American political fixer, and officials from the United Arab Emirates, helps clarify the nature of Mueller’s work. It’s not an investigation that the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading—rather, it’s a cover-up…

Mueller is said to believe that the Prince meeting was to set up a back channel with the Kremlin. But that makes no sense. According to the foundational text of the collusion narrative, the dossier allegedly written by former British spy Christopher Steele, the Kremlin had cultivated Trump himself for years. So what’s the purpose of a back channel, when Vladimir Putin already had a key to the front door of Mar-a-Lago? Further, the collusion thesis holds that the Trump circle teamed with high-level Russian officials for the purpose of winning the 2016 election. How does a meeting that Erik Prince had a week before Trump’s inauguration advance the crooked election victory plot? It doesn’t—it contradicts it.

The writer goes on to point out that serious crimes have been committed that Mueller is purposefully ignoring.

Prince was thrown into the middle of Russiagate after an April 3, 2017, Washington Post story reported his meeting with the Russian banker. But how did anyone know about the meeting?

After the story came out, Prince said he was shown “specific evidence” by sources from the intelligence community that the information was swept up in the collection of electronic communications and his identity was unmasked. The US official or officials who gave his name to the Post broke the law when they leaked classified intelligence. “Unless the Washington Post has somehow miraculously recruited the bartender of a hotel in the Seychelles,” Prince told the House Intelligence Committee in December, “the only way that’s happening is through SIGINT [signals intelligence].”

Prince’s name was unmasked and leaked from classified signals intelligence. Oddly enough, it’s the same modus operandi used in the targeting of President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. It is a federal felony to publish leaked classified information. Ask WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about that particular unequal application of the law. The Deep State felons who are strategically leaking this information have politically weaponized our justice system and should be brought up on charges of high treason for their attempts, with malice of forethought, to manufacture the overthrow of a duly- elected President of the United States.

The leaks and publication of classified information alone warrant investigation and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law in this matter, yet Mueller is uninterested in those crimes even as they go to the very heart of the credibility of the supposed justification of his investigative mandate. Yet, as I’ve demonstrated here, the man put in charge of the investigation of this Russia “collusion” case, Robert Mueller, has perfected the art of abuse of the justice system for personal and political gain. He is uninterested in any criminal activity that does not further his cause of damaging this President. If you think that is harsh, consider the criminality of the FISA court abuses by the Obama Department of Justice and FBI.

We have all heard ad nauseum about the infamous “Steele Dossier,” the opposition research document paid for by the Clinton campaign that was used to manufacture the Russia collusion narrative and spark what became the Mueller investigation into our President. On June 18, 2017, Muller protégé and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the Clinton campaign-funded document, telling Congress that the document was, “salacious and unverified.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295)

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, created a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to allow secret warrants to surveil agents of foreign governments, be they U.S. citizens or non-U.S. actors. In October of 2016, the Obama DOJ/FBI successfully applied for one of these secret warrants to surveil Carter Page, a short-time Trump campaign volunteer. Since these warrants against U.S. citizens are outside of the bounds of the Constitution, they have to be renewed by applying to the court every 90 days after the first warrant application is approved. These secret warrants are so serious they have to be signed off on at the highest levels. The applications in question would have been signed off on by Obama administration FBI and DOJ officials including then FBI Director James Comey. At least one of the renewal applications would have been signed off on by our current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. At the time of signing, they all would have had the knowledge and/or the professional and legal duty to know that the dossier was used as evidence and also had the legal duty to know the evidence origins. The same would apply to the knowledge of the penalty for submitting unverified information to the FISC for the purpose of obtaining a warrant. It is a crime to submit under the color of law an application to the FISC that contains unverified information. 50 U.S. Code § 1809 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1809]

Comey’s “salacious and unverified” testimony before the Senate occurred eight months after the Clinton campaign-funded dossier was used in the first successful FISA court application to obtain a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a Trump campaign volunteer for several months. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence examined the documentation submitted to the court and concluded that the unverified information contained in the Steele dossier was in fact used in the FISC application, without disclosing to the court that it was an opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf

Neither the initial application in October of 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials. The timing of the applications, the inclusion of material the DOJ/FBI knew to be unverified at the time, and the successful result after this fraudulent inclusion speak to the level of criminal corruption of those who sought to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and still seek to destroy his subsequent Presidency when their initial efforts failed. The widespread abuse of the FISA-authorized court, FISC, was laid bare in a court memorandum of review of these abuses that was declassified in 2017 that went virtually unnoticed by the media because it didn’t fit their narrative.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

These are serious crimes that, left unchecked, lead nations down the path to tyranny at the hands of people who think they know better than we do what is best for us. It’s an age-old struggle America’s Founding Fathers knew well and did everything they could to keep us from experiencing.

The FISC judges themselves have a duty to police their own courts and call to account these bad actors who, by all facts in the documentation I’ve personally seen, have committed a fraud upon the court. If these judges do not have the integrity to self-police in this matter, we in Congress must hold them accountable. using the power granted to us in the Constitution, Congress has created every single federal court in the country except the Supreme Court. We have the duty to phase out, then disband the FISC, while developing a better solution to address the authorization of this sort of surveillance of foreign agents and actors. We have got to clean up the mess that the Obama administration showed is far too easy to create.

If you want answers, and you CAN handle the truth, join me in demanding those answers from “Special Counsel” Robert Mueller, along with his resignation. If he were to resign, it could well be the only truly moral, ethical and decent action Mueller has undertaken in this entire investigation.

Play

ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Three

This story — now beginning its “third chapter” — is being relayed to TruthNewsNet.org by Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert. Congressman Gohmert has an extensive past as a criminal attorney, a judge, and now a longtime member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also has extensive personal interactions with Robert Mueller when Director of the FBI. Gohmert serves on the House Judiciary Committee that holds oversight of the U.S. Intelligence community as one of its highest priorities. It is in that setting that Congressman Gohmert has obtained a detailed and accurate understanding of Robert Mueller as a man, as an attorney, as an FBI Director, and now as Special Counsel in the Russia/Trump Campaign “collusion” investigation that remains ongoing.

If you have not read or listened to Parts One and Two of this story, please do so before reading or listening to Part Three. Doing so will give you a greater understanding of Mr. Mueller.

Tomorrow we will wrap this story up. But our wrapping it up will NOT end it — Mueller is still trying to find something — ANYTHING AT ALL — to use to attack President Trump. Maybe after these four chapters about Robert Mueller, the professional inside interactions between Mueller and Congressman Gohmert, and your own interpretation of Mueller’s actions, you will be able to form informed and objective determinations of the Truth in this “Mueller Matter.”

THE FRAMING OF SCOOTER LIBBY

In 2003, during yet another fabricated and politically-charged FBI investigation, this one “searching” for the leak of CIA agent Valery Plame’s identity to the media. Robert Mueller’s very dear close friend James Comey was at the time serving as the Deputy Attorney General. Comey convinced then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that he should recuse himself from the Plame investigation. At the time, Ashcroft was in the hospital. After Deputy A.G. Comey was successful in securing Ashcroft’s recusal, Comey then got to choose the Special Counsel. He then looked about for someone who was completely independent of any relationships that might affect his independence and settled upon his own child’s godfather and named Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the source of the leak. So much for the independence of the Special Counsel.

The entire episode was further revealed as a fraud when it was later made public that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, FBI Director Mueller, and Deputy Attorney Comey had very early on learned that the source of Plame’s identity leak came from Richard Armitage. But neither Comey nor Mueller nor Fitzgerald wanted Armitage’s scalp. Oh no. These so-called apolitical, fair-minded pursuers of their own brand of justice were after a bigger name in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Yet they knew from the beginning that these two men were not guilty of anything. Nonetheless, Fitzgerald, Mueller, and Comey pursued Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as a path to ensnare the Vice President. According to multiple reports, Fitzgerald had twice offered to drop all charges against Libby if he would ‘deliver’ Cheney to him. There was nothing to deliver.

Is any of this sounding familiar? Could it be that these same tactics have been used against an innocent Gen. Mike Flynn? Could it be that Flynn only agreed to plead guilty to prevent any family members from being unjustly prosecuted and to also prevent going completely broke from attorneys’ fees? That’s the apparent Mueller-Comey- Special Counsel distinctive modus-operandi. Libby would not lie about Cheney, so he was prosecuted for obstruction of justice, perjury, making a false statement. This Spectator report in 2015 sums up this particularly egregious element of the railroading: [https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/judith-miller-scooter-libby- and-the-trouble-with-special-prosecutors/]

“… By the time Scooter Libby was tried in 2007, it wasn’t for anything to do with the Plame leak — everyone then knew Armitage had taken responsibility for that — but for lying to federal officials about what he had said to three reporters, including Miller. It is relating to this part of the story that an extraordinary new piece of information has come to light. After her spell in prison, and with her job on the line, Miller was eventually worn down to agree to hand over some redacted portions of notes of her few conversations with Libby. Several years on, she could no longer recall where she had first heard of Plame’s CIA identity, but her notes included a reference to Wilson alongside which the journalist had added in brackets ‘wife works in Bureau?’ After Fitzgerald went through these notes it was put to Miller that this showed that the CIA identity of Plame had been raised by Libby during the noted meeting. At Libby’s trial, Miller was the only reporter to state that Libby had discussed Plame. His conviction and his sentencing to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine, rested on this piece of evidence.

But Miller has just published her memoirs. One detail in particular stands out. Since the Libby trial, Miller has read Plame’s own memoir and there discovered that Plame had worked at a State Department bureau as cover for her real CIA role. The discovery, in Miller’s words, ‘left her cold’. The idea that the ‘Bureau’ in her notebook meant ‘CIA’ had been planted in her head by Fitzgerald. It was a strange word to use for the CIA. Reading Plame’s memoir, Miller realized that ‘Bureau’ was in brackets because it related to her work at State Department. (Emphasis added) What that means is that Scooter Libby had not lied as she originally thought and testified. He was innocent of everything including the contrived offense. For his honesty and innocence, Scooter Libby spent time behind bars and still has a federal felony conviction he carries like an albatross.

The real culprit of the allegation for which the Special Counsel was appointed and massive amounts of taxpayer dollars expended was Richard Armitage. A similar technique was used against Martha Stewart. After all, Mueller’s FBI developed both cases. If the desired crime to be prosecuted was never committed, then talk to someone you want to convict until you find something that others are willing to say was not true. Then you can convict them of lying to the FBI. Martha Stewart found out about Mueller’s FBI the hard way. Unfortunately, Mueller has left a wake of innocent people whom he has crowned with criminal records.

History does seem to repeat itself when it is recording the same people using the same tactics. Can anyone who has ever actually looked at Robert Mueller’s history honestly say that Mueller deserves a sterling reputation in law enforcement? One part of his reputation he does apparently deserve is the reputation for being James Comey’s mentor.

MUELLER’S ‘COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP’ WITH DOJ ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS OF TERRORISM

In 2011, in one of the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight hearings, FBI Director Mueller repeatedly testified during questioning by various Members about how the Muslim community was just like every other religious community in the United States. He also referenced an “Outreach Program” the FBI had with the Muslim community. When it was my turn to question, I could not help but put the two points of his testimony together for a purge question: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haayF4jmthU ]

GOHMERT: Thank you, Director. I see you had mentioned earlier, and it’s in your written statement, that the FBI’s developed extensive outreach to Muslim communities and in answer to an earlier question I understood you to say that you know Muslim communities were like all other communities, so I’m curious as the result of the extensive outreach program the FBI’s had to the Muslim community, how is your outreach program going with the Baptists and the Catholics?

MUELLER: I’m not certain of, necessarily the rest of that, the question I would say — there is outreach to all segments of a particular city or county or society is good.

GOHMERT: Well do you have a particular program of outreach to Hindus, Buddhists, the Jewish community, agnostics or is it just an extensive outreach program to –

MUELLER: We have outreach to every one of those communities.

GOHMERT: And how do you do that?

MUELLER: Every one of those communities can be affected can be affected by facts or circumstance.

GOHMERT: I’ve looked extensively, and I haven’t seen anywhere in anyone from the FBI’s letters, information that there’s been an extensive outreach program to any other community trying to develop trust in this kind of relationship and it makes me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem like that that the FBI has seen in that particular community.

MUELLER: I would say if you look at one of our more effective tools or what we call citizens academies where we bring in individuals from a variety of segments of the territory in which the office operates . . . look at the citizens’ academy, the persons here, they are a cross- section of the community, they can be Muslim, could be Indian, they can be Baptists –

GOHMERT: Okay but no specific programs to any of those. You have extensive outreach to the Muslim community and then you have a program of outreach to communities, in general, is what it sounds like.

(Congressman Louie Gohmert)

We went further in the questioning. The 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, linked the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Because of this affiliation, the FBI issued policy and guidance to restrict its non-investigative interactions with CAIR in an effort to limit CAIR’s ability to exploit contacts with the FBI. As a result, FBI field offices were instructed to cut ties with all local branches of CAIR across the country.

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation case that linked the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and the North America Islamic Trust to the Holy Land Foundation?

MUELLER: I’m not going to speak to specific information in a particular case. I would tell you on the other hand that we do not –

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the case, Director? [CROSSTALK]MUELLER: – relationship with CAIR because of concerns –

GOHMERT: Well I’ve got the letter from the Assistant Director Richard Powers that says in light of the evidence – talking about during the trial – evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, including its current president emeritus and executive director and the Palestine committee, evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence, he says, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and FBI. Well now it’s my understanding, and I’ve got documentation, and I hope you’ve seen this kind of documentation before, it’s public record, and also the memo order from the judge in turning down a request that the unindicted co-conspirators be eliminated from the list, and he says the FBI’s information is clear there is a tie here, and I’m not going to grant the deletion of these particular parties as unindicted co-conspirators. So, I’m a little surprised that you’re reluctant to discuss something that’s already been set out in an order, that’s already been in a letter saying we cut ties in light of the evidence at this trial. I’m just surprised it took the evidence that the FBI had, being introduced at the trial in order to sever the relationships with CAIR that it (the FBI) had that showed going back to the 1993 meeting in Philadelphia, what was tied to a terrorist organization. So, I welcome your comments about that.

MUELLER: As I told you before, we have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership on that.

What Director Mueller was intentionally deceptive about was that the FBI had apparently maintained a relationship and even “community partnership” instigated on his watch with CAIR and other groups and individuals that his FBI had evidence showing they were co-conspirators to terrorism. That, of course, is consistent with his misrepresentation that Mueller’s FBI had outreach programs to other religious communities just like they did with the Muslim community. They did not. He was not honest about it.

In a March 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) questioned Mueller over the FBI move to cut off contact with CAIR. Mueller responded to Kyl’s pressing over how the policy was to be handled by FBI field offices and headquarters with the following: [https://www.investigativeproject.org/1242/fbi-director-vague-on-cair-freeze]

MUELLER: We try to adapt, when we have situations where we have an issue with one or more individuals, as opposed to the institution, or an institution, large, to identify the specificity of those particular individuals or issues that need to be addressed. We will generally have — individuals may have some maybe leaders in the community who we have no reason to believe whatsoever are involved in terrorism, but may be affiliated, in some way, shape or form, with an institution about which there is some concern, and which we have to work out a separate arrangement. We have to be sensitive to both the individuals, as well as the organization and try to resolve the issues that may prevent us from working with a particular organization.

KYL: They try to “adapt” with members of terror-related groups? Are they as “sensitive” with other organizations? Do they work out “separate arrangements” with members of, say, the Mafia or the Ku Klux Klan for “community outreach”? Why the special treatment for radical Islamic terrorism?

A March 2012 review of FBI field office compliance with this policy by the Office of Inspector General found a discrepancy between the FBI’s enforcement policy restricting contact and interaction with CAIR and its resulting actions. Rather than FBI headquarters enforcing the rules, they hedged. Mueller set up a separate cover through the Office of Public Affairs and allowed them to work together, despite the terrorist connections. That was the cultivated atmosphere of Mueller’s FBI.

The DOJ actually set out in writing in an indictment that CAIR and some of the people Mueller was coddling were supporters of terrorism. I had understood that the plan by the Bush Justice Department was that if they got convictions of the principals in the Holy Land Foundation trial, they would come right back after the co-conspirators who were named in the indictment as co-conspirators but who were not formally indicted.

In late 2008, the DOJ got convictions against all those formally indicted, so DOJ could then move forward with formally indicting and convicting the rest—EXCEPT that the November 2008 election meant it was now going to be the Obama DOJ with Eric Holder leading. The newly-named but not confirmed Attorney General apparently made clear they were not going to pursue any of the named co-conspirators. That itself was a major loss for the United States in its war against terrorism in the Obama administration. It was a self-inflicted refusal to go after and defeat our enemies. All of the named co-conspirators would not likely have been formally indicted, but certainly there was evidence to support the allegations against some of them, as the federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had formally found.

One of the problems with FBI Director Mueller is that he had already been cozying up to named co-conspirators with evidence in hand of their collusion with terrorists. That probably was an assurance to President Obama and Attorney General Holder that Mueller would fit right into the Obama administration. He did. It also helps explain why President Obama and AG Holder wanted him to serve and an extra two years as FBI Director. Mueller was their kind of guy. Unfortunately for America, he truly was!

PURGING THE FBI TRAINING MATERIALS

We repeatedly see cases where people were radicalized, came on the FBI radar, but the federal agents were looking for Islamophobes, not the terrorists standing in front of them. That is because Mueller’s demand of his FBI Agents, in the New Age to which he brought them, was to look for Islamophobes. If a Mueller-trained FBI agent got a complaint about a potential radical Islamist who may pose a threat, the agent must immediately recognize that the one complaining is most likely an Islamophobe. That means the agent should first investigate whether the complainant is guilty of a hate crime.

Too often it was AFTER an attack occurred that Mueller-trained FBI agents would decide that there really was a radical Islamic threat to the United States. The blinding of our FBI agents to the domestic threat of radical Islam is part of the beguiling damage Robert Mueller did as FBI Director. That is also the kind of damage that got Americans killed, even though Mueller may have avoided offending the radical Islamists who were killing Americans. As terrorism expert Patrick Poole continually points out in his “Known Wolf” series, the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are committed by those the FBI has interviewed and dismissed as a threat. Here are three of the more high-profile cases: [https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/09/28/known-wolf-terrorism-a-dozen-cases-of-fbi-failure-on- obamas-watch/]

ORLANDO: The mass killer who attacked the Pulse nightclub in June 2016, Omar Mateen, had been interviewed by the FBI on THREE separate occasions. The open preliminary investigation in 2013 lasted 10 months after Mateen had told others about mutual acquaintances he shared with the Boston bombers and had made extremist statements. He was investigated again in 2014 for his contacts with a suicide bomber who attended the same mosque. At one point, Mateen was placed on TWO separate terrorism databases. He was later removed from them.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Detroit- bound Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 with 289 other passengers wearing an underwear bomb intended to murder them all. He was well-known to U.S. intelligence officials before he boarded.

Only one month before the attempted bombing, Abdulmutallab’s father had actually gone to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and met with two CIA officers. He directly told the CIA that he was concerned about his son’s extremism. Abdulmutallab’s name was added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database. However, his name was not added to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database. Or even the no-fly list. So, he boarded a plane.

When asked about the near-takedown of the flight and these missteps, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano remarkably told CNN that “the system worked.” The only “system” that worked in this incident: a culture that values bravery, already instilled in the passengers who acted.

BOSTON: Prior to the bombing of the Boston Marathon by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in April 2013 that killed three people and injured 264 others, the FBI had been tipped off. Twice. Russian intelligence warned that Tamerlan was “a follower of radical Islam.”

Initially, the FBI denied ever meeting with Tamerlan. They later claimed that they followed up on the lead, couldn’t find anything in their databases linking him to terrorism, and quickly closed the case. After the second Russian warning, Tamerlan’s file was flagged by federal authorities demanding “mandatory” detention if he attempted to leave or re-enter the United States. But Tsarnaev’s name was misspelled when it was entered into the database. An internal FBI report of the handling of the Tsarnaev’s case — unsurprisingly — saw the FBI exonerate itself.

When I asked at yet another House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, Mueller himself admitted in response to my questioning, that the FBI had indeed gone to the Boston mosque the bombers attended. Of course, The FBI did not go to investigate the Tsarnaevs.

The bombers’ mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston, was incorporated by known and convicted terrorists. The incorporation papers were signed by none other than Abduram Al-Amoudi who is currently serving 23 years in a federal prison for funding terrorism. One of the members of the Board of Trustees included a leader of the International Muslim Brotherhood, Yusef al-Qawadari, who is barred from entering the United States due to his terrorist ties. Did Mueller’s FBI go to the Boston bombers’ mosque to investigate the Tsarnaevs? This is from the House Judiciary oversight hearing transcript: https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/113-32-81462-1.pdf

GOHMERT: The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks. If the Russians tell you that someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosque that they went to, then you get the articles of incorporation, as I have, for the group that created the Boston mosque where these Tsarnaevs attended, and you find out the name Al-Amoudi, which you will remember, because while you were FBI Director this man who was so helpful to the Clinton administration with so many big things, he gets arrested at Dulles Airport by the FBI and he is now doing over 20 years for supporting terrorism. This is the guy that started the mosque where the Tsarnaevs were attending, and you didn’t even bother to go check about the mosque? And then when you have the pictures, why did no one go to the mosque and say, who are these guys? They may attend here. Why was that not done since such a thorough job was done?

MUELLER: Your facts are not altogether——

GOHMERT: Point out specifically.

MUELLER: May I finish my——

GOHMERT: Point out specifically. Sir, if you’re going to call me a liar, you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong.

MUELLER: We went to the mosque prior to Boston.

GOHMERT: Prior to Boston?

MUELLER: Prior to Boston happening, we were in that mosque talking to the imam several months beforehand as part of our outreach efforts.

“Outreach efforts”? Yes. That is apparently Mueller’s efforts to play figurative patty- cake with the leaders and tell them how wonderful they are and how crazy all those Islamaphobes out there are, but they surely got the assurance that Mueller’s FBI is after those bigots. Maybe they sat around on the floor and had a really nice meal together. One thing for certain, they weren’t asking about the Tsarnaevs! But the hearing got even worse:

GOHMERT: Were you aware that those mosques were started by Al-Amoudi?

MUELLER. I’ve answered the question, sir.

GOHMERT. You didn’t answer the question. Were you aware that they were started by Al-Amoudi?

MUELLER. No.

Then my time for questioning expired, leaving many questions unanswered. Why was the FBI unaware of the origins of the mosque attended by the Boston bombers? This was arguably the most traumatic Islamic terrorist attack in America since 9-11 because the explosions happened on live television at the Boston Marathon. When did the FBI become an outreach-to-terrorism organization to the detriment and disregard of its investigations? Under Director Robert Mueller’s tenure, that’s when!

In Director Mueller’s efforts to appease and please the named co-conspirators of terrorism, he was keenly attuned to their complaints that the FBI training materials on radical Islam said some things about Islamic terrorists that offended some Muslims. Never mind that the main offense was done to the American people by radical Islamists who wanted to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. Mueller wanted to make these co-conspirators feel good toward Mueller and to let them know he was pleased to appease.

Director Mueller had all of the training materials regarding radical Islam “purged” of anything that might offend radical Islamic terrorists. So, in addition to using his “Five Year Up-or-Out” policy to force out so many experienced FBI agents who had been properly trained to identify radical Islamic terrorists, now Mueller was going even further. He was ensuring that new FBI agents would not know what to look for when assessing potentially radicalized individuals.

When some of us in Congress learned of the Mueller-mandated “purge” of FBI training materials, we demanded to see what was being removed. Unfortunately, Mueller was well experienced in covering his tracks, so naturally, the pages of training materials that were purged were ordered to be “classified,” so most people would never get to see them. After many terrorist attacks, we would hear that the FBI had the Islamic terrorists on their radar but failed to identify them. Now you are beginning to see why FBI agents could not spot them. They were looking more at the complainant than they were at the radical Islamist because that is what Mueller had them trained to do.

Michele Bachmann and I were extremely upset that Americans were being killed because of the terribly flawed training. We demanded to see the material that was “purged” from the training of FBI agents regarding radical Islam. That is when we were told it could not be sent over for review because the purged material was “classified.” We were authorized to review classified material, so we demanded to see it anyway. We were willing to go over to the FBI office or the DOJ, but we wanted to review the material. We were told they would bring it over and let us review it in the Rayburn Building in a protected setting. They finally agreed to produce the material. Members of Congress Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, and I went to the little room to review the vast amount of material. Lynn was not able to stay as long as Michele and I did, but we started pouring through the notebooks of materials.

It was classified so naturally I am not allowed to disclose any specifics, but we were surprised at the amount of material that was purged from training our agents. Some of the items that were strictly for illustration or accentuation were removed. A few were silly. But some should clearly have been left in if an FBI agent was going to know how and what a radical Islamic terrorist thinks, and what milestone had been reached in the radicalization process. It was clear to Michele and me as we went through the purged materials that some of the material really did need to be taught to our FBI agents.

For those densely-headed or radical activists who will wrongly proclaim that what I am writing is an Islamophobic complaint, please note that I have never said that all Muslims are terrorists. I have never said that because all Muslims are NOT terrorists. But for the minority who are, we have to actually learn exactly what they study and learn how they think.

As Patton made clear after defeating Rommel’s tanks in World War II, he studied his enemy, what he believed and how he thought. In the movie, “Patton,” he loudly proclaims, “Rommel, you magnificent ___, I read your book!” That is how an enemy is defeated. You study what they believe, how they think, what they know. Failure to do so is precisely why so many “Known Wolves” are able to attack us. Clearly, Mueller weakened our ability to recognize a true radical Islamic terrorist. As one of my friends in our U.S. Intelligence said, “We have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy! You cannot defeat an enemy you cannot define.” Robert Mueller deserves a significant amount of the credit for the inability of our federal agents to define our enemy.

PURGING THE ADVANCED COUNTER-TERRORISM AGENTS’ TRAINING MATERIALS

FBI Special Agent Kim Jensen had spent a great deal of his adult life studying radical Islam. He is personally responsible for some extraordinary undercover work that remains classified to this day. He was tasked with putting together a program to train our more experienced FBI agents to locate and identify radicalized Muslims on the threshold of violence. Jensen had done this well before Mueller began to cozy up with and pander to groups such as CAIR.

Complaints by similar groups caused Mueller to once again demand that our agents could not be properly instructed on radical Islam. Accordingly, Jensen’s approximately 700-pages of advanced training material on radical Islam were eliminated from FBI training and all copies were ordered destroyed. When Director Mueller decides he wants our federal agents to be blind and ignorant of radical Islam, they are indeed going to be blind and ignorant. Fortunately, in changing times well after Mueller’s departure as FBI Director, a new request went out to Mr. Jensen to recreate that work because at least someone in the FBI needed to know what traits to look for in a terrorist. It still did not undo the years of damage from Mueller’s commanded ignorance of radical Islam.

MUELLER’S UNETHICAL ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Robert Mueller had more than one direct conflict of interest that should have prohibited him from serving as the Special Counsel to investigate President Donald Trump. For one thing, President Trump fired his close friend and confidante, disgraced FBI Director James Comey. Mueller had long served as a mentor to Comey, who would most certainly be a critical witness in any investigation of Donald Trump. Mueller and Comey had also been exceedingly close friends beyond the mentor relationship. But Comey’s insertion of himself into so much of the election cycle and even its aftermath in conversations he had with the President himself made him a critical witness in the investigation. There is no way Mueller could sit in judgment of his dear, close friend’s credibility, and certainly no way he should be allowed to do so.

Gregg Jarrett explained one aspect of this situation quite clearly and succinctly at FoxNews.com in an article titled, “Gregg Jarrett: Are Mueller and Comey ‘Colluding’ against Trump by acting as co-special counsel?” A portion of that article said the following:

The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has a “conflict of interest.” Even the appearance of a conflict is disallowed.

The same Code of Federal Regulations defines what constitutes a conflict. That is, “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” (28 CFR 45.2). Comey is that person. He was substantially involved in the conversation with President Trump who may be the subject of an obstruction investigation. In fact, the former Director is the only other person involved. There were no witnesses beyond himself. A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Here, it sets up a clash between the special counsel’s self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest in discharging his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner. His close association with the star witness raises the likelihood of prejudice or favoritism which is anathema to the fair administration of justice. Mueller has no choice but to disqualify himself. The law affords him no discretion because the recusal is mandatory in its language. It does not say “may” or “can” or “might”. It says the special counsel “shall” recuse himself in such instances.

An excellent post by Robert Barnes, a constitutional lawyer, identifies five statutes, regulations and codes of conduct that Mueller is violating because of his conflict of interest with Comey. Byron York, the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner recounts in detail the close personal relationship between Mueller and Comey which gives rise to the blatant conflict of interest. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/12/gregg-jarrett-are-muller-and-comey-now- acting-in-concert-as-co-special-counsel.html]

Another deeply troubling aspect of Mueller’s conflict of interest is and was his role in the investigation of Russia’s effort to illegally gain control of a substantial part of United States’ precious supply of uranium. That investigation was taking place within the Mueller FBI, which should have had a direct effect on prohibiting Secretary of State Clinton from participating in the approval of the uranium sale into the hands that were ultimately the Russian government.

Of course, then U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein had direct control over that Russia- uranium investigation in conjunction with FBI Director Mueller. It certainly appears that with what they had gleaned from that undercover investigation, they should never have been involved in any subsequent investigation that might touch on potential collusion and millions of dollars paid to Clinton’s foundation by the very beneficiaries of the Russians’ uranium schemes. Rosenstein and Mueller’s failure to warn against or stop the sale reeks of its own form of collusion, cooperation, or capitulation in what some consider a treasonous sale.

Quite the interesting little duo now in charge of all things investigatory surrounding their own actions. In fact, Rosenstein and Mueller are now in a position to dissuade others from pursuing THEM for their own conduct.

Play

ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Two

At the TruthNewsNetwork, we have previously revealed some startling evidence of Robert Mueller’s past, which is not so squeaky clean. Mr. Mueller has multiple question marks in his law enforcement career. But few know or understand just how devastatingly compromised the current Special Investigator’s life has been.

I have great admiration for Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) who represents the 1st Congressional District in Texas. His southern drawl disarms many who when hearing Gohmert assume he’s slow as his Texas drawl indicates he may be. Not so. During his long stay in the U.S. House of Representatives, he has compiled a long list of legislative accomplishments along with the respect of his peers for his daunting willingness to confront political foes no matter what approach those may take. He may be best-known in recent days for taking on former FBI Intelligence officer Peter Strozk in a recent joint committee hearing regarding Mr. Strozk’s involvement in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and also the early stages of Mueller’s investigation of the Trump Campaign for alleged collusion with Russians during the 2016 election. Louie Gohmert is as fearless as a pit bulldog and just as tenacious.

Congressman Gohmert in his political career has had many interactions with Mr. Mueller that have prompted Gohmert to question Mueller’s integrity and work ethic. To that end, I feel it is extremely important for www.TruthNewsNet.org to step outside of our normal research processes for instead the learned perspective of Robert Mueller from Congressman Gohmert who has far more “personal” experience with Mueller than we.

Gohmert’s perspective is detailed and underpinned with facts which substantiate his opinions, making this story lengthy. We will share Congressman Gohmert’s personal Mueller account titled “Robert Mueller: Unmasked” in installments. You will NOT want to miss this massive story! We had Part One yesterday. Today: Here is ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Two.

MUELLER’S FIVE YEAR UP-OR-OUT POLICY

In federal law enforcement, it takes a new federal agent or supervisor about five years or so after arriving at a newly assigned office to gain the trust and respect of local law officers. That trust and respect is absolutely critical to doing the best job possible. Yet new FBI Director Robert Mueller came up with a new personnel policy that would rid the FBI of thousands of years of its most invaluable experience.

In a nutshell, after an FBI employee was in any type of supervisory position for five years, he or she had to either come to Washington to sit at a desk or get out of the FBI. In the myriad of FBI offices around the country, most agents love what they do in actively enforcing the law. They have families involved in the community; their kids enjoy their schools; and they do not want to move to the high cost of living in Washington, DC, and especially not to an inside desk job. What occurred around the country was that agents in charge of their local offices got out of the FBI and did something more lucrative. Though they really wanted to stay in, they were not allowed to do so if they were not moving to DC. Agents told me that it was not unusual for the Special Agent in Charge of a field office to have well over 20 years of experience before the policy change. Under Mueller’s policy that changed to new Special Agents in Charge having five to ten years of experience when they took over. If the FBI Director wanted nothing but “yes” men and women around the country working for him, this was a great policy. Newer agents are more likely to unquestioningly salute the FBI Mecca in Washington, and the Director, and never boldly offer a suggestion to fix a bad idea and Mueller had plenty of them. Whether it was wasting millions of dollars on a software boondoggle or questionable personnel preferences, agents tell me Mueller did not want to hear from more experienced people voicing their concerns about his ideas or policies.

An NPR report December 13, 2007, entitled, “FBI’S ‘Five-And-Out’ Transfer Policy Draws Criticism” dealt with the Mueller controversial policy: “From the beginning of this year (2007) until the end of September (2007), 576 agents found themselves in the five-and-out pool. Less than half of them — just 286 — opted to go to headquarters; 150 decided to take a pay cut and a lesser job to stay put; 135 retired; and five resigned outright.”

In the period of nine months accounted for in this report, the FBI ran off a massive amount of absolutely priceless law enforcement experience vested in 140 invaluable agents. For the vast part, those are the agents who have seen the mistakes, learned lessons, could advise newer agents on unseen pitfalls of investigations and pursuit of justice. So many of these had at least 20-30 years of experience or more. The lessons learned by such seasoned agents were lost as the agents carried it with them when they left. In the 2007 NPR report, the FBI Agents Association indicated that the Five-Year-Up-or- Out program hobbles field offices and takes relationships forged there for granted. In other words, it was a terrible idea. The incalculable experience loss damages the FBI by eliminating those in the field in a position to write to or meet with the FBI Director to advise him against some of the mounting judgment errors on his part which were listed in the NPR article. But this was not the only damage done.

If an FBI Director has inappropriate personal vengeance in mind or holds an inappropriate prejudice such as those that infamously motivated Director J. Edgar Hoover, then the older, wiser, experienced agents were not around with the confidence to question or guide the Director away from potential misjudgment. I also cannot help but wonder if Mueller had not run off the more experienced agents, would they have been able to advise against and stop the kind of abuses and corruption being unearthed right now that occurred during the Obama administration. Rather than admit that his Five Year Up or Out Policy was a mistake, Mueller eventually changed the policy to a Seven Year Up or Out Program. I once pointed out to him at a hearing that if he had applied the Five Year Up-or-Out Policy to literally everyone in a supervisory position, he himself would have had to leave the FBI by September of 2006. He did not seem to be amused.

One other problem remained that will be discussed in more detail later in this article. Before Mueller became Director, FBI agents were trained to identify certain Muslims who had radicalized and become dangerous. Mueller purged and even eliminated training that would have helped identify radical Islamic killers. By running off the more experienced agents who had better training on radical Islam before Mueller, “blinded us of the ability to identify our enemy,” as I was told by some of them, Mueller put victims in harm’s way in cities like Boston, San Diego and elsewhere.

NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER ABUSES

National Security Letters (NSL) are a tool that allows the DOJ to bypass the formality of subpoenas, applications for warrants with affidavits in support, and instead simply send a letter to an individual, business or any entity they so choose to demand that records or documents of any kind must be produced and provided to the sender. The letter also informs the recipient that if the recipient reveals to anyone that the letter was received or what it requires to be produced, then the recipient has committed a federal felony and will be prosecuted. It is a rather dramatic event to receive such a letter and realize that this simple letter could have such profound power and consequences. The Committee in the House of Representatives that has oversight jurisdiction over the DOJ is the Judiciary Committee of which I am a member. We have grilled DOJ personnel in the past over the potential for NSL abuse, but both the House and Senate Committees were reassured that there were no known abuses of this extra-constitutional power.

Unfortunately, the day came when we learned that there had been an extraordinary number of abuses. Apparently, some of Mueller’s FBI agents had just been sending out demands for records or documents without any probable cause as the Fourth Amendment requires. Some agents were on outright fishing expeditions just to find out what different people were doing. We were told that there may have even been thousands of NSL’s sent out to get documents without following either the Constitutional requirements or the DOJ’s own policy requirements. When the Inspector General’s report revealed such absolutely outrageous conduct by FBI agents, some of us in Congress were absolutely livid.

An NBC News report on March 9, 2007, had this headline and sub-headline: “Justice Department: FBI acted illegally on data; Audit finds agency misused Patriot Act to obtain information on citizens.” The report went on to say, “FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was to blame for not putting more safeguards into place. ‘I am to be held accountable,’ Mueller said. He told reporters he would correct the problems and did not plan to resign. ‘The inspector general went and did the audit that I should have put in place many years ago,’ Mueller said.”

Some of us Republicans wanted to completely eliminate such an extraordinary power that was so widely abused. Nonetheless, I could not help but wonder that if Mueller had not run off thousands of years of experience though his “Five Year Up-or-Out Policy,” perhaps young, inexperienced agents would not have been so tempted to vastly abuse the power of the NSL. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lost his job over the widespread, pervasive abuses under Mueller’s supervision. In retrospect, Mueller probably should have been gone first. It was his people, his lack of oversight, his atmosphere that encouraged it, and his FBI that did virtually nothing to hold people accountable.

THE WITCH HUNT AGAINST REPUBLICAN SENATOR TED STEVENS AND HIS TRAGIC DEATH

Ted Stevens had served in the U.S. Senate since 1968 and was indicted in 2008 by the U.S. Justice Department. One would think before the U.S. government would seek to destroy a sitting U.S. Senator, there would be no question whatsoever of his guilt. One would be completely wrong in thinking so when the FBI Director is Robert Mueller.

Roll Call provides us with General Colin Powell’s take on Ted Stevens:

“According to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had worked closely with the senator since his days as President Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser, the senator was ‘a trusted individual … someone whose word you could rely on. I never heard in all of those years a single dissenting voice with respect to his integrity, with respect to his forthrightness, and with respect to the fact that when you shook hands with Ted Stevens, or made a deal with Ted Stevens, it was going to be a deal that benefited the nation in the long run, one that he would stick with.’”

Such a glowing reputation certainly did not inhibit Mueller’s FBI from putting Stevens in its cross-hairs, pushing to get an indictment that came 100 days before his election, and engaging in third world dictator-type tactics to help an innocent man lose his election, after which he lost his life. As reported by NPR, after the conviction and all truth came rolling out of the framing and conviction of Senator Stevens, the new Attorney General Eric Holder, had no choice. He “abandoned the Stevens case in April 2009 after uncovering new and ‘disturbing’ details about the prosecution…” Unfortunately for Ted Stevens, his conviction came only eight days before his election, which tipped the scales on a close election.

Does this sound familiar yet?

The allegation was that Senator Stevens had not paid full price for improvements to his Alaska cabin. As Roll Call reported, he had actually overpaid for the improvements by over twenty percent. Roll Call went on to state: “But relying on false records and fueled by testimony from a richly rewarded ‘cooperating’ witness… government prosecutors convinced jurors to find him guilty just eight days before the general election which he lost by less than 2 percent of the vote.”

After a report substantiated massive improprieties by the FBI and DOJ in the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens, the result was ultimately a complete dismissal of the conviction. At the time there was no direct evidence that Director Mueller was aware of the tactics of concealing exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated Stevens, and the creation of evidence that convicted him in 2008. Nearly four years later, in 2012, the Alaska Dispatch News concluded:

“Bottom line: Kepner (the lead FBI investigator accused of wrongdoing by Agent Joy) is still working for the FBI and is still investigating cases, including criminal probes. Joy, the whistleblower (who was the FBI agent who disclosed the FBI’s vast wrongdoing, especially of Kepner), has left the agency.”

Director Mueller either did control or could have controlled what happened to the lead FBI agent that destroyed a well-respected U.S. Senator. That U.S. Senator was not only completely innocent of the manufactured case against him, he was an honest and honorable man. Under Director Mueller’s overriding supervision, the wrongdoer who helped manufacture the case stayed on and the whistleblower was punished. Obviously, the FBI Director wanted his FBI agents to understand that honesty would be punished if it revealed wrongdoing within Mueller’s organization.

Further, not only was evidentiary proof of Senator Stevens’ innocence concealed from the Senator’s defense attorneys by the FBI, there was also a witness that provided compelling testimony that Stevens’ had done everything appropriately. That witness, however, was who agents sent back to Alaska by FBI Agents, unbeknownst to the Senator’s defense attorneys. This key exonerating testimony was placed out of reach for Senator Stevens’ defense. Someone should have gone to jail for this illegality within the nation’s top law enforcement agency. Instead, Senator Stevens lost his seat, and surprise, surprise, Mueller’s FBI helped another elected Republican bite the dust. Unfortunately, I am not speaking figuratively.

In August of 2010, former Senator Stevens boarded his doomed plane. But for the heinous, twisted and corrupt investigation by the FBI, and inappropriate prosecution by the DOJ, he would have still been a sitting U.S. Senator. Don’t forget, one vote in the Senate was critical to ObamaCare becoming law also. If Senator Stevens was still there, it would not have become law.

In the following month after Senator Stevens’ untimely death, in September of 2010, a young DOJ lawyer, Nicholas Marsh who had been involved in the Stevens case, committed suicide at his home as the investigation into the fraudulently created case continued. The report expressed, “no conclusion as to his (Marsh’s) conduct,” given his untimely death. Robert Luskin, an attorney for Marsh, said, “he tried to do the right thing.”

If you wonder what happened to the valuable FBI agent who was an upstanding whistleblower with a conscience, you should know that in Mueller’s FBI, Special Agent Joy was terribly mistreated. Orders came down from on high that he was not to participate in any criminal investigation again, which is the FBI management’s way of forcing an agent out of the FBI. On the other hand, the FBI agent who was said to have manufactured evidence against Senator Stevens while hiding evidence of his innocence was treated wonderfully and continued to work important criminal cases for Director Mueller. If you wonder if mistreatment of an FBI agent who exposed impropriety was an anomaly in Mueller’s FBI, the Alaska Dispatch noted this about another case:

“Former FBI agent Jane Turner was treated much like Joy (the whistleblower agent in the Stevens case) after she blew the whistle on fellow agents who had taken valuable mementos from Ground Zero following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. She took the FBI to court over her treatment and ended up winning her case against the agency after a jury trial. When you blow the whistle on the FBI, ‘it’s death by a million paper cuts,’ she told Alaska Dispatch. Turner said that agents who violate the FBI’s omerta — those who internally challenge the agency — are undercut and isolated. ‘They (Mueller’s FBI supervisors) do everything they can to get you to quit’ she said.

DEATH OF DR. STEVEN HATFILL’S REPUTATION AND PRODUCTIVE LIFE

Here is how Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist described this combination

Mueller/Comey debacle:[http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/12/james-comey-long-history-questionable-obstruction-cases/]

“The FBI absolutely bungled its investigation into the Anthrax attacker who struck after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Carl Cannon goes through this story well, and it’s worth reading for how it involves both Comey and his dear ‘friend’ and current special counsel Robert Mueller. The FBI tried — in the media — its case against Hatfill. Their actual case ended up being thrown out by the courts:

Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.

More from the Carl Cannon cited above, recounting how disastrous the attempt to convict Dr. Steven Hatfill for a crime he didn’t commit was:

In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). 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.

Unfortunately, both Mueller and Comey were absolutely and totally convinced of the innocent man’s guilt. They ruined his life, his relationship with friends, neighbors and potential employers.

And from Carl Cannon, Real Clear Politics: [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/05/21/when_comey_and_mueller_bungled_the_anthrax_case_13 3953.html]

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, and personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill, the bureau had its man…

Mueller didn’t exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill – and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement ($2.82+150,000/yr. for 20 yrs) – Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. “I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” he said, adding that it would be erroneous “to say there were mistakes.”

Though FBI jurisdiction has its limitations, Mueller’s ego does not.

Mueller and Comey’s next target in the Anthrax case was Dr. Bruce Ivins. As the FBI was closing in and preparing to give him the ultimate Hatfill treatment, Dr. Ivins took his own life. Though Mueller and Comey were every bit as convinced that Dr. Ivins was the Anthrax culprit as they were that Dr. Hatfill was, there are lingering questions about whether or not there was a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Dr. Ivins is deceased and had some mental issues, we are expected to simply accept that he was definitely the Anthrax killer and drop the whole matter. That’s a difficult ask after taxpayer money paid off Mueller’s previous victim. Mueller had relentlessly dogged Dr. Hatfill using life- destroying, Orwellian tactics. Either Mueller was wrong when he said it would be a mistake, “to say there were mistakes,” in the railroading of Hatfill or Mueller did intentionally and knowingly persecute an innocent man.

Summary

The plot thickens!

I’ve heard many times through the years allegations made against someone that if true would be extremely damaging to that person. But often people who hear those allegations — especially when they come from a well-known and respected member of law enforcement — the default position of the hearer is that “if Billy Bob said that then it must be true.” Mueller in his investigatory career very seldom has personally made allegations against others from criminal wrongdoing. But he has continually manipulated the criminal justice system to achieve whatever in each case is his ultimate objective. Unfortunately for those who are targets of Mueller’s anger, often Mueller’s objectives have been successful and have ruined peoples’ lives.

Tomorrow please come back for ROBERT MUELLER: Unmasked Part Three!

Play

ROBERT MUELLER: UNMASKED Part One

At the TruthNewsNetwork, we have previously revealed some startling evidence of Robert Mueller’s past, which is not so squeaky clean. Mr. Mueller has multiple question marks in his law enforcement career. But few know or understand just how devastatingly compromised the current Special Investigator’s life has been.

I have great admiration for Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) who represents the 1st Congressional District in Texas. His southern drawl disarms many who when hearing Gohmert assume he’s slow as his Texas drawl indicates he may be. Not so. During his long stay in the U.S. House of Representatives, he has compiled a long list of legislative accomplishments along with the respect of his peers for his daunting willingness to confront political foes no matter what approach those may take. He may be best-known in recent days for taking on former FBI Intelligence officer Peter Strozk in a recent joint committee hearing regarding Mr. Strozk’s involvement in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and also the early stages of Mueller’s investigation of the Trump Campaign for alleged collusion with Russians during the 2016 election. Louie Gohmert is as fearless as a pit bulldog and just as tenacious.

Congressman Gohmert in his political career has had many interactions with Mr. Mueller that have prompted Gohmert to question Mueller’s integrity and work ethic. To that end, I feel it is extremely important for www.TruthNewsNet.org to step outside of our normal research processes for instead the learned perspective of Robert Mueller from Congressman Gohmert who has far more “personal” experience with Mueller than we.

Gohmert’s perspective is detailed and underpinned with facts which substantiate his opinions, making this story lengthy. We will share Congressman Gohmert’s personal Mueller account titled “Robert Mueller: Unmasked” in several installments. You will NOT want to miss a single one! (This may be a good spot to opt for the Podcast version: this reads like a spy novel!)

Part I of “Robert Mueller: Unmasked,” presented by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

  “Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone. I do not make these statements lightly. Each time I prepared to question Mueller during Congressional hearings, the more concerned I became about his work ethic. Then as I went back to begin compiling all that information in order to recount personal interactions with Mueller, the more clearly the big picture began to come into focus. At one point I had to make the decision to stop adding to this or it would turn into a far too lengthy project.

My goal was to share some first-hand information as other Republican Members of Congress had requested, adding, “You seem to know so much about him.” This article is prepared from my viewpoint to help better inform the reader about the Special Prosecutor leading the effort to railroad President Donald J. Trump through whatever manufactured charge he can allege. Judging by Mueller’s history, it doesn’t matter who he has to threaten, harass, prosecute or bankrupt to get someone to be willing to allege something—anything—about our current President, it certainly appears Mueller will do what it takes to bring down his target, ethically, or unethically, based on my findings.

What does former Attorney General Eric Holder say? Sounds like much the same thing I just said. Holder: “I’ve known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years; my guess is he’s just trying to make the case as good as he possibly can.” Holder does know him. He has seen Mueller at work when Holder was obstructing justice and acting in contempt of Congress. He knows Mueller’s FBI framed innocent people and had no remorse in doing so. Let’s look at what we know.

What I have accumulated here is absolutely shocking upon the realization that Mueller’s disreputable, twisted history speaks to the character of the man placed in a position to attempt to legalize a coup against a lawfully-elected President.
Any Republican who says anything resembling, “Bob Mueller will do a good job as Special Counsel,” “Bob Mueller has a great reputation for being fair,” or anything similar; (A) wants President Trump indicted for something and removed from office regardless of his innocence; (B) is intentionally ignorant of the myriad of outrageous problems permeating Mueller’s professional history; or (C) is cultivating future Democrat votes when he or she comes before the Senate someday for a confirmation hearing.
There is simply too much clear and convincing information available to the contrary. Where other writers have set out information succinctly, I have quoted them, with proper attribution. My goal is to help you see what I have found. In his early years as FBI Director, most Republican members of Congress gave Mueller a pass in oversight hearings, allowing him to avoid tough questions. After all, we were continually told, “Bush appointed him.” I gave him easy questions the first time I questioned him in 2005 out of deference to his Vietnam service. Yet, the longer I was in Congress, the more conspicuous the problems became. As I have said before of another Vietnam veteran, just because someone deserves our respect for service or our sympathy for things that happened to them in the military, that does not give them the
right to harm our country later. As glaring problems came to light, I toughened up my questions in the oversight hearings. But first, let’s cover a little of Mueller’s history.

MUELLER’S MINIONS HELP MOBSTER WHITEY BULGER ELIMINATE MOB COMPETITORS

The Boston Globe noted Robert Mueller’s connection with the Whitey Bulger case in an article entitled, “One Lingering Question for FBI Director Robert Mueller.” The Globe said this:
“[Mike] Albano [former Parole Board Member who was threatened by two F.B.I. agents for considering parole for the men imprisoned for a crime they did not commit] was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset…”
[https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/1970/01/19/one-lingering-question-for-fbi-director-robert-mueller/613uW0MR7czurRn7M4BG2J/story.html]
Mueller was the head of the Criminal Division as Assistant U.S. Attorney, then as Acting U.S. Attorney. I could not find any explanation online by Mueller as to why he insisted on keeping the defendants in prison that FBI agents—in the pocket of Whitey Bulger—had framed for a murder they did not commit. Make no mistake: these were not honorable people he had incarcerated. But it was part of a pattern that eventually became quite clear that Mueller was more concerned with convicting and putting people in jail he disliked, even if they were innocent of the charges than he was with ferreting out the truth.
I found no explanation as to why he did not bear any responsibility for the $100 million paid to the defendants who were framed by FBI agents under his control. The Boston Globe said, “Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.”
[https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/1970/01/19/one-lingering-question-for-fbi-director-robert-mueller/613uW0MR7czurRn7M4BG2J/amp.html]
The New York Times explained the relationship this way: “In the 1980’s, while [FBI Agent] Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a ’top-echelon informant.’ Officials of the Massachusetts state police and the Boston Police Department had long wondered why their investigations of Mr. Bulger were always compromised before they could gather evidence against him, and they suspected that the FBI was protecting him.”
[https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/24/us/trial-ending-for-boston-fbi-agent-accused-of-mob-ties.html]
If Mr. Mueller had no knowledge that the FBI agents he used were engaged in criminal activity, then he certainly was so incredibly blind that he should never be allowed back into any type of criminal case supervision. He certainly helped continue to contribute to the damages of the framed individuals by working so hard to prevent them from being paroled out of prison even as their charges were on their way to being completely thrown out.
Notice also evidence of a pattern throughout this article: the leaking of information to disparage Mueller’s targets. In the Whitey Bulger case, the leaks were to organized crime, the Mob.
One of the basic tenets of our Democratic Republic is that we never imprison people for being “bad” people. Anyone imprisoned has to have committed a specific crime for which they are found guilty. Not in Mueller’s world. He has the reverse list of Santa Claus; and, if you are on his list, you get punished even if you are framed. He never apologizes when the truth is learned, no matter how wrong or potentially criminal or malicious the prosecution was. In his book, you deserve what you get even if you did not commit the crime for which he helped put you away.
This is one example, but as Al Pacino once famously said, “I’m just getting warmed up!”

CONGRESSMAN CURT WELDON DEFEATED BY MUELLER’S FBI

During my first term in Congress, 2005-2006, Congressman Curt Weldon delivered some powerful and relentless allegations about the FBI having prior knowledge that 9-11 was coming. He alleged loudly and vociferously that there was documentary evidence to show that 9-11 could have been prevented and thousands of lives saved if the FBI had done their job. My recollection is that he may have even accused them of intentionally turning their heads. He held up documents at times while making these claims in speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives. I was surprised that FBI Director Mueller seemed to take those allegations without the major response that appeared to be appropriate, at least to me. It seemed he should either admit the FBI made significant mistakes or refute the allegations. Little did I know Mueller’s FBI was preparing a response, but it certainly was not the kind of response that I would have expected if an honorable man had been running that once hallowed institution. You can read two of Congressman Weldon’s speeches on the House floor that are linked below. After reading the excerpts I have provided, you may get a window into the mind of the FBI Director or someone under Mueller’s control at the FBI. The FBI literally destroyed Congressman Weldon’s public service life which foreclosed his ability to use a national platform to expose what he believed were major problems in the FBI fostered under the Clinton administration.
Here is but one such excerpt of a speech wherein he spoke of the failure of the FBI leadership, then under the direction of the Clinton administration as it ultimately came within Mueller’s control right before 9-11. They failed to even accept from the military any information on the very terrorists who would later go on to commit the atrocities of 9-11, much less act upon it. They gleaned this information through the development of a surveillance technology in a project called Able Danger.

Rep. Curt Weldon
House Floor Speech, October 19, 2005 [EXCERPT]

“Mr. Speaker, back in 1999 when I was Chair of the Defense Research Subcommittee, the Army was doing cutting-edge work on a new type of technology to allow us to understand and predict emerging transnational terrorist threats. That technology was being done at several locations but was being led by our Special Forces Command. The work that they were doing was unprecedented. And because of what I saw there, I supported the development of a national capability of a collaborative center that the CIA would just not accept. In fact, on November 4 of 1999, two years before 9-11, in a meeting in my office with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of the CIA, Deputy Director of the FBI, we presented a nine-page proposal to create a national collaborative center. When we finished the brief, the CIA said we did not need that capability, and so before 9-11, we did not have it. When President Bush came in after a year of research, he announced the formation of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center, exactly what I had proposed in 1999. Today it is known as the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center. But, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me is not the fact that we did not take those steps.

What troubles me is that I now have learned in the last four months that one of the tasks that were being done in 1999 and 2000 was a top-secret program organized at the request of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, carried out by the general in charge of our Special Forces Command, a very elite unit focusing on information regarding al Qaeda. It was a military language effort to allow us to identify the key cells of al Qaeda around the world and to give the military the capability to plan actions against those cells, so they could not attack us as they did
in 1993 at the Trade Center, at the Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole attack, and the African embassy bombings. What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that that secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over one year before 9-11 ever happened. In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leaders of the 9-11 attack.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over one year before 9-11, that Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Louis Freeh, FBI Director at the time, was interviewed by Tim Russert. The first question to Louis Freeh was in regard to the FBI’s ability to ferret out the terrorists. Louis Freeh’s response, which can be obtained by anyone in this country as a part of the official record, was, ‘Well, Tim, we are now finding out that a top-secret program of the military called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta over a year before 9-11.’
And what Louis Freeh said, Mr. Speaker, is that that kind of actionable data could have allowed us to prevent the hijackings that occurred on September 11.
So now we know, Mr. Speaker, that military intelligence officers working in a program authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the general in charge of Special Forces Command, identified Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9-11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI were denied; and the FBI Director has now said publicly if he would have had that information, the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings that struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the plane that landed in Pennsylvania and perhaps saved 3,000 lives and changed the course of world history.”
(to be continued)

Summary

This is just the start. Tomorrow we will post Part Two. Yes, it reads like an “expose´!” You will not believe what you are going to read/hear in this. Tell your friends and family members to read or listen.

Thanks!

 

 

Play

Mueller, Comey, and Eric Holder with Dirty Hands: Together

Mueller & Holder Shut Down FBI Investigation of Stolen U.S. Stealth Defense Technology Implicating  Lockheed Martin — While Comey Was General Counsel for Lockheed
Comey and Mueller

For nearly four years the FBI investigated the international theft of STEALTH defense technology from a small Florida marine company that invented an ingenious way to help protect Navy ships and nuclear ballistic submarines from being detected on enemy radar and sonar. And on the eve before the case was to go to a Grand Jury, the case was closed by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller and then-Attorney General Eric Holder.

“This was the original pay-to-play scheme and it involves Mueller, Holder, (James) Comey and (Hillary) Clinton,” said Steve Morton, inventor and owner of a rare robotic ship and submarine stealth painting technology that can help make the U.S. Navy’s fleet invisible on radar and sonar. “They allowed my technology to be stolen by European companies partnered with Lockheed Martin and Comey was the top lawyer for Lockheed. Now my technology is being sold to the Chinese, Russians, and all over the world to enemies of the United States. I wonder how much Hillary Clinton made on this because she was Secretary of State when the probe was shut down.”

Massive allegations against familiar players linked to numerous other FBI, DOJ and government scandals. But this time the stakes are much larger than a Uranium One scandal. That was millions. This is untold billions.

Another FBI cover-up, Morton and FBI insiders said.

And Morton should know. He worked as the FBI’s undercover informant on the case for almost four years, wearing a wire. Recording phone calls. Gathering evidence against Fincantieri, the massive Italian shipbuilder who the FBI had all but proven swiped Morton’s Stealth painting technology as well as his company’s computer files.

Comey had left the Justice Department in 2005 to become Lockheed Martin’s top lawyer until 2010, the exact time frame his client was under investigation along with its Italian shipbuilding partner. Morton and high-ranking FBI sources said Mueller had received pressure from Comey, Lockheed’s high-priced general counsel to squash the case. And then suddenly almost four years of FBI casework spiraled down the drain. Mueller and Holder shut the entire case down.

Fincantieri and Lockheed Martin are partners in the shipbuilding business for the U.S. Navy and navies in several other countries. Heavy partners with billions of U.S. tax dollars alone pouring into the coffers of both massive corporations. In fact, when it comes to building warships and outfitting them for combat, Lockheed is under an exclusive contract with Fincantieri. South Florida entrepreneur Morton, however, describes Fincantieri as a greedy foreign defense contractor who conspired with Lockheed to steal his technology and run him out of business.

Former A.G. Eric Holder

The most important vessel in the US Navy, as far as a weapon platform, is the nuclear ballistic submarine. It’s common knowledge in the Department of Defense that these submarines have active defense technology such as anti-submarine torpedoes, but the PRIMARY defense of any submarine is STEALTH. Keeping it hidden from enemy sonar. Fincantieri rakes in $5 Billion annually, while Morton is asking family and friends for loans to help pay his legal fees. And that annual revenue for Fincantieri doesn’t include its numerous spinoffs and subsidiaries that are too vast to list here.

This is a case and a story of the prophetic David vs Goliath.

But in this case, David turned to the FBI to try and take down this gargantuan defense contractor — partnered with Lockheed. And things appeared to be going well until Goliath produced attorney James Comey who was old friends with FBI Director Mueller. “These bastards took everything I had, ” Morton said. “And our ships in the Navy still aren’t protected by this technology, while our enemies are protected with it. This is a national disgrace.”

Morton was not the only person angered by the abrupt end of the FBI’s probe into the defense contractors. In 2011, then-Congressman Allen West got involved, trying to nail down why the FBI walked away from a case it had built for almost three years.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating this case, (DOJ case number 288A-MM-109951) before Attorney General Eric Holder asked them to end the investigation,” West wrote to House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa. “I am not sure why the Department of Justice would back off a case regarding the theft of US defense technology.”

The correspondences that ensued between the Congressman prompted Issa to jump on the case which set off a rash of FBI and DOJ lies that stretched from Florida to Washington D.C. to Italy and beyond.

There may be those who will say, “This is just another conservative conspiracy theory.” Not so. Read former Congressman Allen B. West’s Congressional letter addressing this issue: (feel free to download and enlarge the letter. I read the letter on the Podcast)

Mueller and Comey’s “Dirty Hands”

James Comey: On June 2, 2017, I wrote a story (published here) that asked the question: “Who is James Comey?” (You should go back and read it. It’s actually a 2-part expose’) In that story regarding Comey’s professional career history, I inserted the following:

“Comey resigned from the DOJ and took a position as the head attorney (Counsel) of the Lockheed Martin company, a huge military contractor. While he was in that position Lockheed became a major contributor (millions) to the Clinton Foundation and its ‘charity’ spin-offs.  In return for these payments to Clinton Inc., Lockheed received huge contracts with Hillary’s state department.  Comey was the chief legal officer of Lockheed throughout this period of contributions to Clinton Inc. believed by many to be in return for State Dept. contracts.

In late 2012, after overseeing Lockheed’s successful relationship with the Hillary State Department and the resulting profits, Comey stepped down from Lockheed and received a $6 million dollar payout for his services.”

Robert Mueller: On June 4, 2017, I wrote a story (published here) about Robert Mueller and his VERY speckled past — both while in public service as well as in private practice. In that story, I inserted the following:

There were many FBI matters under Mueller that prompted various allegations of wrongdoing.  Some even resulted in Congressional investigations.  Congress investigated Mueller’s and the FBI’s handling of memos from FBI agents Coleen Rowley and Ken Williams before the 9/11 attacks about the Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda connections to hijacker pilots training in the U.S.  Mueller worked closely at several points with Larry Potts, the former Deputy Director of the FBI, who was kicked out of the FBI for lying about the FBI having Vickie Weaver murdered.

Investigations into the financial holdings of Director Robert Mueller before and after his FBI service reveal astounding conflicts of interest. These relationships would have stopped anyone else from being offered the top law enforcement job in the country.  Just as James Comey did, Mueller in private business after leaving the FBI made millions.  Mueller served a 12-year term as chief counsel for London-based bank HSBC which was exposed in 2016 for sheltering $100 billion in client funds in murky offshore tax havens populated by drug dealers, money launderers, and arms traffickers.  Mueller’s salary went from $1.8 million in 2001 to $7.0 million in 2011.

Mueller held Defenders Multi-Strategy Hedge Fund LLC and Mellon Optima L/S Strategy Fund LLC. These “funds of funds” invest in other hedge funds.  Mueller’s exclusive funds were not open to the public. The minimum investment in several of the funds of funds is $10,000,000. But as HSBC whistleblower Hervé Falciani revealed in 2015, many are secret havens for money laundering, arms trafficking, and tax evasion.  Both Mueller hedge funds were managed by Mellon Bank of New York (BNY). No less than ten (10) BNY directors were shared between Mueller’s Defenders and Mellon Optima funds. Tellingly, the FBI never prosecuted any of these BNY Ponzi schemers associated with Mueller’s Defenders hedge fund or James Comey’s actions with Bridgewater — another financial boondoggle.”

Summary

I will not waste your time or mine to chronicle the evil deeds of then U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who ignored a Congressional subpoena to turn over details of the “Fast and Furious” gun-running fiasco at our southern border that resulted in the deaths of two U.S. Border Patrol agents. That was only the tip of the iceberg which was “Eric Holder.” (And he probably will make a run for the White House in 2020!)

Is it not an embarrassment to the highest ranking U.S. government intelligence officials that these three men who held the two top Justice Department jobs at different times were mired in probably illegal activities regarding big dollars that left the pockets of others that much of found their way into these guys’ pockets? AND TODAY ALL 3 ARE STILL IN THE PUBLIC’S EYES, SPEAKING OUT DAILY DISGUISED AS REPUTABLE FORMER MEMBERS OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT! All 3 with impunity constantly berate President Trump, his administration and those who serve as part of his team, and denigrate all of the Trump policies that historically have already set records at improving lives for Americans. Yet Robert Mueller — who detests Donald Trump and all he stands for — holds the key to the treasure-chest of American taxpayer dollars to — without any constraints or oversight of how much he spends and where he spends it — use those dollars to destroy the Trump presidency!

Who can stop Mueller? I am fairly certain there are only two men who could do something to stop Mueller: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and President Trump himself. It is unclear if Congress could take any such action or would do so IF they have the power. President Trump under tremendous pressure from all sides has said numerous times he has no intention to fire Mueller. Rosenstein? He’s one of Mueller’s buddies and he’s the one who appointed Mueller: he’s certainly not going to fire him!

Is there an end to this insanity in sight? I have NO idea — and I don’t think anyone knows for sure. It seems as if Mueller is taking his time, trying desperately to find dirt on the President sufficient to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

Regarding Mueller-Comey-Holder in this and other matters: the web of evil that permeated the Obama Administration is being revealed almost daily one little scandal at a time. And it WAS evil! Good people have been sacrificed at the Clinton-Mueller-Comey-Holder-Obama altar of Me-ism that drove all of those to garner as much favor, power, and money for personal gain at the expense of everyone.

Let’s hold on to the belief that Donald Trump — even with the insidious personal attacks that continue by the Left on a daily basis — do NOT drive him to throw up his hands in surrender. He needs to push forward with his pledge to “Make America Great Again,” and to “Drain the Swamp.”

We need to help in anyway we can: especially in draining the Swamp!

Is there any wonder why Americans have so little respect for upper-level management of every agency that makes up the “Intelligence Community?”

(Contributing to this story was “True Pundit”)

Play

A Meaty Tidbit From Strzok Testimony

“Read Between the Lines”

Peter Strzok’s testimony about the email server scandal involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows because of his defiant, disrespectful, and unapologetic attitude about the bias revealed in his text messages that permeated his work at the FBI. Then, there was the verbal combat between him and Republican members of the two committees holding the joint hearing, and between the Republicans and Democratic members who were running interference for Strzok and acting as his defense counsel.

The news media jumped on an exchange in which Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked Strzok if he lied to his wife about his affair with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page in the same way as he was in testifying to Congress. That was too much for the Democrats and the media, who leaped to Strzok’s defense.

The media, however, virtually ignored another exchange between Gohmert and Strzok that revealed a potential bombshell. Gohmert asked Strzok about his meeting in 2016 with Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan, an investigator, and lawyer, respectively, for then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough (an Obama appointee).

McCullough sent them to see Strzok — who was the FBI’s deputy assistant director for the Counterintelligence Division — to brief him and three other FBI personnel about an “anomaly” that their forensic analysis had found in Clinton’s server. According to Gohmert, the inspector general discovered that, with four exceptions, “every single one” of Clinton’s emails—more than 30,000—“were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.” In other words — according to the information Gohmert received from the intelligence inspector general — something was causing Clinton’s server to send copies of all of her email communications outside of the country “to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.”

If true, this means that Clinton’s email communication with her top aides, department leadership, ambassadors, and other officials, including President Barack Obama, may have been read by an alien entity, perhaps a foreign power hostile to the United States. That could include confidential, sensitive, and even classified information about our foreign policy or our allies. Gohmert’s exchange with Strzok doesn’t reveal who the foreign entity is, but if not the Russians, the likely culprit is the Chinese government, which has a special unit of hackers within its military that has long targeted the U.S.

Our intelligence agencies have identified the Chinese as responsible for the biggest data breach to ever hit the federal government: the 2015 hack of the Office of Personnel Management that stole the files, including security clearance applications, of 21 million current and former federal employees.

Here is how Strzok should have responded to Gohmert’s question about the briefing that Strzok received from the intelligence inspector general’s staff:

“As the FBI’s lead counterintelligence agent, I understood that this was a major security breach, with widespread implications over the disclosure of sensitive and classified communications. I immediately implemented protocols to investigate the extent of the problem; to notify all agencies and government officials whose communications had been compromised; to assess the damage that may have been done to specific operations, assets, programs, and personnel; and to prepare recommendations on how to remedy the problems caused by this disclosure.”

Unfortunately, Strzok actually said that while he did “remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions,” he did not “recall the specific content or discussions.” In other words, the FBI’s main counterintelligence director doesn’t remember being told that the Secretary of State (his preferred candidate for president) had a breach in her computer system that forwarded all of her internal communication — including emails containing classified information — to a foreign entity.

Since he claimed not to remember being told about something that serious, he obviously did nothing about it.

The question is which of two scenarios is more likely true. Either 1) Strzok was completely incompetent, or 2) his pro-Clinton bias displayed in the thousands of text messages between him and Page caused him to downplay this security issue and ignore it because it could hurt his favored presidential candidate if it came to light.

Strzok’s anti-Trump, pro-Clinton bias was overwhelming. The texts between him and Page are direct and damning evidence in and of themselves. But there is more. His body language and attitude during the hearing also showed bias against Donald Trump and for Clinton. His lack of prudent action as an agent when he was briefed about this massive security breach suggests that he may have abandoned his role as a law enforcement officer, and skewed the results of a politically sensitive investigation to serve his own political leanings.

One of the other disturbing bits of information that came out of this exchange was that — according to Gohmert — the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General called Michael Horowitz, the inspector general of the Department of Justice, “four times” because it wanted to brief Horowitz about this forensic analysis and this security breach. But, according to Gohmert, Horowitz “never returned the call.”

According to Horowitz’s recent report on the Clinton email server investigation, the FBI “did not find evidence confirming that Clinton’s email server systems were compromised by cyber means,” but they could not definitively determine that her servers had not been compromised. Obviously, if the intelligence inspector general has information to the contrary, that would be significant.

If this is true, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the intelligence inspector general have an obligation to disclose to the public and to lawmakers the foreign entity that hacked into Clinton’s server and received all of those communications. That disclosure would be similar to the way they revealed that it was the Russians who hacked into the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign. They also need to disclose what steps have been taken to investigate the extent and depth of the problems caused by this potential security breach.

And those in the political arena who have been painting Strzok as some kind of hero who deserves a Purple Heart need to stop insulting our intelligence and our veterans.

If this is an example of how Strzok did his job, he should have been fired long ago, and he is certainly no hero.

(Contributing to this story was Hans von Spakovsky)

Summary

Is it not uncanny to you the never-ending saga of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, The Clinton Foundation, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) still goes forward? I’m reminded of that famous line from Jan Brady from the television hit series The Brady Bunch.” Jan Brady was complaining about her hearing nothing else from her friends at school other than their fawning remarks about her sister, Marsha Brady. Jan famously quipped in disgust about her sister, “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!” Much of America is heard daily saying, “Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!” But in her case, it really IS ENOUGH!

If just a fraction of what we hear about the Clintons is true, can you imagine the enormous political machine and infrastructure that has been in place for decades to protect them in their alleged wrongdoings? And if THAT is really factual, is it no scary to you to know that in the freest country on Earth such a political machine actually exists that is functioning and successfully shielding its “operators” from any responsibility for their illegal actions?

Most importantly, will it ever end? Is Hillary REALLY contemplating another run for the White House in 2020? Is the Democrat Party (that we know is in shambles) so dysfunctional to allow the likes of Bill and Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren and Maxine Waters claim the right to proclaim Democrat Party policies and represent their Party? If that really is the case and another Hillary run will be allowed by the DNC, I’m certain President Trump is sleeping better. Surely the “Party of the Donkey” isn’t going in the same direction of its mascot!

To be honest, I doubt the Clintons will face any legal action for their misdeeds. If so, a former U.S. Senator, former Secretary of State, a two-time presidential candidate will have slipped through the rule of law she claims to want to uphold while spending a few more years in the White House. That’s not to mention a two-term U.S. President! Yep…Bill Clinton is caught-up in this too. His hands are as dirty as Hillary’s. I shudder to think of the possibility they might escape prosecution. We ALL should shudder at the possibility.

Just imagine: how much all the things that have been brought to light in the first 18 months of the Trump presidency that have illuminated the evil, unjust, and illegal activities that occurred during the 2016 election and beyond would have been exposed in a Hillary presidency? Since she would be the Commander-in-Chief, I doubt ANY would be known — at least in detail.

I can’t imagine which would be worse to be heard from the White House: “Forget about that private email server. Vladimir assured my campaign staff he lost the hard drive that 30,000 of them came from,” or “Hey little girl. Want a piece of candy?”

Yuck! The thought of either gives me the creeps.

 

Play

Questions Answered Right Here and Right Now!

Tuesday Bullet Points

(questions listed in top section; answers listed in bottom section)

  • Why are so many retiring or declining re-election bids in Congress? (see #1 below)  As of June 5, 2018, 55 representatives will not seek re-election to their U.S. House districts. Party breakdown:
    Democratic Party 18 Democratic members of the U.S. House
    and
    Republican Party 37 Republican members of the U.S. House

    Incumbents retiring from public office

    • Democratic Party 10 Democrats
    • Republican Party 25 Republicans
  • Why does it seem that the media as a whole stopped reporting the news opting to instead be “in” the news? (see #2 below)
  • What reasons could the Department of Justice have to slow-play document production under subpoena by Congress? (see #3 below)
  • What is Attorney General Jeff Sessions doing on his job? (see #4 below)
  • Why does President Trump tweet so much? (see #5 below)

Tuesday Bullet Points Answers

  1. It is very uncommon for so many elected Congressional members to retire or simply refuse to run for re-election. 55 at one time means 10% of Congress is “voluntarily” turning over in the mid-term elections in November. Certainly, several are simply retiring for normal reasons. Some are running for other federal, state, or local offices. But questions abound as to why most of those 55 are vacating office with no re-election efforts. Conspiracy theorists assume those 40,000+ sealed federal indictments that no one seems to have answers for “might” include the names of some of these 55 and they are making plans for what that might mean to them. Others feel that the vitriolic political climate in D.C. has just worn their tolerance for such too thin. (That answer is hard to reject!) Others feel that attractive opportunities in the private sector are drawing some away. The conventional wisdom is that all of these answers are realistic as possibilities. Usually, when in doubt — especially about political matters — “follow the money.” I will not speculate as to which of these answers is/are the reason(s). I will, however, assume that the truth almost certainly lies in one or several of these examples of possibilities. No doubt whatever the real reason(s) is/are we will know in the next few months. “IF” the answer lies among those 40,000+ indictments, there will be a political bloodbath BEFORE the midterms.
  2. This is a really tough one to answer. As a journalist, I struggle to understand the basis for which we see such extreme “reporting” from today’s media, which is not really “reporting,” rather “editorializing.” Just today we have an extreme example of this “reporting.” Here is story headline from the front page of CNN.com: “Is Trump a danger or just ‘incompetent’ or a ‘Buffoon?’ CNN and other media outlets have made such headlines and stories the “new” normal. Simply asking such a question is as ridiculous as my asking a friend, “When did you stop beating your wife, or are you still doing it?”  This practice is bad enough on its own. But what is really terrifying is that a major news organization’s editors would allow such a headline on a “news” front-page yet alone as a story headline that appears anywhere. Their possible reasons? Extreme news competition might be an explanation. Twenty years ago there were few national news outlets other than the ” Big Three” — ABC, NBC, CBS — plus upstart CNN and local newspapers. With the advent of the internet and the ease in which “news” can be given instantly to millions, competition for readership and viewership is so voracious that major news organizations through desperation for ad revenue will write or say anything to capture an audience. The fundamental for that parallels the fixation by many on soap operas, shock radio and television, and even the propensity for plain daily gossip by many. Another thought is that news organizations now feel news neutrality is NOT as important as it has been for decades. Taking sides is fair game. A case can be made for the likes of CNN, MSNBC, the “Big 3” national broadcast television networks and large city newspapers to take the liberal news perspective against more conservative news outlets. There is no secret that conservative news outlets like FOX News, Breitbart News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, The Drudge Report, stay more down the middle politically than others and possibly skew conservative in their reporting. In any case, there is no doubt that news reporting has devolved into political partisanship in most cases. The “politically correct” double-standards in the media are unexplainable and leave most shaking their heads. Case-in-point: The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah who is now embroiled in several racist comments he made — one in a video from several years ago in which he denigrated Aboriginal Australian women. The other comes from a recent story in which he refers to the World Cup winning team from France as “an African team,” because many of that team’s players are black. If Noah was a conservative show host, he would have already been banished from his television show. So far from Noah, not even an apology demand by any in the media to apologize for either remark. Just imagine if someone like Rush Limbaugh made either of those statements!
  3. In Congressional hearing after Congressional hearing, Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein has downplayed his personal stone-walling in producing Congressional committee subpoenas of the D.O.J. for supporting documents from the Clinton email investigation and that of President Trump’s campaign for Russian election collusion. For more than a year Congressional requests have been non-stop. Yet Rosenstein does very little in the way of complying with those requests, using the excuse multiple times that those “documents contain classified information that would jeopardize intelligence undercover individuals.” Only after threat of contempt have any of those documents been released. When released — though heavily redacted — what IS revealed in the documents are many details that are embarrassing to the FBI and D.O.J. but have not evidenced any jeopardy to any intelligence personnel. It has become abundantly clearer and clearer that (at least in the case of Rosenstein) there is a concerted effort to slow-play document production to comply with Congressional requests. Based on those already released, it is a fair assessment that national security is NOT the reason for stalling on the production of that evidence — that hiding information contained in that evidence from Congress is the probable cause.
  4. The virtual disappearance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions is obvious. There is no doubt the Department of Justice has many investigatory matters it is dealing with. But with the most visibility-heightened legal matters in American history playing out daily, many are concerned at the apparent lack of direct involvement in these by the A.G. Certainly the mild-mannered former Alabama Senator could be uninvolved directly in these cases, relying on his management underlings to carry the load. But that would not be normal for A.G. Sessions. And many think the exact opposite is more realistic: that the Attorney General is busy behind the scenes on some of these legal issues that are playing out in a visible fashion, opting to “hold his cards” to his chest. That could explain those 40,000+ sealed federal indictments all handed down by judges from every U.S. Federal District Court since October of 2017. Certainly, the Attorney General would have detailed knowledge of those even if he was NOT directly involved in those cases. Federal prosecutors are obviously responsible for each of those and the investigations that resulted in each indictment. 40,000+ would certainly demand his attention.
  5. Two weeks after President Trump’s inauguration we put forth a plan in writing suggesting that the President take steps to totally bypass the Mainstream Media in information dissemination to Americans. Our suggestion was a White House YouTube channel, immediately terminate the daily White House Press Briefings, and once a week release a YouTube press briefing in which the President or his staff members would answer multiple questions given to the Press Office in advance of the YouTube release, and would announce pending presidential policy matters and reports of meetings upcoming and details of past meetings. The President opted to expand his Twitter conversations that have accomplished several things. Most importantly, it has given Mr. Trump the ability to message Americans WITHOUT any editorial media filters that had become so common before the 2016 election. Yes, the Mainstream Media continue to daily provide “interpretations” of all White House matters in their newscasts and talk shows and daily newspapers. But they no longer control the narrative. On this one thing, President Trump has certainly hit a home run.

Summary

One thing in D.C. in the Trump Administration is a certainty: news happens 24/7 without fail. We certainly do not know everything for certain. But Americans now have the benefit of hearing from the President daily, all day, and in his own words. Gone are the media filters that painted whatever narrative they chose for what the President had to say about anything and everything. It’s humorous to watch as Mr. Trump daily carries around a sharp stick, poking media members.

His words and messaging is calculated, planned, and objective. Those who may feel that any or emotional outbursts and nothing more need to look more closely: each has a cause and effect. He plans EVERYTHING.

Will we get specific and accurate answers to these questions? When will we get the answers if at all? Who are the real players in D.C. today? These and more questions perpetually hang in the air. At www.truthnewsnet.org we watch and listen perpetually for evidence and answers to these and other questions. Stay close — as we get answers, they immediately come to you!

Play

President Harry Truman

Are you still wondering “What exactly is ‘Political Correctness?'” Today we can put that question to bed with some significant historical perspective from none other than President Harry S. Truman.

What follows comes directly from the Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Missouri.

The President

73 years ago, President Truman defined one of today’s most divisive terms: Political Correctness. And he defined it when speaking of “The Press.” (Who today would think that almost 3/4 of a century ago that term was being used the same way it is today — AND with similar results?)

These 4 telegrams were between President Harry Truman himself and General Douglas MacArthur on the day before the actual signing of the World War II Surrender Agreement in September of 1945. In these the President speaks volumes about political communication and messaging between Americans then that still hold true today.

The language, words, and spelling in these 4 telegrams are exactly as they were written by the President — not a word has been edited.

Telegram #1: Tokyo, Japan at 0800/September 1, 1945

To: President Harry S Truman
From: General D. A. MacArthur

“Tomorrow we meet with those yellow-bellied bastards and sign the Surrender Documents, any last minute instructions?”

Telegram #2: Washington, D. C. at 1300/September 1, 1945

To: D. A. MacArthur
From: H. S. Truman

“Congratulations, job well done, but you must tone down your obvious dislike of the Japanese when discussing the terms of the surrender with the press because some of your remarks are fundamentally not politically correct!”

Telegram #3: Tokyo, Japan at 1630/September 1, 1945

To: H. S. Truman
From: D. A. MacArthur and C. H. Nimitz

“Wilco Sir, but both Chester and I are somewhat confused, exactly what does the term politically correct mean?”

Telegram #4: Washington, D. C. at 2120/September 1, 1945

To: D. A. MacArthur/C. H. Nimitz
From: H. S. Truman

“Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of crap by the clean end!”

Summary

Pardon the reprint of the coarse words of General MacArthur and President Truman. They had just completed a war that took the lives of thousands of their fellow-Americans. Emotions were a little heightened at the penning of these telegrams — understandably so. The emotions of America’s leaders today are in a similar emotional state — not because of just finishing a war, but from leading a nation that before our very eyes is being torn at its fabric.

The enemies that have had their way with our country are not those who speak foreign languages or hail from European or Asian soil. “We have met the enemy, and the enemy and he is us,” a quote attributed to an American Naval officer. That is NOT the quote of that Naval officer. Those words actually came from a comic-strip character named Pogo in a newspaper comic on Earth Day in 1975. (The real quote was “We have met the enemy and they are ours” by American naval officer Oliver Hazard Perry in 1813 after defeating and capturing British Royal Navy ships in the Battle of Lake Erie.)

The truth is that there are abundantly more attacks on American democracy today from the inside than from those outside of America’s borders. Whether those attacks come from political parties or from those with informal divergent political perspectives, the principle attacks on our nation are from within, and from “Us.”

Yes, sadly, many of those attacks come from the Mainstream Media who do so using the justification of “Free Speech” — the First Amendment.

I do not want to get into an argument about speech and/or expression of thoughts and ideas. There is NO successful argument against Free Speech. Without that right retained by the American people, this nation would not exist.

The illustration from today that parallels the obvious disdain of President Truman for the 1945 Mainstream Media is that of so many Americans today — especially President Donald Trump. 1945’s MSM had apparently taken up the cause of propping up Japanese people who lived in the U.S. making any words written or spoken of those Japanese in a negative light as “politically incorrect.”

Isn’t it deplorable for anyone today (just as then) to use words as ammunition to denigrate others who may not hold the same opinions and values as those who are speaking rather than using an educated and knowledgeable perspective from which to speak?

Oops, I used the term “deplorable.” Ms. Clinton made that a politically IN-correct word for anyone other than her to use.

Apologies to all those that own that title: don’t want to be politically incorrect!

“Q”

In keeping with our promise to always provide the opinions of others who may be different from ours, today we introduce you to “Q,” sometimes called “QAnon,” or “QAnonymous.” But before you watch this video, you need to understand some things:

  • QAnon’s identity is unknown. Whoever QAnon is — whether person or a group of people — has access to much information regarding U.S. government and political extremely sensitive information. Some claim QAnon is an inside military intelligence group. Others say QAnon is a former CIA operative. Whoever QAnon is, TIME Magazine just included QAnon on the list of “25 Most Influential People on the Internet.” Heads are turning;
  • QAnon shares via internet posts many questions, predictions, and conclusions about political persons and events. Many of those predictions have been shown to be true with others still pending;
  • QAnon alerted all to the now approximate 40,000 federal sealed indictments that have all been issued since late October of 2017. Every federal district court has issued at least one of those sealed indictments. By way of comparison, in U.S. history the most sealed federal indictments issued during any calendar year is less than 3000. Heads are turning;
  • In a July 1 post, QAnon asked who is filing all the sealed indictments, and points to an article published by Breitbart News, which has often been cited for close analysis by those following QAnon’s disclosures:

  • QAnon mentions the number 470 right after posing the questions, “who is filing the indictments” and “Who has that kind of manpower?” That answer could come from the fact that 470 Justice Department investigators were assigned to work with Inspector General Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Huber who Attorney General Sessions charged to quietly conduct far-reaching investigations into all of the intelligence matters and individuals who seem to have been involved;

This is in NO way an endorsement of QAnon, anything QAnon has said or posted, or in any way to validate the truthfulness of statements made or circumstances posed or questions asked by QAnon.

What is included in this video/audio file is shocking and asks many questions. Those questions will give you pause and encourage you to think through the possibilities. One thing we DO know for certain: we don’t know EVERYTHING going on in our Government. Maybe that is good for us. You will NOT get confirmation of that from the video/audio file. And it will probably cause you to ask even more questions.

Watch or listen. We’ll get together for a few minutes afterward. 

P.S. I suggest you NOT watch or listen until you are in a place distraction-free and you have time to digest it all. If you’re not there now, wait a while until you are. (And you’ll probably want to watch/listen once or twice more!)

Summary

Yes, the video/audio contents are shocking. Are they true? Finding the answers to that question is up to you. One thing we owe to ourselves and to everyone we hold dear is getting answers. I cannot emphasize enough to all looking and listening in is that the U.S.A. is at a political tipping point. Americans must decide if we want our nation to disappear in history just as every other democratic country before us in World history. If not, are will willing to shore up its foundation and take charge of returning it to be the greatest country in World history once more?

No democratic civilization has lasted much longer than 200 years. We are actually in “overtime” in the U.S. No reasonable American can look at the chaos in America today and not see the devastation we face. No reasonable American can argue that today’s U.S. societal upheaval could easily push us into the historical abyss just ahead “IF” we choose to ignore the dangers and refuse to take action.

This video/podcast was not posted to alarm or frighten you. It was posted to simply result in thoughtful and logical reasoning. Asking questions and considering alternative possibilities to our “realities” is always a good idea. How would our children ever grow in intelligence and mature physically and psychologically if they were not challenged this same way? That’s one reason why we send them to school.

I challenge you to wait a day or two, and watch the video or listen to the podcast again. When you do, have a pen and paper handy. Jot down the questions you get while watching. But don’t stop there: Do the research necessary to find the answers to your questions.

Sometimes your answer may be simply, “I don’t know.” Not knowing doesn’t mean one is stupid. Not exhausting every available resource to get answers CAN be considered stupid. And no one looking or listening here today is stupid!

I encourage you to comment below and ask questions of others who are looking in. We certainly don’t know everything we should know. And we can best find out by being inquisitive, asking questions, and sharing those with others.

Thanks for being here!

Play

The “Real” London Rally

NO PODCAST TODAY

 

We all know just how negative the Media is regarding anything positive about/for Donald Trump. We all know Mainstream Media’s #1 goal is to publish, show, share EVERYTHING they can get their hands on that sheds a bad light on the President, his staff, his family members, and every policy he has implemented through legislation and with executive action.

That especially holds true for his foreign trips to meet with leaders of other countries: Kim Jong Un of North Korea, 50 Muslim countries leaders, G7, NATO, Japan, China, to name a few.

In one leg of his most recent trip, Mr. Trump stopped to meet the Queen and Prime Minister of the U.K. Pictures and videos of the massive protests against the President were EVERYWHERE. The American media breathlessly chronicled every step of his visit to the U.K., fawning over the Brits and their obvious disdain for the American president — like members of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe:”

It’s hard to believe that Mika and Joe during the early stages of the Trump Campaign actually supported Candidate Trump. Their “journalistic objectivity” went South along with their support of Trump when he reportedly shunned the two who wanted to have dinner with him at Mar Lago. They immediately joined the “Never Trumpers” and have spewed non-stop venom continuously since. They and their guests derided the President for having the audacity to make a stop in London. Assuredly (according to Morning Joe) Brits hate the U.S. President. MSNBC along with every other American news outlet showed the balloon of a diapered Donald Trump over and over again during the protests.  Based on the press coverage before the protests, I thought the balloon was going to be massive — similar to those at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. When it was shown live and in context, it was quite unimpressive. I thought the Brits were a bit more artistic than that balloon evidenced!

Hard to Believe

It gets tougher and tougher each day to scan through the “news” — if we can call it that — and determine which stories to believe and which to ignore. Quite honestly, seldom does ANY story contain just plain facts. All stories seem to come to readers/viewers/listeners always wrapped in a filter of opinion of whoever wrote or edited each story.

I am certain news publishers and editors understand that and are presenting their stories purposely in the manner in which we get them. But the “in-your-face” manner in which we receive our news has morphed into being not news at all, but a political hit piece story after story, day after day, that always feed the politically correct narrative those who create those stories want Americans to receive.

Here is the problem with this process continuing going forward: many who receive those stories the way they are given by the media are conditioned to simply accept the obviously “spun” message with the filtered political perspective as-is. Before you are tempted to look down on those who do so, remember this: for all of us baby-boomers, in those decades of our youth when the only news sources we had were local newspapers and radio with just three national television networks that each had one affiliate in each market. Every story we read in local papers, heard on our favorite radio station, and saw from Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, and Frank Reynolds on CBS, NBC, and ABC Television News, we benignly accepted as factual — as news. Was it?

We are blessed today to have a multitude of news sources in this instant 24/7 media world. But that blessing often morphs into a curse. Those edits and filters that news producers, directors, anchors, and reporters use certainly jade the messages sent to us. How we receive and process that “news information” is OUR responsibility.

Regarding the President and his stay in London: what we saw and heard was definitely presented with filtered perspectives. We saw the huge protest crowds and heard some raucous speeches from several of those protestors. But what we did NOT see or hear was any positive position-taking by any individual Britts or groups.

Guess what: there WERE some. Watch and listen:

I bet you haven't seen this massive Pro Trump rally in the UK on the MSM

Posted by Black Hat Conservative on Monday, July 16, 2018

Yes, that was a Pro-Trump rally held in London during the President’s trip.

What: you didn’t see it? You didn’t hear about it?

What’s Up with That?

The two videos above illustrate the entire point of what Americans MUST do with today’s news media: we MUST process what we see and hear through a prism of “questioning.” That means we each need to develop our news summaries using a default position of simple fact collection without drawing an immediate conclusion. Then let that questioning prism guide us to sources for confirmation for validation of those “facts” we see and hear. We must NOT be fearful of ultimate disposal of that “news” that is fake or maybe just someone’s political perspective. (Wouldn’t it be easier for us if they would just tell us when something they say is editorial commentary?)

I bet you didn’t see or hear about that Pro-Trump rally in London even from FOX News, did you? No news organization today is exempt from holding skewed political perspectives. And humans being what we are, no one can totally obliterate personal opinion from affecting how we do what we do on a daily basis. “The Truth Will Out” — and it DOES.

These news events — especially with high definition video confirmation of the contents of each — make major impacts on our impressionable minds. Even without color and HD, major news events coverage changes people for generations.

Two such things impacted my life for eternity. The first was from John F. Kennedy’s inauguration. His line of instruction to Americans, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country,” touched me deeply and has stuck with me since I saw/heard it. I was in the first grade!

One late morning sitting in my 5th-grade class at Edgar Martin Elementary in Lafayette, Louisiana, the P.A. system suddenly crackled to life and began blaring a radio news report. President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas! Our principal, Mr. Beadle, — with no notice or warning — simply clicked the radio broadcast on the P.A. system. J.F.K.’s assassination rocked my world that day and it STILL impacts my life.

News — REAL news — should chronicle important occurrences in the United States and the World AND DO NOTHING MORE.

Summary

Here’s what we need to be prepared for: Leftist Mainstream Media coverage of conservatives, conservative policies, and this President — as negative as it is already — will continue to grow more and more negative and nastier the closer we get to the Midterm elections. I hate to think about how vitriolic I know it will get from here until 2020. For some reason, these Leftist media hacks feel empowered by a supernatural force to exhaust every negative they can muster to denigrate the G.O.P. and President Trump.

How do we prepare? Be vigilant. My temptation in the face of it all is to turn the television off or watch HGTV or the Cooking Channel. Escaping to peaceful television is tempting. But we all need to make certain the midterms are driven not by emotion and liberal rhetoric, but driven by policy presented through truthful and through messaging. That will NEVER happen from Mainstream Media. For that matter, FOX News — though more professional than most of their competitors — still shows more Leftist bias than in previous election cycles.

Truth is all we need. Truth if presented WHEN presented does not need our help, our explanations, or our editorial. Truth is substantial and all-consuming when implemented.

Americans get the Media. And it IS tiring to watch, listen, and read the constant barrage of hate-speech thrown at Conservatives. But consider this: those who spew venom at Conservatives and their causes, in doing so speak far more about themselves than about those whom they attack.

Put the truth out there; it can take care of itself. And try if you can to keep as much emotion out of YOUR messaging as possible. Certainly, strong emotion regarding issues will always assist in getting messaging received. But too strong and too emotional in the presentation will cause people to react and respond just as Conservatives are responding today to Liberals.

The video above proves that many people in the World — the “Silent Majority” — are smart enough to watch and listen to the substance of each message they see and hear regarding policies. And as they do, they are smart enough to discern the Truth of it all.

Let’s all be one of the smart ones.