Anyone Else Think Trump Really Knows What’s Going On?

The TruthNewsNetwork previously posted a detailed article in which we looked at “possibilities” for what might be REALLY going on regarding the relationship between the President and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (The Mueller “Blockbuster” posted 8/22/2018) We received mixed responses and thoughts on our thoughts. But we are not the only ones who think President Trump is smarter than many think, and especially more clever than Mainstream Media pundits who seem to be driven by one thing and one thing only: to drive Donald Trump out of the White House. What’s oddest about that is the blatant unethical journalistic actions by the MSM who totally ignore any and all achievements by the Trump Administration in the last 18 months. They refuse to cover any “real news,” instead opting for “media fodder” that in most cases is nothing but gossip.

Here’s a perspective from one writer — a blogger that goes by “@drawandstrike” — given in a slightly different way. Please remember that we are always open to the perspective of others. However, we do NOT guarantee that their opinions are accurate and are just that: opinions.

Always remember our mantra at “Just because you believe something is true doesn’t mean it’s true. And just because you believe something is wrong doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”



Sessions didn’t do anything today he hasn’t done for a year and a half after Trump calling him out and complaining about him on Twitter. “I’m going to do the best job I can, I won’t let politics interfere in how the DOJ fulfills it’s duty to the country, etc. etc.”

Let’s go over how this supposedly real rift between the President of the United States, and the most important appointment he made in his entire administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, got started.

We were asked to believe Trump The Clueless had no idea Sessions would have to recuse himself from overseeing/directing DOJ investigations related to the 2016 election in which Sessions was a MEMBER of one of the campaigns in the election. Let’s see a show of hands: Who really thinks Trump was DUMB enough to not know Sessions couldn’t be in charge of or oversee the Hillary Email investigation or any of the other investigations arising from the 2016 election in which he was involved? Didn’t Trump see the conflict? We’re also expected to believe that before he recused himself, Sessions read some statute and suddenly realized “HOLY COW….I’M GOING TO HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF!” and this happened immediately after he was sworn in. Sessions was so surprised to realize this, he recused himself immediately before giving Trump a heads up he was going to do it. Again: let’s see a show of hands: who thinks this is how it REALLY happened? After Trump won the election, & announced he was going to nominate Sessions to be his AG, what did the MEDIA spend weeks doing?

“Sessions is going to be Trump’s ATTACK DOG at the DOJ. Trump’s going to send him after Hillary & Obama.”

And the media spent weeks asking this question: “How can Sessions have control of investigations into the 2016 election when HE HIMSELF was a member of one of the campaigns? This can’t be allowed! Conflict of interest! The fix is in!”

Well, they were worried over nothing. On the surface, they saw Clueless Trump raging at Sessions over his sudden recusal, catching Trump completely by surprise. They all pointed their fingers at Trump and laughed loudly. “HA HA HA YOU MORON!”

While all THAT was underway, nobody noticed THIS GUY and what he was announcing. For weeks all the DOJ news was fixated on the feud between Trump and his now-recused AG. Trump was counting on Sessions and Sessions let him down!

Everything you know about the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ plot, the insurance policy, it’s ALL from Horowitz’s digging. He found it first and then he passed it off to Congress. Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Bruce & Nellie Ohr. While he was digging, NOBODY WAS WATCHING HIM. What was everybody watching from January 2017 to October 2017, when Horowitz & his team of DOJ investigators suddenly broke the surface & began passing to Congress what they found?

They were watching these two guys ‘feuding’.

“I’m doing my job.”

Who found out where the Steele dossier really came from and who paid for it?


Who found the Strzok/Page text messages & all the evidence therein about insurance policies and CI’s cent to entrap the Trump team?


Who revealed Bruce Ohr, a guy having no official role in the FBI’s Trump/Russia investigation was inserting himself in the middle of it, backchanneling meetings with Christopher Steele/Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS to pass on info after Steele was fired?


Yet for 10 months the big news out of the DOJ is “OH LOOK TRUMP IS STILL MAD AT SESSIONS. Will these two ever get along?”

While all the evidence of the Crossfire Hurricane plot was being collected.

Everybody focused on what they were SUPPOSED to focus on. A very public catfight on social media.

Nobody was looking where Trump and Sessions didn’t want them to look. A very quiet investigation that didn’t leak anything.

The *genesis* of the Trump/Sessions feud never made any sense. Yet people bought the cover story, which is exactly what they were supposed to do.

You don’t just fool your enemies with this kind of disinformation operations. You have to fool most of your FRIENDS too.

Now let’s look at a couple more points where the cover story is that Trump is clueless/helpless/outsmarted.

Seen the recent coverage of Trump *suddenly*, after a year & a half, deciding to yank a bunch of security clearances?

What’s the cover story there? After 18 months in office, Trump suddenly slaps his forehead and goes “Wait a minute: Brennan, Comey, Clapper…all these people are leaking and trying to hurt me! I better yank their security clearances! Wow, I shoulda done this long ago!”
Trump could have yanked these clearances at any time in the last 18 months. But we’re asked to believe he waited 18 months because he’s timid, shy, not sure of himself, or something.

Here’s another cover story we’re supposed to buy: Trump can declassify anything he wants to. FISA Warrants, you name it. He just talked about it doing it AGAIN in his Fox News interview this morning.

Why hasn’t he done it yet?

“He’s scared.” Or “He’s not allowed to.”

Trump’s all for declassifying the entire evidence of the Crossfire Hurricane plot but darn it, something, it’s not clear what, just keeps staying his hand. It’s sad, really.

How about this? Just consider it. He’s waiting for something.

There is NOBODY in the gov’t that could stop him from declassifying the Carter Page FISA warrant. So if Trump hasn’t done it yet, he’s got good and valid reasons and he isn’t going to tell me or any other yahoo on Twitter what they are until HE’S ready.

Let’s go onto another point. There’s a popular narrative that Trump came into office blind, having no idea whatsoever his campaign was being spied on & the target of a plot led by top fed. officials.

I never bought it, but hey, some people still do.

According to this narrative, after Trump came into office flying blind, he slowly became aware of the abuses and spying. This narrative says Trump only slowly began to take action to counter the plot.

This is how they explain way Trump supposedly blowing the two most crucial appointments he made when it comes to exposing/stopping the Crossfire Hurricane plot.

See, Trump didn’t know. So he appointed Sessions and Rosenstein. He blew it.

Well, I’ve seen plenty of evidence Trump DID know. Trump DID know his campaign was being spied, he DID know about much of the Crossfire Hurricane plot.

I’ll give you just one example. Suddenly moving his transition team to Bedminster NJ from Trump Tower.

After winning the election, Trump formed a transition team to get ready to assume office, reach out to people he wanted to appoint, etc.

It was based in Trump Tower.

On Nov 17, Trump suddenly makes an announcement he’s moving it. He moved his transition team from his Manhattan offices to his golf club in New Jersey. That looks pretty chaotic, like bad planning, doesn’t it? Win the election on Nov. 8, form a transition team, settle it down in Trump Tower, got all the logistics of that worked out and…not even 10 days later you’re suddenly shifting the whole team to another state.

Hmmmm. I wonder if….anything happened on Nov. 17, say, earlier in the day that might have suddenly prompted Trump to say “Wow, I’d better move my entire transition team, which just got formed & settled in here, to some other place!”

Well, golly lookee here. Turns out NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, completely unannounced, dropped in to visit Trump at Trump Tower on Nov. 17.

Look how the media covered this:

“Rogers Begs Trump For His Job”

Obama Is Considering Removing N.S.A. Leader
Top officials have urged the president to remove Adm. Michael S. Rogers, citing concern over his efforts to combat the Islamic State and guard secrets.

Yes, that’s how the media covered this. Mike Rogers, hat in hand, rushed to Trump Tower to beg…BEG…Trump not to fire him.

Here’s the real story:

Occam’s Razor – Did NSA Admiral Mike Rogers Warn Trump On November 17th, 2016?
So you know what the LATEST date possible is for Trump knowing his campaign is being spied on, all their phone calls, text messages, emails collected? It’s November 17th, 2016. So you can take that narrative that Trump came into office flying blind and not knowing fed. Intel agencies had been weaponized to target him and dismiss it. He knew. He came into office knowing.
IF Trump came into office knowing the DOJ/FBI/CIA/State Dept and other intelligence agencies had been used to spy on him during the campaign & were now going to be used to sabotage him in office, then the appointments he makes to the DOJ, CIA & other agencies are critical.
But you are now being asked to believe a narrative in which Trump, being aware of all this, blew the two most crucial appointments he had to make: Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.

Everything we’ve discovered about the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ plot beginning in October of 2017, Trump knows too. In fact, he knew all of this LONG before we did. Is the narrative Trump is slowly discovering all this right along with the rest of us? Do you buy that? Trump doesn’t know any of this stuff until Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch or a Congressional Oversight Committee manages to pry it from Sessions & Rosenstein’s grasping fingers?

Oh, and Horowitz. From Horowitz’s hands too.

I don’t think Trump is undergoing a slow journey of discovery here, waiting with baited breath for that next Judicial Watch lawsuit or Congressional hearing. He’s already seen all the classified stuff. He knows exactly where this is going to end up.

Trump came into office knowing the SOB’s were plotting to take him out. He already knew. And he left Comey sitting RIGHT THERE thinking he was safe until May. Ponder that. One of these men thinks the other doesn’t know.

You think Trump letting Comey sit there as FBI Director for 4 more months knowing the entire time Comey was plotting against him is amazing? They left McCabe, Strzok and many of the other plotters in place for far longer than that. The cases against these people had to be built over time, the evidence carefully collected, no loopholes. These plotters are the people who investigate OTHER people. They know every trick in the book. To nail them you can’t leave any way to escape, make any mistakes.

What people are frustrated about is the PAYBACK. They want to see the plotters nailed to the wall. It’s starting to dawn on most people that the plotters had their fangs pulled long ago. Trump’s in no danger from these people.

Well nobody is more invested in paying these plotters back than Trump is. If he’s waiting to declassify stuff, if he’s taking the #SlowWalker approach and you don’t like that, you don’t understand his reasons, I can’t help that. It is what it is.

A lot of people are looking at this wrong. “HURRY UP OR THEY’RE ALL GOING TO ESCAPE! NOW! DO IT NOW!” You don’t understand. There IS no escape. That’s *why* Trump and Sessions are taking their time to do it right. There IS no urge to rush. Trump the showman will time this for maximum effect.

Look again at this President essentially giving Comey the kiss of death. “I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart.”

You think Trump isn’t enjoying watching the roaches scramble around trying to avoid the light when he knows exactly how this will go down and they can’t stop it?

This President was trading “Fat Little Rocket Man” jabs with Kim & the media was hysterically screaming at him for it the entire time Mike Pompeo was making visits to NK in total secrecy setting up that summit we had this year. Trump is FINE with a cover story like that.

The COVER STORY was that our insane, unstable President is trying to provoke the leader of NK into a war while Pompeo – taking NOBODY FROM THE STATE DEPT WITH HIM – traveled to NK in utter secrecy over a period of months. And nothing leaked & the cover story worked.

All of a sudden, presto chango! Trump and Kim are friendly and making real progress and the summit happens. The clueless media still hasn’t figured out while Trump & Kim were publicly trading barbs, stuff was happening behind the scenes.
You’ve all had PLENTY of time to learn how Trump operates. He puts out cover stories feeding chaos narratives to keep his enemies looking at the wrong things while he gets stuff done. It keeps them out of his way, distracted & wasting resources. The reason media people meltdown is because they HAVE to take everything at face value. Trump counts on them doing that to keep them running around lost, covering the wrong things. “OMG, HE TWEETED AT KIM JONG UN AGAIN!”

Trump also uses his Twitter to show people who ‘get’ what he’s doing where to look. He’s tweeted numerous times in the past 2 weeks about Bruce & Nellie Ohr. He’s trying to tell you something.

Of course, the media leaps to defend Ohr, some ‘nobody’ from the DOJ that Trump is picking on because Trump’s a mean guy.

So what people are melting down about is how long it’s taking and the cover story that Trump and Sessions are in a feud. That’s great. Time will solve most of this. The election is still over 2 months away. Mueller & Co. took their best shot. It fizzled.

Trump’s going to pull HIS trigger when it’ll inflict the maximum damage on the most people who are in his way. He knows the time. You don’t.

He’s a vindictive SOB but he’s *our* vindictive SOB.

I’m not worried & you shouldn’t be either.



Crisis at Justice

How much more is necessary before someone in charge sounds the alarm? The Department of Justice is in shambles — including the FBI. “Shambles,” you ask? Look at senior staff departures so far from the Trump DOJ and FBI:

FBI Departures

  1. James Comey, director (fired)
  2. Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
  3. Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
  4. Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
  5. James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
  6. James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
  7. Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
  8. Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
  9. James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
  10. Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  11. Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  12. John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)

Department Of Justice Departures

  1. Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
  2. Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
  3. David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
  4. Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
  5. Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
  6. John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
  7. Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  8. Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
  9. Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
  10. Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
  11. Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  12. Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  13. Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  14. Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

*Status Unclear

Keep in mind, there are quite a few others who are on the “watch-list” for potential demotions, firings, and retirements in both agencies. And it’s very possible there are those not yet on this list because for security reasons they have not been announced.

What’s Going On?

It seems that almost daily new revelations about wrongdoing, insubordination, and borderline illegal activities of many at the FBI and Department of Justice find their way into the news. Americans are rapidly losing confidence in the Department of Justice and FBI. It gets more difficult by the day to believe that this Justice Department has always been the most proficient, most successful, and most important justice system of any on Earth.

What has become apparent to many is that the decline of credibility and integrity of those at the top of both agencies is nothing new. It apparently began years ago — if not during the Clinton or Bush 43 administrations, then certainly during the Obama years. And those from the Obama Administration seem to have been deeply involved in the most egregious of the instances of wrongdoing being exposed today.

That causes many questions to be asked by American of DOJ leaders:

  • How long has this been going on?
  • Who at the top was involved (and IS involved) and may be responsible for these illegal and inappropriate actions?
  • How deep does this evil go?
  • Who in the Obama Administration was involved?
  • How far up the chain of authority in Obama’s White House did involvement go?
  • Who in the Obama White House knew about it all?
  • Was U.S. National Security ever breached?
  • If so, by whom? Who was responsible and who was involved?
  • If involved, what was President Obama’s involvement?
  • Did the President authorize any/all of the illegal actions taken by the DOJ and FBI?
  • Was Obama involved in the FISA warrant process to authorize surveillance of the Trump Campaign?
  • When did the Obama Administration first get knowledge of Russia’s attempts to hack into the U.S. election system? What if anything was done about that suspected or actual election interference?
  • Are details available of contracts or agreements between the Obama DOJ and outside vendors and any compensation for anyone for “assisting” the fulfillment of those contracts?
  • Who (if anyone) in the current DOJ or FBI has personal communication with Obama or any other former Obama Administration individual?
  • Who at the DOJ or FBI authorized Clinton Campaign individuals to receive immunity from prosecution?
  • Who at the DOJ or FBI determined all interviews of Clinton Campaign individuals and Clinton herself were not be sworn testimony?
  • Why has Attorney General Jeff Sessions not been removed?
  • What investigations are underway by the DOJ regarding any/all of the wrongdoing mentioned above?
  • Who has authority besides the President to fire Robert Mueller?
  • Why has no one stepped in to assure Mueller stays within the guidelines of his appointment as Special Counsel in the Trump Campaign/Russia collustion investigation?

There are certainly hundreds of additional questions Americans have (with new ones coming daily) about the apparent corruption in the current DOJ. And Americans wonder more and more about corruption in past Departments of Justice and how it impacted the nation.

What Steps Can/Should be Taken at the DOJ?

No doubt, opinions of what should happen are all over the place — speculation and possibilities abound. Almost universally, Americans want those in the Department of Justice and the FBI who are guilty of any wrongdoing, collusion with outside sources or are involved in any way in a process to remove a duly elected president to be discovered and immediately removed from their position pending prosecution whenever prosecution is appropriate. In fact, those steps should have already been taken at the DOJ.

Some will say that the removal and/or retirement or quitting by those on the list at the top of this story prove actions ARE being taken. But for most Americans, that step simply shows the tip of an iceberg of corruption and wrongdoing.

Should the 6th floor of the Hoover Building (the Administration floor where all the top leaders of the DOJ and FBI office) be cleaned out totally? That question asked at the time of the Trump inauguration would have been laughed at. But today, asking it is certainly warranted. Should it happen?

There are those who will say that it is inevitable that those who remain from a previous administration will likely remain loyal to the policies of the past administration to the disadvantage of the “new” boss. And in many cases that is true. However, the specialization and the magnitude of the tasks that must be performed by every department of the DOJ and FBI certainly require continuity for success. Replacement of all senior management at every change of President would create a mountain of problems while the new folks figure out what to do and how to do it. That is the purpose for many of the “career” members of the agencies who remain when new administrations takeover. But that practice comes with significant potential dangers. We are seeing many of those “potential” dangers become “actual” dangers in many cases perpetrated by some holdover Obama DOJ senior staff members.

I ask again: should President Trump “clean house” at the management level of the DOJ?

Remember when fired FBI Director James Comey after his termination stated that President Trump questioned him privately about his loyalty to the President? Comey thought that the question was inappropriate and a conflict.  But let’s be honest: how can any president hope for his policies and ideas of operations in any department of government to be implemented by management if those managers and supervisors feel no sense of loyalty to their boss? That’s not an unreasonable expectation at all! In fact, Americans who elect each president expect his/her policies for which he/she was elected to be implemented wherever necessary, and rightly so. That requires cooperation and LOYALTY by those who swore an oath or made a promise to do just that!

How could Comey or anyone else expect to NOT be requested for loyalty — either literally or benignly? This is certain: Comey asked for (if not demanded) loyalty from those in management positions under him at the FBI, as did former Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder of DOJ managers. I am certain so did Robert Mueller when he was FBI Director before James Comey.  Obama may not have asked for it or demanded it, but if he did not expect such loyalty it was a huge mistake.

Summary: “Accountability”

Here’s the success code for senior management’s success in any business setting — private or governmental:

  1. Detail a master plan (policy plan) for all members of senior management;
  2. Require each management member to determine what piece of that master plan is their responsibility to fulfill;
  3. Make certain the resources necessary for the success of each task are provided to each manager: infrastructure, equipment, personnel, etc.;
  4. Make yourself available routinely to discuss the progress of each task, any issues, potential solutions for issues, and status of completion timeline;
  5. Coordinate completion of each task with each manager until completion;
  6. Here’s the most important component of this process: Hold EACH accountability for management of their task process AND final results.

I don’t think Lynch, Comey, or Obama used this process to run the FBI or Department of Justice. Eric Holder certainly did not. He didn’t even hold HIMSELF accountable.

Clean House?

Donald Trump is a really smart business manager. He knows this process better than I ever could. It is the Federal Government and who are their bosses — you and me — that make this process somewhat convoluted. But here’s the ONLY important piece of this process: Donald Trump was elected to fulfill each of the promises he made to voters during his campaign. He needs to do just that. AND VOTERS NEED TO (AND WILL) HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE!

He must hold his managers accountable for carrying out their individual tasks and making those completed tasks fit into the master plan. That may mean the termination of some. That happens in every administration and at every successful private company. But the President of the U.S. MUST make certain the operations of the most important two departments in the Executive Branch of government run smoothly, honestly, and on-track with the implementation and practices necessary to achieve their stated goals. That’s the Department of Justice and FBI.

I think there needs to be a carefully planned and coordinated house cleaning at the DOJ and FBI. There are honest and reliable managers in each department that if identified, empowered, and put in place could help make such a move seamlessly and as painless as possible.

Doing so would rid the nation of the corruption and self-dealing that seems to be running amuck at both places. It would also give rank-and-file employees confidence that this president really is committed to guaranteeing voters that every member of his administration is going to do the right thing the right way every time — or else. That’s what is missing in today’s DOJ and FBI: accountability.

Are Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray the right people to head such a cleansing? That’s something I cannot determine. But one thing is certain: President Trump has access to all the information necessary to determine if such a cleansing is necessary and justified.

If the conclusion is for a cleansing, President Trump should have instant access to whatever resources are necessary to complete it AND to guarantee that during that cleansing, no effectiveness at the FBI or DOJ is lost or watered down.

Change for change itself is seldom good. But change anytime it is warranted is not only good but imperative.



“Anonymous” Politi-speak

No, this is NOT a case of an attack on free speech. Remember that old saying regarding the freedom to say anything: “You can say anything, but, you cannot cry ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater?” I think we’re getting to that point in “politi-speak.” Let me explain.

“Attorney Lanny Davis says he was an anonymous source in a July CNN story that reported his client, Michael Cohen, had privately claimed that President Trump had advance knowledge of the infamous Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians — contradicting Davis’s own words on CNN’s air last week. Davis, Michael Cohen’s lawyer and spokesperson, said he also regrets lying about his involvement in the story on CNN last week.”

Lanny Davis is a well-known attorney who for decades has kept close ties to the Clintons. He has been the media “go-to guy” for both Bill and Hillary throughout Bill’s two terms as President and Hillary’s term as New York Senator and as Obama’s Secretary of State. Davis — a staunch Democrat — has appeared often on FOX News on the “Sean Hannity Show.” Hannity has maintained an amicable friendship with the Clinton sycophant and their on-air banter had become commonplace.

But this latest from Davis has exposed the dangers of “anonymous” sourcing for news stories of every kind. It’s time to take a look at this practice, its purposes, and its dangers. And — at least in the opinion of this writer — it’s time to make some changes.

The Essence of Free Speech

In a nutshell, here is the core and guarantee of free speech: “Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Heretofore, this Amendment has been broadly defined as it pertains to the media, allowing members of the media to say anything, claim anything, quote anyone named or unnamed, without any accountability for the truthfulness of what any source states as fact. Further, members of the media have had no accountability for what they say or write being truthful or not, nor is there any requirement for the media to divulge who those sources are.

But does the guarantee put into the First Amendment grant any American the right to lie with no accountability for doing so? That’s the question driving today’s discussion here at the TruthNewsNetwork.

What Does the Constitution Actually Guarantee?

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: no one here is a Constitutional attorney. But everyone here has the ability to think reasonably through topics such as this. It makes no sense for anyone to be allowed to purposefully tell lies, shield unverified sources who provide unverified information that could (because of their being reported to the World as they are today) damage national security, purposely defame individuals, impact financial markets, and even affect election results! That may seem a bit over the top, but it really isn’t. In today’s 24/7 news cycle environment in which anyone and everyone has instant access to news, how can any person believe what is being reported? Think about it: no reporter is required to tell the truth. No reporter is required to disclose sources of what they report. No reporter is required to verify that the content obtained from sources is accurate. Heretofore journalists have had carte blanche to say anything they so choose, quote “anonymous” sources, and can even make-up stories and report those to the world even knowing that their content is either false or unknown and verified to be truthful. And in the case mentioned above of Lanny Davis, he not only made up (lied) about the “news” he presented, HE LIED ABOUT THE SOURCE!

What types of speech are NOT protected by the Constitution? Scholars will agree and disagree on that. But most will agree the following categories are NOT Constitutionally protected as Free Speech:

  • Obscenity
  • Fighting words
  • Defamation (including libel and slander)
  • Child pornography
  • Perjury
  • Blackmail
  • Incitement to imminent lawless action
  • True threats
  • Solicitations to commit crimes

Plagiarism is also not protected.

But the one thing that has become glaringly obvious during the 2016 election cycle and since is that truth in reporting is missing. Should “Untruthful/non-factual” reporting be added to that not-protected list?

Shouldn’t the general public have a right to receive accurate information from the Press? Is it unreasonable to feel that purposeful untruth in reporting should bring accountability to those who are guilty of that? Should there not be some price to pay for the media lying to Americans?

“Self” Policing

The Society of Professional Journalists has published a handbook for journalists to use as a template for preparation and reporting of news. The handbook addresses this issue this way:

Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:  Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.”

Regarding the controversial policy of using anonymous sources in news reports (a practice I personally detest) NPR (National Public Radio) offers this about their reporting:

“Is the source credible, reliable, and knowledgeable?”

We use information from anonymous sources to tell important stories that otherwise would go unreported. This is not a solo decision – the editors and producers of these stories must be satisfied that the source is credible and reliable and that there is a substantial journalistic justification for using the source’s information without attribution. This requires both deciding whether it is editorially justified to let the person speak anonymously, and being satisfied that this person is who the piece says he is and is in a position to know about what he’s revealing. We should never be in the position of having to verify these things after a story has been broadcast or published.”

Of course, that sounds good — or at least it sounds a bit more reasonable — IF — those in the “verification” loop are credible and honest themselves. But NPR continued to justify their use of anonymous sources with the following disclaimer:

“In our coverage, anonymous or unnamed sources generally cannot make pejorative comments about the character, reputation, or personal qualities of another individual, or derogatory statements about an institution. We don’t use such material in our stories, with rare exceptions. (If an individual is blowing the whistle on significant misdeeds or making an allegation of sexual assault, we may decide to air the person’s claims.”

“Generally cannot make…..” That leaves an opening for allowing some “pejorative comments about the character, reputation, or personal qualities of another individual, or derogatory statements about an institution.” What NPR is doing with this disclaimer is stating that sometime, someone — like an editor — may feel that it is OK to allow this to happen.

Isn’t this like the inmates running the prison? The ridiculousness of this NPR position is best illustrated with this: if you hire an attorney, and in the course of that attorney’s representation of you, he or she commits an egregious act that costs you in a very serious way. That cost is directly attributable to that attorney’s actions. How can you take action to defray any losses you may have? Your only recourse for damages is to file a complaint with the Bar Association in which that attorney is associated or to file a lawsuit against the attorney. Who really thinks the complainant will receive fairness in the results of such a complaint to the Bar Association? Good luck filing a suit against the lawyer, too. What lawyer wants to represent you in a suit against another lawyer? And what judge is going to not be lenient on a fellow lawyer? Lawyers policing lawyers will almost certainly not result in fairness for the complainant. Editors and publishers policing their own reporters in no way guarantees truth in their reporters’ stories.

“Unnamed Sources:” Good or Bad?

Reporters will argue vehemently for their ability to ferret out stories using anonymous or unnamed sources for certain ones. The claim is that many investigative stories that reveal the wrongdoing by many powerful individuals in the private sector and in government would never see the light of day without the ability to give sources cover from identity exposure.

But there certainly should be some avenue to protect Americans from juicy stories based on unverified sources when those sources give-up untrue information or in those cases in which there is really no source at all. Let’s be honest: in this vitriolic political state in which we live, almost daily we discover that some story quoting “anonymous” or “unnamed” sources was actually Fake News. That’s the primary reason Americans are growing to distrust the media more and more and why the favorability rating of the media is actually lower than that of members of Congress. Who thought that was even possible!

Is there not a way to legislatively create accountability through federal law for the media creating and reporting false news? Think about it: there certainly is a process to protect the identities of legitimate news sources while holding them and the media who report that news they provide accountable for its veracity.

There will be those that viciously attack such a thought, stating that it would prevent the exposure of illegal and unethical actions by leaders, members of the government, and even important titans of industry in the private sector that are critical to the political and free enterprise system. How could such a system work without diluting the information system or keeping legitimate information hidden from sight?

Let’s try this: set up a national Journalism Integrity Fund that would underwrite the cost of a journalist verification process to assure Americans news is truthful, and nothing more. Could such a system work? How would such a system work? If structured and operated properly, it could lift the cloud of distrust that covers every aspect of American media today without losing legitimate news sources.

Why not have the U.S. Supreme Court supervise a “Media Verification Division” that would simply be always on call to verify truthfulness in news. A random system could be structured for members of this “Division” to audit the sources of news stories. That would require each news outlet to keep (in some secure setting) complete records of unnamed or anonymous sources for that “Division” to verify in a random basis. Criminal penalties would result from those media entities and persons who violated the terms of the law governing this process. Civil penalties would result from cases uncovered with these random investigations for instances of abuse of stories based on anonymous or unnamed sources that do not break the law. Complete confidentiality would be absolutely necessary and criminal penalties for violation of that confidentiality should be included in the governing law.

How should such a law be worded? Congress is full of attorneys. I think that a group of attorneys comprised of free speech proponents and those who push for protection of Americans against untruthful news could draft legislation that would protect press rights afforded under the First Amendment while protecting against news based on unnamed sources that are fake.


Here’s the bottom line for me — a journalist. I do not want to stifle the truth unearthed by reporters in every area by intimidating sources in any way IF we are assured sources will be verifiable and accountable for provided information. Reporters could in this suggested process continue their practice of writing and broadcasting stories quoting unnamed sources. The difference is that this “Division” would always have the right to secretly verify the unnamed sources and to verify the information provided. Americans would know that there would be accountability against fake news.

Of course, penalties for violating this process by a news organization, reporters, and sources who lie would certainly have to be significant. After all, the reason for this process would be to not stop reporting using unnamed or anonymous sources, but for Americans to feel comfortable that news stories will always be based on truthful information. And unlike today, lying in stories or making them up will cost the perpetrator significantly.

Lanny Davis lied about a story that purportedly came to him from an unnamed source. Not only did he lie about the story, (he made it up) he lied about the source. Imagine if Davis — who is an attorney — was fined $100,000 or 2 years in jail or both for each violation? Certainly, he would lose his license to practice law. (He could obviously re-apply for his license at a later date)

Think Lanny would have released that fake news if there had been such a penalty for his doing so?




What If Political Parties Just Disappeared?

Wow! This is a really hot topic — and controversial, too. But certainly with all the “bad” news that comes with stories tied to animus between Republicans and Democrats, the general public’s mostly distasteful opinions of political parties, at some point you have thought: “Wouldn’t we be better off without them?”

You may be onto something there!

Do we Really Need Parties?

“Need” is the operative word for this part of this discussion. There is no doubt that political parties are not necessary for the U.S. or for any democratic country. But just like most other things, if structured, implemented, and operated in the manner in which from their concept they were created, there is good that can come from political parties. But sadly, their usefulness has eroded away, primarily because of bitterness and the unwillingness to consider the opinions of “others” with opposing views. All that most Americans see from the party with which they most closely identify and the opposing party are jabs and extreme disagreements with the other. Very little good seems to show in news reports regarding the opinions of one party’s members about the other party members’ opinions.

The principal author of the U.S. Constitution — Thomas Jefferson — had much to say about political parties. It wasn’t all good but it wasn’t all bad either. Like: “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” When making that statement, it seems to me that the former President was a little put out with political parties at the time. But that wasn’t always the case: “Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail.” 

My question today: even with Jefferson’s thoughts that political parties “can” have good results and be good for the American political process, do you believe they are good today and achieving positive results? I’m not certain. Why? They have become another arm of power in the political system and have perpetuated the growth and power of the Deep State. Both Democrats and Republicans have stoked the fire. And, contrary to what Jefferson hoped, the fire is not that of unity and amicable conversation and debate of differences, but have become nothing more than derision, anger, and even hatred for members of the opposite party and their ideas.

Too often we see and hear G.O.P. and Democrat party leaders attack the leadership of the other party and even express disdain for opposing party rank-and-file members. In Jefferson’s day, Tories and Whigs were the prominent parties, imaging today’s Democrat and Republican parties. There certainly were marked political differences between the two that often grew to be less civil and more confrontational. But the political intentions of members of those two parties almost always resulted in resolution of differences after the sometimes bitter debate. Often that resolution was simply an understanding that the two would NEVER agree on certain issues. But it almost always ended with understanding and respect for the other’s opinion, even after disagreements. Today, such resolution is not likely at all. And that’s why an answer to this question is so important: Should we end formal political parties?

The Political Landscape Without Parties

That hypothetical brings a myriad of opinions. Let’s examine a few of those about the “look” of politics without parties. With no political parties there would be:

  1. No political conventions. There would be no need for such;
  2. Individualism in thoughts and ideas from individual candidates;
  3. Political debates at least as vigorous as there is today. But there would be intense pressure for a public resolution of each candidate’s policy stances for the purpose of clarity for voters;
  4. Candidates would be more engaged in actual contact with voters rather than relying on party promotion and campaigning;
  5. Issues would be more clearly defined by candidates in order to woo voters for their support;
  6. National campaigns would be more voter issue based because candidates without parties would be forced to be clearer regarding issues so as to differentiate their views from opponents;
  7. Campaign dollars would be more realistic and more localized and regionalized rather than parties co-mingled national dollars to impact local and state elections;
  8. Voters would be more engaged with candidates and voting issues than now when candidates (because of party support in dollars) rely on party positions rather than their own.

Of course, issues would still be in existence, many of which would always be controversial and hotly debated. Of course sitting members of the electorate would still be able to weigh in with their support for candidates and their policies just as they do now. The difference would be that support would almost totally be policy and issue-driven rather than purely political party driven.

How Would Campaign Dollars Support Change?

Campaign finance would have to be addressed and certainly revised. Without national parties, individual candidates would be forced to draw financial support on their own. One would think that without parties to raise dollars, the allowed sources of campaign dollars would necessarily have to be drastically regulated beyond the current restrictions. But they almost certainly would be more easily structured because of the termination of concerns of campaign abuse that is now quite often a product of national party fundraising.

Local and state campaigning would certainly be without the current rash of out-of-state funding through national parties to impact local and state elections. Elections would be driven by local and state support — both in campaign structure, local actual voting results, and in dollars.

Would Americans Accept “Death to Parties?”

That’s a tough one to answer. First, the Establishment — both Democrat and Republican — would fight tooth and nail to keep the party process alive. Why? Not so much because party leadership feels having two parties is the best scenario in which to operate American elections, but because there is SO MUCH MONEY IN THE PARTY SYSTEM. Billions of dollars — yes BILLIONS — flow through party and candidate coffers during every national election cycle. Naturally, a piece of those billions falls into party treasuries for whatever leaders in those parties determine to direct those dollars to.

Additionally, each party has massive overhead in physical locations, buildings, administrative staff year-round, and staffing state and even local offices during campaign time. And “campaign time” is almost perpetual, for there are national races every two years and state and local elections most years in between. Elections in America have become big business!

When one realizes the number of campaign dollars that flow through parties and the impact at federal, state, and local levels, it’s easy to understand why the fight would be staggering if the decision was made to end national political parties. Remember this: power and money drive ALL political concerns, policies, and issues almost exclusively. If not last on the list of importance to the election process, voter concerns regarding election issues are way down the list. That fact alone should drive a serious conversation about the elimination of national parties.


I haven’t heard many conversations anywhere about the possible elimination of national parties, have you? We certainly will NOT hear any such conversation from the parties themselves, that’s for sure! But that discussion is about as old as the structure of American political parties in the first place. Even the father of our nation — George Washington — had serious issues with political parties. It is not that Washington failed to understand the contribution of parties, but he was greatly concerned that they had previously, and would again, grow seeking more power than other groups to the detriment of the whole.

Washington was aware that many viewed political parties as destructive because of the temptation to manifest and retain power, but also because they would often seek to extract revenge on political opponents. He viewed this to be detrimental to the young country as an entire nation. President Washington expresses genuine concern in that “the alternate domination” of one political party over another, thereby allowing one party to enjoy temporary power over the government that would use it to obtain revenge on the other.

He felt that this tendency toward atrocities directed at the party out of power “…is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.”

Washington argued that political parties needed to be restrained in a free country with a government empowered by the consent of the governed and established through popular elections. He warned of the possibility fearing they could distract the government from its required duty to the people and even lead to the eradication of the freedoms established by the founding.

Doesn’t it seem to you that the Father of the United States — its first President — saw the dangers of political parties that are playing out in our nation today? Evidently as powerful and popular as was George Washington, his very vocal concerns regarding the danger of political parties and their assumption of political power over policies fell on deaf ears, or at least there were not enough who shared his concerns to end that practice.

Today we watch as political parties have been the greatest contributors to the creation and perpetuation of the ruling class in D.C. The American political process has literally evolved into a monster, (some would say a “dinosaur”) that requires more and more from Americans to simply survive. But is it worth it?

What if we just abolished political parties at every level, let that little box on our tax forms that we can check to pay $1 to the presidential campaign be the extent of any money that can be split between the top two candidates for president? What if there was a second box on that form that we can check to pay $2 for U.S. Senate and House of Representative candidates that can be split between the top two candidates in our Congressional and Senate districts? What if all state and local candidates were on their own in campaigning? Don’t you think that would change things?

Here’s what I think would happen: once again Americans would see candidates forced to back away from old-time party politics and pick up issues that apply to voting constituents in their respective districts. The same would hold true for presidential campaigns.

We might add one more thing for campaigning: radio and television broadcast airwaves belong to taxpayers and are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Currently, there are no requirements that force any stations to carry campaign ads. However, if they choose to do so, they must set a rate to charge that is equal to the lowest rate for the time slot in which they run, and they must make the same time available to purchase to every candidate in that election cycle.

Or we could just make it mandatory that each broadcast station provides free of charge a certain number of commercials to each presidential candidate, Senate, and House candidate, and also state and local candidates. Either way would make sense.

The bottom line for this journalist is this: the current political party system is totally beyond reason. The only ones who do well during campaigns are sign makers, radio and television broadcasters, and political parties who use a large portion of campaign donations to fund operations. Let’s make a change.

Let’s for once let voters decide who they want in each political position WITHOUT any input from national entities who though having a stake in each election have NO stake in how the governing by whichever candidate wins in each election is going to impact voting constituents.

After all, isn’t the U.S. government supposed to be “OF the People, by the People, and for the People?”

After all, I’ve never seen anywhere in the Constitution an added a tagline to that which states, “as determined by political parties?”




Faces of Lunacy

It is probably no surprise that the American political landscape is littered with an abundance of people who have lost all semblances of reason and are trumpeting those losses to the world via newspapers and television and radio news shows. It seems that nothing is off limits to scream at the world. Unfortunately, many of those who have fallen into this trap are those who have previously maintained — at least publicly — positions of integrity and decorum. Throw all of that integrity and decorum out the window: we now live in the world of “anything goes.”

Where do we start and with whom do we start to illustrate this lunacy?

John Brennan

Let’s try John Brennan — former CIA Director under President Obama and President Trump’s self-proclaimed arch enemy. Like few others who have a spot on the national stage, Brennan continually spits venom at the President through Twitter and television news shows — primarily on MSNBC. Watch and listen to this back and forth between Brennan and Lawrence O’Donnell (please note the video is about 7 minutes long. after Brennan’s comment about “Trump’s base,” you may want to stop the video):

Brennan has become the darling of Mainstream Media, simply because he holds nothing back in his constant attacks on the President. Nothing and no one in President Trump’s life is exempt from these. It is startling to watch and listen to the arrogance and hatred of this public servant, especially in light of his speckled past AND present.

Barack Obama’s CIA chief, John Brennan, told the Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, on 15 September 2016, in Washington DC, that when he had applied in 1980 to join the CIA, he admitted to them that in the 1976 Presidential election, when Jimmy Carter was running against Gerald Ford, Brennan had voted instead for the candidate of the US Communist Party, Gus Hall, and that he was then greatly relieved to find that this information didn’t cause rejection of his CIA-application. This had happened 11 years before the 1991 end of the Cold War.

At least twice, Brennan lied in sworn testimony to Congress. Brennan publicly and before Congress denied the CIA had ever spied on members of the U.S. Senate. The statement was made in response to public accusations by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Ca) that such had happened. It was later learned that Brennan had lied and that on his watch the CIA HAD spied on the U.S. Senate. With that revelation, many in Congress — including some Democrat Party leaders — urged President Obama to fire Brennan for the spying AND for his lies. The New York Times and Washington Post both called for Brennan to go.

Long before his lies to the Senate, in 2011 Brennan, then the country’s chief counterterrorism adviser, had sworn to Congress that scores of drone strikes abroad had not killed a single noncombatant — at a time when both the president and the CIA were both receiving numerous reports of civilian collateral deaths. It was later learned that not only was Brennan’s story to Congress false, it was confirmed that he not only knew about the strikes AND collateral deaths, he was involved in supervision of those attacks.

And there’s one more I forgot: in May 2017, as an ex-CIA director testifying before Congress, when in answer to Representative Trey Gowdy’s questions stated that he neither knew who had commissioned the Steele dossier nor had the CIA relied on its contents for any action. BRENNAN LIED. Both the retired National Security Agency director, Michael Rogers, and the former director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, have conceded that the Steele dossier — along with the knowledge that it was a Clinton-campaign-funded product — most certainly did help shape the Obama’s intelligence community agencies sharing security information with each other, often under the urging of Brennan himself. Brennan received the same information about the dossier as the other agencies. Further, there is new evidence that shows Brennan actually purposely shared the dossier with an aid of Senator John McCain for the express purpose of giving it to the FBI.

But what really evidences Brennan’s lunacy is his reference in the above interview with MSNBC’s O’Donnell is his show of disdain for all-things Donald Trump, including Trump followers. Brennan stated Trump’s purpose for his communications with his base were literally like “throwing them raw meat.” Wild dogs love raw meat. I guess Brennan’s reference means that Trump followers are dogs. I guess Brennan moved them from the deplorables basket where Hillary kept them to a dog pen!

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma)

Elizabeth Warren, who is running for re-election in Massachusetts this fall, has seemingly joined Brennan in non-stop attacks of President Trump, members of his family and Administration, everything the President does and says, and even those who play a role in current events that the President discusses.

“He tries to bully me to shut me up, and he’s also trying to bully women all across this country. He talks about MeToo. It isn’t just me he is going after,” Warren said after an event at Lookout Farm in this Boston suburb that her campaign said was attended by more than 1,400 people. “It’s every woman who speaks up. He thinks we should sit down and shut up. It’s just not going to happen.”

The President famously lit a “permanent” fire under Warren when he named her “Pocahontas.” That jab was in regards to her claim in an application to teach at Harvard that she has Native American heritage. Reportedly she did that to receive minority consideration in her Harvard job application. The Senator’s Indian heritage has been a constant thing of contention for her since. In interviews on both FOX News and NBC, Warren did not answer questions about whether she would take a DNA test as Republicans and one Massachusetts newspaper, the Berkshire Eagle, have suggested she should. Family members told her that her mother was part-Native American, she told Fox, and it was “a part of who I am and no one’s ever going to take that away.”

Asked on NBC what would be wrong with knowing for sure about her ancestry, Warren said: “I do know. I know who I am, never used it for anything, never got any benefit from it anywhere.”

She continuously refers to the President as a “Bully,” a “Racist,” and a “Sexist.” She has been quoted as saying he is the worst president in U.S. history.

The irony surrounding the “lunacy” of Senator Warren is that she is known far more for her continuous vitriolic attacks on the former candidate now President Donald Trump than any legislative actions she has initiated as Senator or actually pushed through in Congress. She is a politician, pure and simple. And an angry one at that.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Ca)

How could we have a discussion about politicians in D.C. having a spot of lunacy in their lives without mentioning Maxine Waters? Wow: where to begin!

The Congresswoman has gone all-out in her public outcry against President Trump. Even before he was officially the President, Waters started attacking his presidential policies and actions. And she has continued her constant cries for her followers and members of the Democrat Party in Congress to begin impeachment actions.

Waters has taken it to a new level. She urged her supporters at a rally to confront administration officials face-to-face in response to the separation of parents and children at the border. That was after a Virginia restaurant refused to serve White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and protesters confronted Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen during a dinner at a Mexican restaurant in Washington last week.

“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” Waters said.

Waters tweeted this: “Remember when I said Trump & his allies are scumbags? Trump is an immoral, indecent, & inhumane thug. He loves Putin, genuflects for Kim Jong-un, loves killer Duterte, wants to be in power for lifelike Pres. Xi, & is willing to sacrifice children. He needs 2B stopped. Impeach45!”


It’s simply “mob mentality” which is very common in human history, just not very common when discussing inhabitants of 1600 Pennsylvania. “Mob mentality” is far more common in nature than in human nature. We’ve all seen National Geographic shows in which a wounded animal is often brutally attacked just because it is wounded. Among humans, bullying plays out every day all over the nation at schools where certain students are singled out for pranks and derision, just because one of those students decided to go after another for what they wear, how they speak, or sometimes just for old-fashioned jealousy. And friends and peers of the attackers join in for no other reason than mob mentality.

Animals and teenagers are a bit different from our political leaders in Washington D.C. But these three we mentioned today are just a few. Mob mentality among many on the Left has spread all through the Democrat Party. The anger initially was pointed at Donald Trump alone. But as mob mentality always does, it spread rapidly to his family members, members of the White House staff, GOP House and Senate members, other conservatives and to include who Leftists simply THINK are conservatives.

Sadly, the two members of Congress discussed above while campaigning prolifically and attacking the President with continual arousing vigor, neither has much to offer their constituents in the way of positive legislation at all.

Come to think of it: NO Democrats in Congress have in the first 18 months of the Trump presidency offered any meaningful legislation. Pretty much all they do (besides lash out at any Presidential real or perceived action) is obstruct any legislation offered or even mentioned by GOP House and Senate members.

But what all three of these have in common is disgust and hatred for those who share opposing political opinions opposite of these three. Sadly, their efforts in all this are similar to most on the Left. It’s saddest that instead of listening to and studying opposing views from those on the other side, their default position is simply that anyone with any different idea is ignorant, unworthy to even consider having discourse with, and is just plain stupid.

I’ll leave it at this: political views on opposite sides in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s were discussed with regard for those with opposing views and actual desire to find consensus that hopefully would result in actions for common good. Ten or so years ago, that civility to talk “to” rather than scream “at” disappeared.

Political discourse has devolved into this: those on the Right dislike those on the Left. Most on the Left HATE those on the Right.

That describes the lunacy in which Americans find our political discourse.


Justice for All: But Two Versions

Who can honestly maintain that currently in the United States there is “Liberty and Justice for All?” If there is, it’s meted out differently for different folks. The “rule of law” has been attacked, amended, and re-defined by so many that no one any longer knows exactly what it is, what it means, and how it should function.

The U.S. was established by a bunch of vagabonds who had for generations experienced the horrors and oppression of multi-layered justice in Europe that was never fair, never consistent, and certainly never equal. That ‘injustice” resulted in the establishment of a set of laws in this New World that would obliterate the evil system of justice that always favored one group over another, put one person ahead of someone else, and was always determined by those “other” than rank-and-file citizens who were not quite worthy of the same justice. Equal justice was in no way equal.

We are seeing the evil of that system creep back into this New World. It is tearing at the very fabric of our country. Americans are in large part ignoring its power to quickly obliterate the founding principles that gave early Americans promise of equality under the Law. Many do not even acknowledge this “New” justice system’s existence. Generations of American patriots fought and died to protect and preserve the founders Justice System. Yet today it is in danger of destruction — not by foreign tyrants or evil nations, but by its own leaders.

Criminal Justice

In Europe, class warfare was not even real warfare. Commoners only value was for their service to the ruling class. Laws existed at the whims of elitists. There was NO justice.

In the U.S., 2.5 centuries after becoming a nation whose cornerstone is the guarantee of “liberty and justice for all,” we watch as a ruling class has evolved into the American elitists moving to replicate European justice which American settlers fled. In the U.S., criminal justice has become a  from top to bottom a system that favors those with social, economic, and political status, while punishing those who find themselves (most often by their own illegal actions) caught in a ever-growing whirlwind of “social” justice — a justice process/system eerily similar to that of 1600’s Europe.

Because certain populations are forced into positions of social inequality just like those Americans lived through in Europe, crime becomes more common within those populations. “Most inmates are minority men under age 40 ‘whose economic opportunities have suffered the most over the last 30 or 40 years. Incarceration in the United States is socially concentrated among very disadvantaged people,’” says U.S. News & World Report. In the United States, the people most likely to commit crimes are “people without education, jobs, housing, or hope,” U.S. News explains. This is further complicated by the fact that people from disadvantaged populations are frequently given harsher sentences than those from dominant populations for the same crimes.

Think about this: Retainers for felony crime cases start around $5,000-$10,000 but can be $25,000 or more for serious cases. Private criminal legal representation is literally out of reach and unattainable for most who fall into average working family category or below. Because of the high cost of securing “better” or “best” legal representation in such cases, public defense is most often the only option.

Public defense is not in itself necessarily bad or of poor quality. But many who serve in this capacity are just beginning a criminal defense career or are assigned a certain percentage of indigent cases they are required to work. Volume of cases and low public defense budgets obviously waters down capabilities of providing “better” or “best” defense for those charged who lack sufficient financial resources to obtain private representation.

It is not uncommon for a criminal case in which a defendant who has a criminal record and who is subsequently charged with one or more felonies to face a $100,000 defense bill if able to retain a private criminal attorney. There is very little hope for a person of average or below income to find defense other than through public defender representation.

Multiple offenders — no matter the seriousness of previous crimes — suffer disproportionately in the criminal justice system, simply because of their past brushes with the Law. Inmates and ex-convicts are, themselves, a disadvantaged population. Once a person has a criminal record, it’s easy for potential employers to access that information on the internet and deny jobs because of it, says U.S. News. This makes it difficult for those who have criminal records to find jobs that pay enough.

Seldom does the American media highlight criminal cases of those Americans caught-up in the justice system that because they are at social and economic disadvantage are forced into the Public defense system where they often get lost and certainly struggle for fairness. To the media, high profile cases that involve well-known public figures are “Newsworthy” and therefore capture newspaper and television coverage. Hollywood actors and directors, sports superstars, and music industry popstars have all the money necessary to assure great criminal defense while most members of minority communities who find themselves on the wrong side of the law get lost in the system where their stories seldom get told.

Political Justice

Yes, a new segment of the Justice System has evovled. It is for those who are members of the United States Political System. Even though constitutionally all those in this system were chosen from among their fellow citizens to be public servants, those within that system have turned it into a “super” class of Americans that in many cases have been — and are — above the Law. Sadly, we Americans are the ones who allowed members of this class to create and perpetrate its existence.

It’s not fair: nothing in it was envisioned by the nation’s founders. It is exactly what they hated and is exactly why in large part they fled Europe. Early Americans knew that no nation that is NOT fair to all its people without regard to race, religion, or place of origin can ever last. And no such nation can guarantee its citizens true freedom under the law. Why?

Those in that political class were authorized by the Constitution to craft laws to govern our lives. Founders knew times would change and those changes would demand adjustments in those laws. But they knew the basics of liberty and justice for all, the rule of law, one person-one vote, fair taxation, and private property rights were and would always be essential for the preservation of the U.S. Justice System. The American political class has stood watch while much of those tenets of Freedom have been purposely eroded, only to be replaced by Political Justice.

Here’s the rub about this new segment of the American justice system: everyday Americans do not determine who is part of that system and who makes the rules about which laws to keep, which to abolish, and which new laws to implement. The elitists do that for all Americans.

Consitutionally, that is to be decided by American voters who choose through elections 535 representatives to serve in Congress along with a President and Vice President who — with the advice and consent of Congress — implement and enforce the laws passed by Congress. But that process exists no more.

We watch as mayors, governors, members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and even former Presidents thumb their noses at duly passed laws and simply do not enforce those laws with which they personally disagree. Examples: federal drug laws, U.S. voting laws, and U.S. immigration laws.

And then these same political elitists installed a system WITHIN the Constitutional system that allows NEW policies (which often circumvent old laws) that are implemented with the stroke of the pen of a governor or the President of the United States. These are called “executive orders.”


Of course such a system operated by a chosen few was destined to become corrupt. It creates two different classes of people. It favors one class over another: the very definition of political corruption.

Examples of this corruption abound, and we will not even begin to list them all. But there are several current examples that vividly illustrate the class disparity within this system that beg for discussion. We have discussed them in detail previously. Look at some of these in bullet point format:

  • James Comey when fired released FBI memos to the press through a friend. Those memos were classified. Comey’s release of them was a felony;
  • Comey lied several times before Congress. While doing so is NOT a felony, it is a type of Obstruction of Justice which could be classified as a felony;
  • Hillary Clinton authorized destruction of at least 30,000 emails which some of contained classified information, but ALL of were under subpoena by Congress;
  • The Clinton email server was never approved as secure by federal authorities. Use of that server for transmission of documents and communication — much of which was classified — is a felony;
  • President Obama with a private gmail address communicated with Hillary via that unsecure server for years. Doing so was a felony violation for both Clinton and Obama, for ALL communications by any U.S. president are “classified;”
  • President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manaforte was tried for 13 year-old tax violations in an effort to coerce his flipping to Mueller about Trump wrongdoing. Manafort DID break the law. But the DOJ had (under Rosenstein) looked at those violations by Manaforte years earlier and declined to prosecute. Mueller’s prosecution was for purely political purposes;
  • Mueller appears to be trying to tie Trump’s payoffs to two women to campaign finance lawbreaking — efforts by Trump to impede the 2016 election results in his favor, which IS\\would be a violation. Campaign laws allow personal expense for personal reasons by candidates which are not for campaign reasons. However, Hillary’s campaign paid (through a law firm, which in itself could be ruled money laundering) for the Steele Dossier that was fabricated and had no factual basis. Her campaign obviously funded that for the express purpose of impacting the election against her opponent. Unlike Trump, there is NO possible personal reason Hillary could give for her doing so. No action pending against the Clinton Campaign for doing so.


We could list hundreds of examples of this two-tiered political justice system now raging in America. We could list hundreds of examples of this two-tiered criminal justice system in America as well. I will not bore you or insult your integrity by doing so. Americans see it and understand it. But here’s the problem:

“IF” Americans see and understand these two systems are in place; and “IF” Americans knowing they exist, who crafted and implemented both and why they were put in place; and “IF” Americans knowing all this allow these travesties to continue, the American Justice System is doomed. In fact, it may be too late for America to stop these two systems or change their paths of operation. Too many people have garnered too much power and authority through these systems. And all of that power and authority that will allow their existence is now controlled by a small group of individuals who have the power to perpetuate the status quo.

What can we do?

  • Speak out against criminal injustice every time you see it. Write emails, call lawmakers, get active in elections, and involve yourself in the process;
  • Vote in every election in which you are eligible. Sadly about 25% of all those eligible to vote determine who represents us at local, state, and federal levels. Why? 75% of Americans simply don’t vote!
  • Objectively research laws that govern where you live and U.S. laws. Ignorance of laws does not mean one is stupid. Ignorance of laws and not getting understanding of those laws is stupid;
  • Vote with your hands, feet, and wallets. Don’t support those who support the two-justice system: don’t go to movies, concerts, stores, purchase products, watch televisions shows, etc., supported by those who do support the two-justice system. And support those who support the rule of law;
  • Consider running for office. You may feel unqualified. But qualification for office does not entail dollars and cents, social status, or wardrobe. Those may make it easier to get attention. But door-to-door and person-to-person is a great way to get involved with lawmaking. Don’t disqualify yourself without consideration!

This is NOT a country founded to be like this. And this country does NOT belong to a group of elitists who have all power and authority to do anything they desire at the cost of the American people. But if Americans sit idly by oblivious to what is happening around them, doing that is support — albeit benign support — of the very evil this discussion is about.

None of us like being disliked or despised. Those might result from taking action. But what is certain is that all who ignore real disatrious historical events are doomed to see them occur again.

We must never give-in to those already strong and already moving to do away with “Liberty and Justice for all.”



“Unjust” U.S. Department of Justice

Tomorrow, Saturday August 25th, the TruthNewsNetwork will present evidence of serious and actual illegalities and political partisanship that is driving the “new” justice in our nation. It will shock you. 

Make sure and come back tomorrow morning for the inside scoop. And if you haven’t registered your email address, feel free to do so on the home page. Your address is secure, no one will ever see or have access to it. We don’t sell anything at all either. Doing so will simply result in your receipt of a brief email reminder with a “click-link” to any/every new story and/or podcast when published at 

See you tomorrow!

Murdered by a Stranger

In Iowa, it was Mollie Tibbets. In San Francisco, it was Kate Steinle. Who’s next? Where will the next such murder happen?

“Illegal Alien/Immigrant:” a foreign person who is living in a country without having official permission to live there.


Why is our nation covered with illegals? Why is it no longer politically correct to call those here illegally “illegals?” Who decided in the last few years to change the moniker for such people from illegal “alien” to illegal “immigrant?” What’s the difference?

Answers: Politically correct Leftists self-appointed to right the “rules” of illegal immigration apparently coined the new terms. Oh, and it’s no longer politically correct to use the term “illegal.” Last night I watched an immigration attorney on a talk show correct the host who used the term “illegal immigrant.” According to that attorney, they now are to be called “undocumented immigrants.” Hmmm… I’m pretty sure the families of Mollie Tibbets and Kate Steinle would argue with even the hint of political correctness in illegals’ naming correctness. Kate and Mollie are dead. That’s all that matters.

Every time a highly visible murder of an American at the hands of an illegal, the argument about this open-border policy begins anew. And make no mistake about it: America’s southern border is wide open. And regarding illegals entering the nation, Leftists are certainly open-border advocates. And most on the Right in Congress speak out against this practice while winking at the continued flow of “new” illegals crossing the border while sitting on their hands regarding repairing U.S. immigration law. Apparently, even Republicans in Congress (on the most part) must be for open-borders, too.

Meanwhile, Kate and Mollie are gone.

For the sake of this conversation today, and in honor of Kate and Mollie, we will refer to those in the United States without authorization or legal status as “illegal aliens.” If that offends you, please give us some leeway today in honor of those two young women. Humor us, please.

Dead at the Hands of Illegals

How many U.S. citizens are murdered by illegal aliens?

President Trump in a speech stated that 63,000 Americans had been murdered by illegal aliens. The 63,000 number we are unable to document. However, a 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report said that a study population of 249,000 criminal aliens had been arrested for 25,064 homicides.

According to a recent Associated Press article, “multiple studies have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born U.S. citizens.” But the issue isn’t non-citizens who are in this country legally, and who must abide by the law to avoid having their visas revoked or their application for citizenship refused. The real issue is the crimes committed by illegal aliens. And in that context, the claim is quite misleading, because the “multiple studies” on crimes committed by “immigrants” —  including a 2014 study by a professor from the University of Massachusetts, which is the only one cited in the article —  combine the crime rates of both citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal.

That isn’t the only problem with the study. Instead of using official crime data, it uses “self-reported criminal offending and country of birth information.” For obvious reasons, there is little incentive for anyone, let alone criminal aliens, to self-report “delinquent and criminal involvement.” When it comes to self-reporting criminal activity, some surveyed will, no doubt, exaggerate. Others will flat out lie. Furthermore, many that are questioned will likely not disclose if they are a non-citizen out of fear of discovery and deportation.

These claims overlook disturbing actual data on crimes committed by criminal aliens. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released two unsettling reports in 2005 on criminal aliens who are in prison for committing crimes in the United States and issued an updated report in 2011.

The first report (GAO-05-337R) found that criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) make up 27 percent of all federal prisoners. Yet according to the Center for Immigration Studies, non-citizens are only about nine percent of the nation’s adult population. Thus, judging by the numbers in federal prisons alone, non-citizens commit federal crimes at three times the rate of citizens.

The findings in the second report (GAO-05-646R) are even more disturbing. This report looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegal in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during the fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien. Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft, and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.

The 2011 GAO report wasn’t much different. It looked at 251,000 criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons and jails. Those aliens were arrested nearly 1.7 million times for close to three million criminal offenses. Sixty-eight percent of those in federal prison and 66 percent of those in state prisons were from Mexico. Their offenses ranged from homicide and kidnapping to drugs, burglary, and larceny. Once again, these statistics are not fully representative of crimes committed by illegal aliens: This report only reflects the criminal histories of aliens who were in prison. If there were a way to include all crimes committed by criminal aliens, the numbers would likely be higher because prosecutors often will agree to drop criminal charges against an illegal alien if they are assured that immigration authorities will deport the alien.

The GAO reports also highlight another important flaw in the study referenced by the Associated Press. It uses survey data from a nationally representative sample of people living in the United States. Thus, the study does not take into account some potentially key factors highlighted in the GAO reports: that criminal aliens from Mexico disproportionately make up incarcerations (GAO-05-337R) and that most arrests are made in the three border states of California, Texas, and Arizona (GAO-05-646R and GAO-11-187). Let’s look at just one of those three border states who has provided the public actual statistics of crimes committed by illegal aliens.

Just Texas

According to DHS status indicators, over 261,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011, and July 31, 2018, of which over 175,000 were classified as “illegal aliens.”

Between June 1, 2011 and July 31, 2018, these 175,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 273,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 505 homicide charges; 30,408 assault charges; 5,396 burglary charges; 34,555 drug charges; 365 kidnapping charges; 15,100 theft charges; 22,213 obstructing police charges; 1,569 robbery charges; 3,212 sexual assault charges; 2,022 sexual offense charges; and 2,754 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 112,000 convictions including 225 homicide convictions; 12,540 assault convictions; 2,967 burglary convictions; 16,762 drug convictions; 152 kidnapping convictions; 6,741 theft convictions; 10,720 obstructing police convictions; 950 robbery convictions; 1,567 sexual assault convictions; 1,076 sexual offense convictions; and 1,194 weapon convictions.


What is most exasperating to most Americans (other than federal politicians) is that there really is NO need for these senseless crimes to happen. What further heightens Americans’ frustration and anger about this problem is that Congress — who is the only agency that can make or change federal law — continues to bicker about certain parts of proposed immigration reform legislation while ignoring the most obvious and most critical reason for not just making those changes, but making those changes immediately!

How many times and how many studies have we seen that poll Americans who overwhelmingly state immigration reform MUST begin by sealing our southern border? If Americans — “legal” Americans — want their representatives in Washington to enact legislation to protect our babies against illegal alien crimes against them, why doesn’t Congress act?

Can’t members of Congress agree that trying to do anything regarding new or revised immigration law is sheer lunacy if it does not FIRST stop any continued influx of illegals?

It is virtually impossible that 535 men and women who are professionals that come to Congress from varied legal, business, medical, and other professional backgrounds cannot agree on a path to fix this problem — ANY PROBLEM — “IF” they really want to.” And that’s the key: Congress proposes, debates, amends, votes, and passes EVERY bill THEY want to see become law.


Why is that?

To this journalist, the only plausible explanation for this is that more than half of those 535 men and women want to maintain the status quo. And the reason for that can be just one thing: votes. They not only want to allow the free flow of immigrants across the border, they have every intention of finding a way to make it legal for those illegals to vote in federal elections.

“What would that do?” you ask. Those Congressional members think that whoever/whichever political party initiates the steps and process for such legalization will be the party those illegals will support, forever indebted for that legalization. Would that work? It has worked for decades already. Democrats as a whole convinced African Americans that Dems were the saviors of Blacks. In almost every legislation at the federal level, Democrats have the votes of Black Americans locked up, simply because of that obligation Dems have sold them.

And Democrats are NOT the party that has made American life any better for those in the Black community. (We’ll save that conversation for another day)


Unless and until Congress passes a comprehensive immigration law that first closes our borders to illegal aliens, America is doomed for the repeat and repeat and repeat of stories like that of Mollie Tibbets and Kate Steinle who had their lives snuffed out at the hands of illegal aliens. I suggest you don’t ever let an open-borders advocate sell you the lie that illegal aliens commit crimes at a lesser rate than either native-born or naturalized American citizens. In fact, existing data seems to show that the opposite is likely true.

Get the truth out there in your circles of influence. Every chance you get, push your federal legislators to initiate and support comprehensive immigration legislation that begins with slamming the door on the southern border to stop illegals from entering the U.S.

But we do know one thing for sure. Every crime committed by an illegal alien is one that would not have occurred if that alien wasn’t in the United States in the first place. That includes the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by the 55,322 illegal aliens in the GAO study who victimized countless numbers of Americans. And that includes the 273,000 criminal offenses committed against Texas citizens alone.

Remember this: Kate Steinle with her father was innocently at Fisherman’s Wharf enjoying just being together. Mollie Tibbetts was jogging in a very small rural town in Iowa. With no apparent plan or forethought, two illegal aliens ended the lives of those young women and changed the course of human history for their families.

The next such loss of a young man or young woman could be YOUR child.

Murder by a Stranger


The Mueller “Blockbuster”

I hated to end yesterday’s story forced for lack of time to “tease” the finale today. But there are very important considerations for you as this Mueller Investigation is winding down — so important they deserve a space of their own. There is history to start this story. I think it is apparent to most people that this investigation by Special Counsel Mueller is anything BUT traditional or normal. Its sources are hazy at best. Its foundation is questionable based on the Special Prosecutor statute and Department of Justice regulations. Nevertheless, a sitting U.S. President is under investigation for “collusion” or involvement with Russia in some way to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

Let’s begin this analysis by drawing two potential/probable conclusions as to the basis, intent, and expected findings of the Mueller Investigation. Please follow the thoughts and evidence immediately below. At the end of the story, we’ll look at the “Either-Or” blockbuster scenario I promised! Don’t cheat…read all the way through!

“In The Beginning”

It started long before Robert Mueller sat in the Oval Office with Rod Rosenstein and President Trump, reportedly interviewing for the FBI Director position after the President terminated James Comey. Many think that Mueller’s NOT being offered the job initiated a payback by Mueller to Mr. Trump for not hiring him. That supposedly prompted his appointment the next day as Special Counsel by his longtime friend and business associate (now Deputy Attorney General) Rod Rosenstein. Let’s think this through:

  • Mueller was not even eligible to take that job even if offered. Mueller had already served his term limit as FBI Director: 10 years. In fact, President Obama held him over as Director, obtaining special permission to do so. Mueller knew that before the meeting was even scheduled;
  • There was someone else in that Oval Office meeting: Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The AG certainly knew of Mueller’s term limits conflict. Knowing this, why would the President and Attorney General have such a meeting with Mueller? And if Sessions was in that meeting, why would his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, be there as well?
  • Sessions as the newly appointed U.S. Attorney General recused himself from his being a part of “any investigation into any matter dealing with the 2016 election.” His stated purpose for his recusal: potential conflict of interest in that he had been somewhat involved in the Trump campaign;
  • Robert Mueller — a lifelong attorney who had spent much of his career in the Justice Department — hired a team of investigators comprised almost entirely of Democrats who had supported the Hillary Clinton campaign and previously Barack Obama. Why would Mueller make such a partisan effort to taint the investigative staff knowing it would certainly cause concern for any impartiality of any actions the group would take?
  • Mueller, with the expansive investigatory authority he held from Rosenstein’s letter of appointment and its amendment, could have (and many say “should have”) cast a net far wider in the Russian investigation to include the Clinton Campaign and its surrogates in light of the findings of Clinton involvement with Russians before and during the campaign. Why would such an experienced investigator not go after that “low hanging fruit?”
  • The Mueller team is comprised of 13 attorneys and their staff. How could such a small group effectively examine 1 million + documents received from the Trump Campaign plus the myriad of other applicable evidence in the investigation? (divide 1.4 million by 13. Each would have had 107,692 multi-page documents to investigate)
  • There is a legal term called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” If the evidence, or tree, is tainted, then anything gained from the evidence — the fruit — is tainted as well. The evidence that triggered the special counsel’s Russia investigation was the 35-page opposition research document known as the “Steele dossier.” Democratic campaign operatives funded the dossier; it was not an independent intelligence report. And it was later shared with the FBI, whose former director, James Comey, has acknowledged that allegations in the document could have been made up.
  • Comey’s personal memos. The then-FBI director intentionally leaked these classified memos recounting his version of conversations he had with President Donald Trump, hoping they would lead to the appointment of a special counsel. Comey admitted this at a Senate intelligence committee hearing last year, testifying, “I needed to get that out into the public square. And, I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Under the poisonous tree doctrine, if the premise is faulty, the conclusion must also be faulty. Since the evidence for a special counsel was tainted, so too was his appointment. Comey got exactly what he wanted, even if it was unfair to the president, possibly illegal, and tarnished the reputation of the FBI.

A Look at The “Other” Thoughts

  • Remember DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his bombshell report of DOJ wrongdoing in the Clinton email investigation? Remember that note from AG Sessions stating that the DOJ had assigned “470 investigators to work with Horowitz on the investigation?
  • Remember AG Sessions in November of 2017 appointed Utah federal prosecutor John Huber to (independently and far from D.C. distractions) investigate a bunch of things that included wrongdoing by unnamed politicos in D.C.?
  • Did you know that Sessions assigned those 470 investigators to work with Huber after the Horowitz investigation was completed?
  • Did you know that starting in late October of 2017, more than 45,000 federal indictments issued in part by every federal district court in the U.S. have been sealed for later adjudication? Did you know that in U.S. history, the most such indictments handed down in total in the U.S. in any year is less than 2,000?

Let’s play the “What If” Game with this.

“What If:”
  • The Trump/Mueller/Rosenstein/Sessions meeting in the Oval Office was NOT about FBI Director position. What if it was a meeting to initiate a plan to quietly create a smokescreen with a Special Counsel investigation to simultaneously investigate secretly the Clinton Campaign, Clinton Foundation, former and current Justice Department officials, while objectively investigating any potential wrongdoing in the Trump Campaign?
  • Some of those 45,000 sealed indictments are of a rogue intelligence agency, IRS, FBI, DOJ, State Department, and political party individuals for illegal activities? Remember: 25+ DOJ and FBI employees have been fired, demoted, or have “retired” since this investigation began.
  • Jeff Sessions — who has been suspiciously “incognito” during the last year or so — has been quietly working behind the scenes supervising these ongoing investigations? Remember: Sessions made a public statement regarding Utah federal attorney John Huber’s appointment to investigate many things without Washington D.C. interference. In that announcement the AG mentioned Huber’s having access to those 470 DOJ investigators. Many think Sessions announcing that was quietly putting the word out that serious investigations were/are ongoing in all of these wrongdoings by many.
  • All the noise and tweets and allegations and even name-calling by the President the last 18 months has been a purposeful distraction of the American media (and even of potential targets of these investigations) and Americans? We have seen the President use this distraction tool on numerous occasions: “Look what I have in my right hand — see, I’m waving it.” When all along what he is REALLY doing is in his left hand behind his back. Trump is a master salesman.
  • The targets of the Mueller Special Counsel investigation are NOT Donald Trump and Trump associates, but rather James Brennan, James Clapper, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and James Comey being investigated for obstruction of justice in their actions in covering up illegal activities? Other targets could also be the Clinton Campaign, Hillary and Bill personally, the Holder and the Lynch DOJ, the Comey FBI, Brennan CIA, and Clapper DNI? That could explain the public anger and borderline threats by Brennan, Clapper, and Comey and why Holder and Lynch have stayed so obviously out of any discussions.
  • John Huber is really “The Guy” carrying the weight of ALL these investigations? He certainly has sufficient investigative staff and resources to get the job done.

The “Blockbuster” Revelation

By now you certainly know the TruthNewsNetwork perspective that there are actually two possible scenarios we are living through regarding the real purposes for the Mueller investigation. Obviously, the premise of the investigation was false: there IS no collusion between the Russians and the Trump Campaign.

The conventional wisdom is that the first explanation listed above is exactly what is happening. But to believe that, one has to believe in the Deep State, that all those in leadership at the Department of Justice, the FBI, DNI, CIA, and other investigative agencies and the U.S. Military are actually part of a grand conspiracy to turn the U.S. rule of law upside down. And while doing so, their intent would surely be to turn the nation away from its established political structure as a democratic representative republic. A Deep State comprised of a self-appointed class of individuals would have to be chosen, installed, and in control of the U.S. political process AND the U.S. military. It could never be successful without a military coup.

On the other hand, the second scenario and possible Mueller investigation explanation detailed above would require thousands of people to remain totally quiet about that process: no leaks at all. One would have to believe that Mueller, Rosenstein, Sessions, the President, and his senior staff members would all have come to an agreement to work together surreptitiously to complete these investigations.

You might feel that getting such a task successfully completed is impossible. And you might be correct. There are so many moving parts and so many people that are part of it, accomplishing the investigative tasks necessary is a monumental task at best. But IF it is actually as described above, it would explain many things and answer any questions we have no answer for now:

  • Why has AG Sessions been so quiet and seemingly totally uninvolved in any of the investigations in what appears to be an effort to force a sitting President out of office?
  • Why was Huber appointed, and to investigate what and whom?
  • Why has Sessions allocated Huber 470 DOJ investigators fulltime?
  • Why has President Trump not fired Sessions in light of the President’s many tweets questioning the Attorney General’s lack of action regarding any of this?
  • Why has the DOJ and/or FBI NOT announced any investigations that are underway into anything to do with obvious inappropriate if not illegal actions by the Clinton Campaign, the Democrat Party, and individuals in both organizations?
  • Why has the DOJ not launched a REAL investigation into the Uranium One transaction and those who were part of the sale of U.S. uranium to a Canadian company who sold it to a Russian government-controlled company?


Which do you think it is? I am certain you have an opinion on both possibilities. Let’s face it: either Mueller is an evil tyrant bent on the destruction of Donald Trump and all those who work for or with him, or you think Mueller is secretly a really good guy working with the President, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and others to bring a bunch of people to justice for their reprehensible wrongdoing.

I have personal opinions as I am certain you do on this entire American political debacle. Part of me wants to give all those involved in the investigation the benefit of the doubt. Another part wants to believe there is a grand conspiracy by a large group of those heretofore who have been trusted leaders of the Department of Justice, the FBI, other intelligence agencies, and even senior members of the Democrat Party and the Clinton campaign.

Unfortunately, part of that second scenario must be consideration of the involvement in this entire action by former President Obama and members of his administration.

My conclusion? It’s certain to be one or the other. Only time will tell. I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the evil by many that have been exposed, and how much evil was successfully hidden from Americans for so long.

God help us if the Deep State is already in charge or is successfully taking charge of our country. If so, we can all be certain Big Brother is in control and the rule of law is gone as is “liberty and justice for all.”






Mueller Mania

“The White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, has cooperated extensively in the special counsel investigation, sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Trump obstructed justice, including some that investigators would not have learned of otherwise, according to a dozen current and former White House officials and others briefed on the matter.

In at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, Mr. McGahn described the president’s fury toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged Mr. McGahn to respond to it. He provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.

Among them were Mr. Trump’s comments and actions during the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and Mr. Trump’s obsession with putting a loyalist in charge of the inquiry, including his repeated urging of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to claim oversight of it. Mr. McGahn was also centrally involved in Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, which investigators might not have discovered without him.

For a lawyer to share so much with investigators scrutinizing his client is unusual. Lawyers are rarely so open with investigators, not only because they are advocating on behalf of their clients but also because their conversations with clients are potentially shielded by attorney-client privilege, and in the case of presidents, executive privilege.”

This bombshell story was released by the New York Times Sunday, August 19th. Don McGahn — White House Counsel — according to this report has spent 30 hours in private meetings with the Robert Mueller team answering questions about President Trump’s actions regarding all those things Mueller is investigating. And who knows what things that includes.

There are some significant things to note from this occurrence:

  1. For the counsel to the President to have such conversations, as President Mr. Trump would have had to waive Executive Privilege for McGahn to meet with Mueller;
  2. For the counsel to the President to have such conversations, Mr. Trump would have had to waive his right to confidentiality between his attorney and himself;
  3. 30 Hours: Obviously this was a long time for a lawyer to meet with prosecutors to discuss anything — especially alleged wrongdoing by the President of the United States. Certainly MUCH was discussed, MUCH was asked of McGahn, and MUCH was answered;
  4. I’ll stretch way out there with this statement: It is almost certain McGahn’s discussions yielded absolutely nothing in the way of implicating President Trump on collusion (which is not a crime) or obstruction of justice. In fact, buried at the bottom of the New York Times story is this: “Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities, though the limits of executive power are murky.”

Mueller Leaks

  • June 3, 2017: The Associated Press revealed Mueller’s team had taken over a criminal probe of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
  • July 22, 2017: Two sources claiming direct knowledge told Reuters Mueller’s investigators were hoping to use evidence of money laundering or other financial crimes to pressure Manafort to cooperate in the collusion probe.
  • August 3, 2017: Citing “people familiar with the matter,” the Wall Street Journal reported a grand jury had been impaneled by Mueller. White House attorney Ty Cobb said at the time he was unaware of the grand jury’s existence.
  • August 9, 2017: The Washington Post reported FBI agents conducted a predawn raid of Manafort’s Virginia home on July 26 to seize documents and other materials related to Mueller’s investigation. According to the Post, people familiar with the search said a warrant sought financial records and the evidence collected included binders Manafort had prepared for his congressional testimony.
  • August 24, 2017: “A source close to the investigation” provided Fox News with new details of the raid of Manafort’s house and claimed it was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”
  • August 25, 2017: “People familiar with the matter” informed the Wall Street Journal that Mueller was investigating Flynn’s involvement in a private effort to obtain Hillary Clinton’s email from Russian hackers.
  • August 28, 2017: According to NBC News, three sources said Mueller’s investigators were focused on Trump’s role in writing a response to media reports about a meeting between campaign officials and Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016.
  • September 1, 2017: The Washington Post reported Mueller’s investigators had a copy of a draft letter prepared by Trump aide Stephen Miller to justify the firing of Comey in May 2017.
  • September 20, 2017: Emails reportedly turned over to Mueller’s team and Senate investigators leaked to the Washington Post revealed that Manafort offered to provide private briefings to a Russian billionaire with ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 campaign.
  • October 4, 2017: Reuters cited three “sources familiar with the investigation” saying that Mueller’s team had taken over the FBI’s inquiries into a dossier of allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Two officials also reportedly told Reuters Mueller was looking into whether Manafort or others helped the Kremlin target hacking efforts and social media posts to influence the election.
  • October 27, 2017: “Sources briefed on the matter,” told CNN that the first charges in Mueller’s investigation had been filed under seal. The following Monday, charges were unsealed Manafort and campaign aide Robert Gates, as well as a guilty plea by former adviser George Papadopoulos.
  • November 5, 2017: NBC News reported multiple sources said Mueller had enough evidence to bring charges against Flynn and his son. According to NBC, the FBI was also investigating a possible effort by Flynn to extradite a Muslim cleric in the U.S. whom Turkish President Recep Erdogan blamed for a coup attempt.
  • November 16, 2017: The Wall Street Journal cited a “person familiar with the matter” reporting that Mueller’s team had subpoenaed Russia-related documents from Trump’s campaign, including documents and emails were written by several campaign officials.
  • December 2, 2017: Multiple “people familiar with the matter,” told the Washington Post that former top counterintelligence official Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team because of anti-Trump texts between him and an FBI attorney with whom he was having an affair. Details of many of those texts, which were under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office, have since been leaked to various media outlets.
  • January 2, 2018: A source detailed the physical characteristics, clothing, race, and gender of grand jury members to the New York Post and alleged that the grand jury room “looks like a Bernie Sanders rally.”
  • February 17, 2018: CNN cited anonymous sources stating that Gates was close to negotiating a plea deal with Mueller and that new charges against Manafort were being prepared. Less than a week later, Gates entered a guilty plea to conspiracy and lying to the FBI, and a superseding indictment was filed against Manafort.
  • February 27, 2018: CNN reported that three “people familiar with the matter” said Mueller had recently questioned witnesses about Trump’s business activities in Russia and negotiations surrounding a potential Trump Tower in Moscow.
  • February 28, 2018: An unnamed former Trump campaign aide told CNN Mueller’s team asked about comments former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks made during her interview with investigators about possible contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives.
  • March 2, 2018: Witnesses and others familiar with the investigation reportedly told NBC News Mueller’s team was asking questions about Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business ties. The following week, NBC cited “sources familiar with the matter” saying Qatari officials withheld damaging information about the United Arab Emirates’ influence on Kushner from Mueller.
  • March 3, 2018: According to the New York Times, Mueller was looking into attempts by the United Arab Emirates to buy political influence on Trump and the role of Lebanese-American businessman George Nader.
  • March 4, 2018: Axios obtained a copy of a subpoena sent to a former Trump campaign official by Mueller’s team. Sam Nunberg later confirmed he was the source and spoke extensively to the media about the investigation.
  • March 7, 2018: “People familiar with the matter,” told the Washington Post Mueller had evidence from a cooperating witness that a secret meeting in Seychelles between a Trump ally and a Russian official prior to the inauguration was an attempt to establish a back channel between the administration and the Kremlin.
  • March 15, 2018: The New York Times reported that Mueller had subpoenaed documents from the Trump Organization.
  • April 9, 2018: The New York Times learned federal investigators had raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room. Hours later, sources told the Washington Post Cohen was under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
  • April 30, 2018: The New York Times obtained a list of questions Mueller wanted to ask Trump. According to the Times, the list was prepared by Trump’s attorneys after speaking to investigators but it was not given to reporters by Trump’s legal team.
  • March 9, 2018: from POLITICO —“Special counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors aren’t talking to the media, but still the leaks keep coming. In the past two weeks, anonymously sourced news reports have said the top federal Russia investigator is preparing to indict Russians for hacking Democratic emails in 2016; focusing on why one of President Donald Trump’s longtime lawyers was in talks about a Moscow real estate deal during the campaign; asking questions about Trump son-in-law, Jared Kushner’s business dealings; and probing whether the United Arab Emirates improperly sought to influence Trump White House policy.”
  • Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman has seen no evidence that these leaks—often sourced to people familiar with the investigation or briefed on it—have come directly from Mueller or his staff. When Mueller has spoken publicly, it has been through criminal complaints and indictments.

This list includes Mueller leaks only through March 9, 2018. How many others are there? How many more will there be?

What is Mueller’s Objective and How do Leaks Play into that?

I have an “informed” conclusion I have drawn from this and other evidence surrounding the Mueller Investigation. It’s pretty exhaustive and detailed. For the sake of time, let’s wait until tomorrow to have that entire discussion. There are enough important details in this explanation that we need to lay it all out in chronological order and with complete details. We’ll do that tomorrow.

Rest assured of one thing: there IS a master plan with a sinister under-girding in the Mueller probe. Many circumstances of this investigation are too stark and too related to things outside of the actual investigation to be random. This entire chapter of the Trump presidency was planned in advance and orchestrated.

Who, How, and What? Find out tomorrow at the Truth News Network!