Tag Archives: Mueller

Political Investigations and their Purpose

When Vladimir Putin seeks to eliminate a political rival, he has them assassinated. China’s President Xi has his dissidents tossed into hard labor prison camps.  North Korea’s Kim Jung-un has been known to have those he disagrees with literally blown apart, sometimes using artillery.

That’s not the American way, however. When an outspoken group or individual runs afoul of leadership in the United States, insiders use the machinery of the federal government, and abuse taxpayer-funded agencies and departments, to engage in financial and legal harassment to fight them.

There is a great deal of frustration with the fact that outsiders have challenged Washington’s political hierarchy. The opposition of the Tea Party was met with stiff resistance by the Obama Administration, which violated numerous legal and ethical standards when it employed the Internal Revenue Service to prevent those involved from fully organizing. The American Center for Law and Justice  notes that “As a tidal wave of grassroots activism began to roar throughout the country, the Obama Administration attempted to quell this activism by everyday Americans by beginning to develop an unconstitutional and illegal system of targeting and abuse.  The Administration’s IRS began pulling some tax-exempt applications out of the normal screening process for additional scrutiny (including the issuance of onerous demand letters for additional information) of organizations seeking tax-exemption whose names included the terms ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ ‘9/12,’ or other conservative-sounding names, such as ‘We the People’ or ‘Take Back the Country.”

There are significant examples of attempted federal intimidation outside of the Internal Revenue Service. Harassment of centrists and conservative think tanks were a significant strategy of the Obama administration. Attorney General Loretta Lynch “referred to the FBI” the proposal to criminalize any disagreement with Obama’s environmental policies.

 Jonathon Hauenschild, writing in The Hill reported that during the Obama Administration “Efforts to curtail online political speech were not limited to one federal commission or agency. Rules proposed by The [Federal Communications Commission] FCC, Federal Election Commission, [FEC] and considered by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) all threatened online political speech. In the Open Internet Order of 2015, the FCC proposed something called the ‘general conduct standard’ or the ‘Internet conduct standard.’ The former chair of the FEC repeatedly called for federal regulation of online political speech and nearly persuaded the FEC to sanction Fox News for merely sponsoring a primary presidential debate.”

Tom Basile, in a 2014 Forbes article  reported that “government has grown so large, so complex, so involved in virtually every aspect of their lives, that it is now being used as a weapon by a small segment of the ruling political class. The weaponization of government is happening and it’s time Americans took notice…Those tactics reduce every Americans’ personal and economic freedom. There is a dangerous arrogance of power among …President Obama and senior-level Democrats that should concern every American.”

Sara Carter, in a Circa expose, found that during the Obama Administration “The National Security Agency…routinely violated American privacy protections…and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community. More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal…”

This surveillance had little to do with national security and everything to do with spying on political opponents.

The current use of a special counsel, Robert Mueller, who has now empaneled a grand jury, to investigate the Trump campaign—despite a distinct lack of any evidence of a crime being committed, or, indeed, even a discussion of what federal law or regulation may have been broken, fits neatly into this pattern. It is a clear continuation of the harassment by political insiders of those, like the Tea Party, who seek to challenge the monopoly of political professionals.

The Democrats were quite successful in abusing and violating their own internal party procedures to prevent an outsider, Bernie Sanders, from gaining their 2016 presidential nomination, an act which has not received the judicial scrutiny it deserves.  The GOP leadership held a more open process, allowing outsider Trump to win. His campaign capitalized on the growing unease of the American electorate that the political game was increasingly rigged and Constitutional rights were being trampled, to insure the election of insiders.

Without the support of GOP insiders, and facing the anguish of a Democrat Party that has virtually been driven from power on the federal and most state levels, Trump is exceedingly vulnerable. The goal of the political insiders—to hobble his administration—is achieved not by the potential results of the Mueller inquisition, but by the very fact that it exists, and that it hampers the agenda he campaigned on.

There is another non-legal reason for the hysteria and hyperbole surrounding the as-yet unsubstantiated allegations about the Trump Campaign. There can be little doubt that numerous Constitutional violations occurred during the Obama Administration.  There are also serious legal questions about Hillary Clinton’s obvious violation of the law and endangerment of American national security in her personal profit from the sale of uranium to the Russians, as well as her felonious mismanagement of classified emails. But Obama and Clinton are ultimate insiders—they don’t get investigated or punished for their misdeeds. The Mueller investigation effectively distracts the public from those offenses, and gives the media an excuse to ignore them.

After all, during the past eight years, we have learned that political investigations are aimed at outsiders who have the temerity to challenge the insiders.

Media, FBI Ignore Clinton relations With Russia, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Governments concludes a two-part investigation into the refusal by the media and the FBI to examine the relationship between Russia and the Democrat Party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.  

Surprisingly little attention was paid to the matter of the Democrat party’s key figure, Senator Edward Kennedy, who had an extraordinary relationship with Moscow.  As noted by The Spectator:

“Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s self-serving, secret correspondence with Soviet agents during the height of the Cold War included proposals for collaborative efforts designed to undermine official U.S. policy set by Democratic and Republican administrations, KGB documents show… Kennedy’s long history with the KGB is well documented, but underreported… Kennedy’s actions occurred at the expense of presidential authority and in violation of federal law, according to academics and scholars who are familiar with the documents… Kennedy…offered to work in close concert with high level Soviet officials to sabotage President Ronald Reagan’s re-election efforts and to orchestrate favorable American press coverage for Andropov and Soviet military officials, according to the 1983 KGB document

“It is also evident from the letter that Kennedy believed the nuclear freeze movement was gaining momentum in 1983 and could help to short-circuit Reagan’s military buildup. With the economic climate improving in the U.S., Reagan would only be vulnerable politically on matters of foreign policy, Kennedy informed the Soviets. ‘The only real potential threats to Reagan (according to Kennedy) are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,’ [a] KGB official explained to Andropov. ‘These issues will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.’”

While media and political attention has concentrated on questionable allegations against the Trump campaign, very real and very substantive offences committed by Hillary Clinton, both against primary rival Bernie Sanders and the national security of the United States, remain largely undiscussed.

WikiLeaks provided numerous examples of Clinton campaign misdeeds, including, as outlined by The Gateway Pundit :

No issue stands out more, nor illustrates better, the medias’—and the political establishments’—double standard, and “get out of jail free” attitude towards Hillary Clinton, than the entire matter of the Russian uranium deal, in which the Kremlin’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, took control of 20% of U.S. uranium. National Review  described the deal:

“On June 8, 2010, Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation, announced plans to purchase a 51.4 percent stake in [a] …company..whose international assets included some 20 percent of America’s uranium capacity. Because this active ingredient in atomic reactors and nuclear weapons is a strategic commodity, this $1.3 billion deal required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel. On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech. While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, ‘a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One’ began. ‘These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

This came from the same administration, led by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, which, in the New START treaty, gave Russia, for the first time in history, the lead in strategic nuclear weapons and maintained Moscow’s ten-to-one lead in theater nuclear weapons.

Despite the dangerous threat to U.S. national security and the clear financial profit to the Clintons and the Clinton foundation imposed by the Obama/Clinton actions, no investigation has been formed, and no major media outrage (or even significant interest) has been expressed. The blackout on Moscow’s ties to the Left extends to internet search engines, which bury the details far down in search results.

Media, FBI Ignore Clinton relations With Russia

The New York Analysis of Policy and Governments presents a two-part investigation into the refusal by the media and the FBI to examine the relationship between Russia and the Democrat Party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.  

The appointment of a special counsel, former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, to review as of yet unsubstantiated allegations concerning Russian involvement in the 2016 election, highlights an issue utterly unintended by those who called for the move: the extraordinary double standard of reporting and the justice system, and the use of the press and the investigatory process for overtly partisan goals.

The gist of the question Mueller will confront is this: Were there any contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and if so, was the nature of those contacts an agreement to influence the campaign?

Interestingly, the only significant information that those questioning the Trump campaign have alleged is that Moscow may have leaked hacked emails to a third party containing embarrassing statements by the Clinton campaign about itself.

Wikileaks, which released emails embarrassing to Clinton during the campaign, has denied a Moscow connection, and states that the information came from a disgruntled DNC staffer.

Questions have been raised about suspicions that the Clinton campaign’s potential involvement to the strange murder of Seth Richards, whom Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a noted journalist, says his organization was in contact with. That information is fleshed out by a Zero Hedge report which notes that “Many believe Rich was a victim retaliation for being the source who provided Wikileaks with a trove of DNC emails. Rumors were fueled by the odd circumstances surrounding his death, the sudden retirement of D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier five weeks after the murder, and an email John Podesta sent to Hillary’s inner circle about making an example of a suspected leaker.”

Julian Assange had clearly and substantially offended the U.S. government on a number of past occasions, but no actual action against his internet connection was taken until it began exposing Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoings, including providing evidence that Clinton was instrumental in the transfer of uranium (the basic ingredient for nuclear weapons) to the Russians, and providing information about her criminally negligent handling of emails classified as secret.

There is a significant connection between the embarrassment of the Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration from Wikileaks, and the attempt to link the Trump campaign to Russia.

A central question in the entire matter is why The Kremlin would prefer Trump to Clinton, who, as part of the Obama Administration and through her Foundation, greatly benefited the Russian state through an arms pact that favored Russia, by the sale of American uranium (the basic ingredient for nuclear weapons) to the Kremlin, and through various foreign policies that greatly strengthened Moscow’s influence at the expense of the United States.

Wikileaks became a significant issue even in down-ticket races.  In New York, Wendy Long, the Republican candidate who opposed the re-election of incumbent Senator Chuck Schumer (best known for introducing legislation that would weaken the First Amendment) called for a “full, complete, and absolute pardon” to be extended to  Wikileaks  founder Julian  Assange  for any potential violations of U.S. law, “on the ground that he has served a far greater good of truth and transparency.”  Long stated that “Julian Assange has shed the light of truth on matters that the American people need to know to conduct self-government under our Constitution.  Investigative journalism is dead in this country, and citizen journalists are trying to fill the void.”

The Kremlin has sought to influence American elections for decades. Oddly, neither the media nor official Washington has made much of that fact, predominately because it has been the Democrat Party and the Left that has consistently been involved with Moscow. A release from the CIA discussed a House Select Committee on Intelligence report that disclosed evidence linking the USSR with the U.S. nuclear freeze movement. Classified documents noted that Soviet agents were actively involved in the campaign, providing large amounts of time and money on it. Former KGB official Stanislav Levchenko emphasized the extraordinary extent of his former agency’s involvement with the left-wing cause.

The Report concludes Monday.