Monday, March 19, 2018

Phobias a la carte


Mueller could not find the Prancing Unicorn

There’s “Islamophobia,” which literally means an “unreasoning” fear of Islam (a fear, but utterly reasonable, based on the repeated jihadist attacks that have killed hundreds of people) and what it can do to your rights or your life or your country – that is, to end them .

And then there is “Trumpophobia,” meaning a persistent, unreasoning, obsessive, incurable hatred of Donald Trump, a phobia based on emotion stemming from an unremitting resentment that Trump “robbed” them of another shot at a “transformative,” destructive hegemony over the culture, as Obama had permitted them the luxury during his eight-year term.  

The condition is similar to the criminal psychosis inculcated by Islam. The neurosis – or rather the psychosis – goes on and on like a yammering broken record with no off switch. The Trump- Russia collusion investigation that Robert Mueller has been chasing as an elusive, highway mirage for a year, was finally declared without substance and basically illusionary. It was a highway to nowhere. State governments have built many of those. One got tired of seeing Mueller’s morose face almost everywhere one turned.

There is the phobia narrated by a Swedish countess who moved from Sweden to Hungary because there are few if any Muslim migrants there to molest her, rob her, deny her job because her employment interviewers of migrants. This is a common phobia, as the countess, explains, among Swedes who are afraid to intervene in molestation, because they could be stabbed.  Many Swedes, she reports, are moving to countries that do not permit the mass invasion of migrants.

Of particular concern is the phobia exhibited by James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump. His legion of crimes and misdemeanors is admirably explicated by Joseph E. diGenova
at Hillsdale College. After outlining Hillary’s numerous crimes, misdemeanors, and acts of treason, Comey refused to indict her, as he said they weren’t serious enough to merit a grand jury, and let her off the hook. In February 2018, diGenova details those crimes in “The Politicization of the FBI.”

The Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had a secret, personal server that things really took off.

Thousands of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.

One tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents or to testify.

Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation. Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury, Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.

 “Head injuries – a.k.a. phobias for the truth, or, what European authorities habitually attribute to a murdering jihadi, “mental problems” – seem to be fairly common in Washington, D.C.  The Islamic phobia is based on a fear of offending Muslims or Islam, or of being accused of racism, even though Islam is not a race, but a supremacist ideology in the guise of a religion. In Comey’s case his phobia seems to have been viraly communicated from Hillary Clinton, a habitual liar.

Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:

Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.

After needlessly giving immunity to two lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2, 2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.

Comey authorized the destruction of laptop computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional subpoena.

Comey ignored blatant evidence of culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense. Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling classified materials.

Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false. “I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.

Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case against Clinton was closed.

The next excellently parsed phobia of Comey, Mueller, and Company is by Victor David Hanson in his March 13th essay, “Swamp Things in the Russia Investigation,” in which he writes,

“The Swamp” usually refers to the vast federal bureaucratic machinery of mostly unelected top officials who exercise influence and power without worry about the appearance of conflicts of interest. They are often exempt from the consequences of the laws and regulations that affect others. The chief characteristics of the swamp are the interlocking friendships, business relationships, marriages and partnerships in Washington, and their immune response against anyone who challenges them.

Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has proven the locus classicus of a dysfunctional and highly incestuous Washington culture—so much so that it borders on being a caricature of a Washington investigation.

The Origins of the Robert Mueller Appointment: How did it come about? Mueller’s acquaintance, former FBI Director James Comey (Mueller and Comey were lauded dating back to the Bush Administration as “brothers in arms”), has testified that he was so exasperated with the president that he leaked his own confidential and likely classified memos of presidential meetings to the press via a friend in order that it “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” It certainly did that. And mirabile dictu, the special counsel was soon none other than Robert Mueller with whom Comey had had a professional relationship in a variety of contexts for nearly 20 years. At some point, will one of Mueller’s staff have to depose him to ask whether he ever discussed the possibility of a special counsel appointment with Comey prior to Comey’s firing?

The two FBI investigators (and Lisa Page) had a long-concealed amorous relationship characterized by an overriding antipathy for Donald Trump and a desire to ensure that he was not elected president or, barring that, did not prove a successful president. Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Both Page and Strzok communicated concerning the “insurance” idea that might suggest efforts to stop Trump’s election or thwart his presidency, with deputy director Andrew McCabe.


When the inspector general released evidence of their prejudices and romantic involvement, they were dismissed. But Mueller apparently did not announce exactly why they were taken off his investigation. Their staggered departures were reported in the press as normal reassignments and not as connected, as if to inform the public why they were leaving would somehow not be in the Mueller investigation’s interest….

The two FBI investigators had a long-concealed amorous relationship characterized by an overriding antipathy for Donald Trump and a desire to ensure that he was not elected president or, barring that, did not prove a successful president. Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Both Page and Strzok communicated concerning the “insurance” idea that might suggest efforts to stop Trump’s election or thwart his presidency, with deputy director Andrew McCabe.

When the inspector general released evidence of their prejudices and romantic involvement, they were dismissed. But Mueller apparently did not announce exactly why they were taken off his investigation. Their staggered departures were reported in the press as normal reassignments and not as connected, as if to inform the public why they were leaving would somehow not be in the Mueller investigation’s interest.

In sum, all the Swamp creatures discussed by Hanson and diGenova worked secretively but assiduously to find “dirt” on Donald Trump in order to remove him from office, and to manipulate reality.  The dirt was not found, because it didn’t exist. Their animus is incurable.  They will not let go the inexorable fact that they lost. Their phobias will likely follow them to their graves, and, hopefully, first, to their jail cells.

3 comments:

Tom McCaffrey said...

Very good. I've long objected to the term "homophobia," which term is intended to portray anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda as being afraid of homosexuals.

Mo said...

If the shrinking remnants of The Enlightenment survive long enough, there's going to be great comedy looking back at the bungling serial criminals our government could never seem catch.

Edward Cline said...

Tom: I don't hate homosexuals. I pity them and members of the LGBTG crowd. They have demonstrable identity problems. My first literary agent (now deceased) was a gay but very successful in his profession in NYC (he got First Prize published and then reviewed in the NYT in 1988). I never had a problem with him and never discussed his "life style."