The Tree That Gets Hit By Lightning Is The One You Remember

Today was supposed to be the day former Special Counsel Robert Mueller would ride into town on his trusty steed with guns a-blazin’ to bolster the Democrats’ hopes of impeaching President Trump.

Their hopes were dashed when their star witness came across as feeble, doddering and uncertain.

#MuellerHearing be like... pic.twitter.com/rjAFrUs9ve

— Rosie memos (@almostjingo) July 24, 2019

Mueller had at his side his seeing eye dog, Aaron Zebley, Deputy Special Counsel.  Zebley previously represented former Clinton aide Justin Cooper, Hillary Clinton’s “basement server guy” while she was Obama’s Secretary of State.

It was clear from the outset Mueller was little more than a figurehead in the Russia probe.  Not only was Mueller perpetually flustered and unprepared to talk about his own report; we now have to wonder to what extent he was even involved in the day-to-day work of the investigation.

For me, the most important moment in the proceedings was when a gutsy Republican emerged with the most cogent argument:

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX):   The special counsel's job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It's not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the justice manual, and it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, Director, it was not the Special Counsel's job to conclusively Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

Now, Director, the Special Counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the Department policies, and you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says that—as you read this morning, it authorizes the Special Counsel to provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel. That's the very first word of your report, right?

ROBERT MUELLER:  That’s correct.

RATCLIFFE: Here's the problem, Director. The Special Counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume II with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the Special Counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declamation decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning and, in your report, that you made no determination so respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the Special Counsel regulations.

It clearly says, write a confidential report about decisions reached. Nowhere in here does it say write a report about decisions that weren't reached. You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided. And respectfully, respectfully, by doing that you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.

It clearly says, write a confidential report about decisions reached. Nowhere in here does it say write a report about decisions that weren't reached. You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided. And respectfully, respectfully, by doing that you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.

So Americans need to know this as they listen to the Democrats and Socialists on the other side of the aisle as they do dramatic readings from this report that Volume II of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department and it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the Chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law which is where Volume II of this report puts him. 

UPDATE:  Welcome readers of Bad Blue Uncensored News.  We thank Doug Ross for linking to this post.

The Kremlin Hoped To Paralyze Our Government

"I once said, ‘We will bury you,’ and I got into trouble with it. Of course, we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you."─Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev

We have an adversary that thrives on our division. The notion that Russian interference in 2016 was unprecedented reflects a willful ignorance of history.

Rob Goldman, Vice President of Ads at Facebook, went on Twitter roughly eight hours after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein read the indictment from the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller of 13 Russian operatives for interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

Very excited to see the Mueller indictment today. We shared Russian ads with Congress, Mueller and the American people to help the public understand how the Russians abused our system. Still, there are keys facts about the Russian actions that are still not well understood.

— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election. https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof

— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.

— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

Over the course of eleven presidential elections between the end of World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been three well-documented secret attempts to influence an American election.

In a published report from Smithsonian Magazine we learn Adlai Stevenson II, the Democratic nominee for president in 1952 and 1956, had advocated a ban on the testing hydrogen bombs.  Stevenson lost both bids for the presidency to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Stevenson publicly stated he would not seek the nomination again in 1960, but Soviet Ambassador Mikhail A. Menshikov hoped he would reconsider. On January 16, 1960 Menshikov invited Stevenson to the [Soviet] embassy in DC for caviar and drinks to thank him for helping negotiate Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s visit to the United States.  But there was an ulterior motive. At one point, Menshikov pulled notes from his pocket and began delivering Stevenson a message he said came directly from Khrushchev, encouraging him to seriously consider another run for president.

“…We are concerned with the future, and that America has the right president. All countries are concerned with the American election. It is impossible for us not to be concerned about our future and the American Presidency which is so important to everybody everywhere.”

[SKIP]

“In Russia we know well Mr. Stevenson and his views regarding disarmament, nuclear testing, peaceful coexistence, and the conditions of a peaceful world. He has said many sober and correct things during his visit to Moscow and in his writings and speeches. When we compare all the possible candidates in the United States we feel that Mr. Stevenson is best for mutual understanding and progress toward peace.”

[SKIP]

“We don’t know how we can help to make relations better and help those to succeed in political life who wish for better relations and more confidence. Could the Soviet press assist Mr. Stevenson’s personal success? How? Should the press praise him and, if so, for what? Should it criticize him and, if so, for what? We can always find many things to criticize Mr. Stevenson for because he has said many harsh and critical things about the Soviet Union and Communism! Mr. Stevenson will know best what would help him.”

The report ends by noting, “Stevenson did eventually face the Soviets again.  After becoming UN Ambassador under President Kennedy, the winner of the 1960 election. Stevenson was tasked with presenting evidence to the world the Soviets had placed nuclear weapons in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. His showdown with Soviet Ambassador Zorin is one of the key moments of the Cold War. After asking the Ambassador point blank whether Russia had missiles in Cuba, he pressed the issue. When the Ambassador hesitated to answer, Stevenson said, ‘I am prepared to wait for an answer until Hell freezes over, if that is your decision.’”

In 1968, the Soviet Politburo strongly favored Democratic presidential candidate, Hubert H. Humphrey out of fear of Republican nominee Richard Nixon, a vehement anti-Communist. Soviet leaders ordered their ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin, to approach Humphrey with an offer of clandestine funding for his campaign. Humphrey politely declined saying, “it was more than enough for him to have Moscow's good wishes."  Nixon won, but instead of confronting the Soviet Union, he embarked on an era of détente and signed the first strategic arms limitation treaty, much to Moscow’s relief.

NOTE:  If you read The Washington Post’s review of Dobrynin’s book “In Confidence” by Robert G. Kaiser, you will be left with the impression he “maintained a personal moral code while representing men in Moscow who did not.”  It is unquestionably an adroit attempt to whitewash his role in the Soviets' espionage programs.

In 1976, the Soviet Union again secretly adopted measures to influence a U.S. presidential election. Early that year, the KGB warned the Politburo that Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA), known for his fierce opposition to the Soviet Union, stood a good chance of gaining the Democratic nomination. 

To “conquer world public opinion” the KGB set up a special department, Service A, to discredit the United States.

Service A, prepared a wide-ranging set of measures to discredit Jackson, sending forged FBI letters to prominent U.S. newspapers and journalists claiming that Jackson was a closeted homosexual. Even after Jackson’s campaign faltered and he dropped out of the 1976 race, Service A kept up its homophobic war of disinformation against him, hoping to prevent him from ever again becoming a viable presidential candidate.

The drama series, “The Americans”, was created by former CIA agent-turned-author Joe Weisberg for the FX network; a story about a pair of deep-cover Soviet spies masquerading as a stereotypical Washington couple whose children, neighbors, co-workers and friends are completely unaware of their activities. They pose as travel agents; but at night, they weave a web of confidants, lovers, dupes, and historical figures from the Reagan-era Cold War. The startlingly realistic plot twists force the viewer to consider the real cost of an undeclared war.

The series is, of course, fictional but there’s an interesting “briefing” at the website Spy Museum which details the story of The Cambridge Five.  In 1934, before the Great Purge of the Communist Party, the repression of peasants and Red Army leaders, Soviet intelligence officer Arnold Deutsch met with five Cambridge University graduates.

All were dedicated Communists and demanded no financial compensation for their espionage services. In time, the Soviet strategy of recruiting young, disaffected members of the British elite would yield rich rewards.  Each quickly obtained key positions in the British government and intelligence apparatus.  They did immense damage to Western security when they learned of American efforts to build an atomic bomb, provided documents of “inestimable value” on the Allied strategy in the Korean War and disclosed Project Venona which broke encoded Soviet diplomatic messages.

I raise the issue of the Cambridge Five simply to illustrate the point that so many are willing to do harm to America.  It makes you wonder about dirty dossier author Christopher Steele, himself a Briton.

Many Americans have forgotten the lessons of the Cold War and the disasters witnessed in the crumbling economies and failed institutions of Communist and socialist countries in the 1990s. Communism was on its last leg, it appeared, and its little brother socialism was not far behind.

Little did we know that the fires of socialism were being stoked in corners all across America where it is held in higher regard than in nations that have suffered under it. It is obvious where such thinking abounds and continues to spread: in our colleges and universities. The ideologies of professors and educators have proven stronger than facts. The “benefits” of socialism and Communism are taught from the Ivy League to the local community college. A generation has been taught a lie and they now believe it.