Robert S. Mueller III was evasive and impenetrable yesterday in his two appearances before Congress.
An unconvincing star and a congressional cast held in contempt by most of the public combined for instantly forgettable political theater yesterday.
"[T]he movie Americans tuned into on Wednesday was not the blockbuster Democrats had sought," summed up the New York Times in its fair-minded coverage.
Look, we're not looking for a reading list. You just took an oath to speak the truth. That's what we want. Tell us what you think. Explain your reasoning. Tell the American people the truth. The stakes are high.
Make no mistake, for the purpose of the committees eliciting truth, Mueller was a hostile witness.
Few appeared intent on holding Mueller to account.
The American people have cause to doubt the integrity of Mueller's team, and the commitment to truth in the evasive man on national television yesterday.
Pocan's employment offer, inspired by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, was followed by multiple congressional Democrats making similar federal employment overtures.
The McCabe firing is widely regarded as politically inspired by the Trump administration and a possible corruption of federal employee regulations.
Trump has voiced malice against Andrew McCabe, going so far as to insult McCabe's wife as a "loser" in a January comment leading many to again question Trump's psychological growth into adulthood, (NBC News).
The Trump administration continues its bizarre, corrupt and malicious pursuit of perceived enemies, as congressional Democrats and good-government groups work to save a functioning federal government.
In a statement on Saturday, Pocan called his proposal to McCabe 'a legitimate offer,' adding: 'Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of American democracy and both Republicans and Democrats should be concerned about election integrity.'
The offer came in response to a tweet from NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell, who suggested that a 'friendly member of Congress' hire McCabe so he could 'qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days.'
WASHINGTON, DC (March 17, 2018) – U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (WI-02) today extended an offer of employment to Andrew McCabe, the former Deputy Director of the FBI, so that he can reach the needed length of service after President Trump fired him just days before he was set to retire.
"Andrew McCabe’s firing makes it clear that President Trump is doing everything he can to discredit the FBI and undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation," said Rep. Pocan. "While Speaker Ryan and House Republicans have become complicit in the President’s destruction of our democracy, we must do all that we can to ensure that the investigation into Russia’s interference in our election is completed and that future elections are safeguarded from these kinds of attacks."
"My offer of employmentto Mr. McCabe is a legitimate offer to work on election security. Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of American democracy and both Republicans and Democrats should be concerned about election integrity," continued Rep. Pocan. "From Governor Walker’s outrageous voter ID laws that kept an estimated17,000 registered Wisconsin votersfrom the polls in 2016, to Republicans in Pennsylvania gerrymandering a map
to rig elections in their favor, our electoral systems are under attack. We must take serious steps to not only secure our elections from foreign actors like Russia, but also ensure that the American people
have faith that their votes matter."
"Finally, I’d like to thank Mr. McCabe for his years of service to the FBI and our country. He deserves the full retirement that he has been promised, not to have it taken away as a result of the President’s
political games," concluded Rep. Pocan.
Last year, Pocan introduced the Securing America’s Future Elections Act (SAFE Act), which would safeguard U.S. elections from future foreign cyber-attacks
and interference by permanently classifying the integrity and security of U.S. elections as a key component of critical infrastructure. This important classification would place elections systems in the same
category as other critical infrastructure including the power grid, the banking system, and other utilities.
The SAFE Act also addresses election standards to protect against cyber-threats, better voting machines to provide paper ballots, and execute random audits of ballots to thwart interference.
#
Trump is afraid to answer questions under oath and faithfully execute the office of President of the United States
President* Trump is the opposite of a stand-up guy.
Trump is both evasive and stupid, and runs from any situation in which candor is necessary.
Now, Trump is facing the possibility of testifying under oath in the Russia-Trump-collusion probe and already Trump's lawyers are floating the legal team's opposition, (NYT, MSNBC).
This opposition to merely speaking the truth stems from two concerns: Trump is a pathological liar, not-too-bright and the related concern that lies in a federal investigation are felonies.
So, Trump will back down faster than his 'bone spurs' got him out of military service in the Vietnam War.
President chicken-hawk is chicken-hearted.
Can you imagine Trump in a legal forum in which telling the truth in itself determines guilt and innocence?
Doar served as special counsel, (1973-74), to the House Committee on the Judiciary investigating the Watergate scandals leading to three Articles of Impeachment.
There was significant Republican hesitancy to impeach Richard Nixon but all three impeachment articles drew Republican support, leading ultimately with other acts of corruption to Nixon's resignation.
The service to our country hastening the demise of Nixon is a testimony to the meticulous and fair-minded Doar supported by committed staff, a principled judiciary, investigative journalism and mass citizen action.
Today, the House Judiciary Committee is populated by hacks, dolts, evangelicals, racists and unreconstructed segregationists who make a serious impeachment inquiry of the deranged President* Trump unthinkable.
We can expect nothing from Judiciary Committee or any other Republican-led House committee; and the appointment of anyone approaching John Doar is unthinkable.
The immense public trust that Mueller has assumed in heading the Trump-Russia investigation is focused on "Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters."
Mueller is acting in a manner beyond reproach, and thus we can expect today's toxic brand of Republicans to engage in character assassination of Mueller and every human resource involved in the probe, starting with the FBI.
It's begun this weekend, following report after report of covert Russian interference in the presidential election of a target country, the United States.
The coming Republican assault against the rule of law will make Trump's late October fuming over indictments appear a boo at a football game by comparison.
As citizens we are placed in a position in which we will called upon to act in defense of our country supporting the Mueller investigation against a rightwing political death squad, the scope of which our nation has never seen with a president who is emotionally disabled, displaying clinical symptoms with potentially devastating consequences.
Gaming out scenarios it's likely we will have a new president, perhaps a new vice-president in 2019. Consider what would Donald Trump do in retaliation before then?
Trump is not moored by normal concerns of public servants.
Now, it's the time to back the rule of law and act against corruption. It's distinctively possible that within 18 months we will be facing a president effectively holding America and the world hostage.
We need an aroused citizenry supporting Robert Mueller.
Without engaged Americans, driving Nixon from office would never have happened, and Donald Trump is much more dangerous than Richard Nixon.
Update: Intelligence analysts at the Homeland Security Department ignored objections by civil-liberties officials before sending out a controversial report on the resurgence of domestic right-wing extremism, a department official confirmed Friday.
April 19, Sunday is the anniversary of two American tragedies: Waco (1993) and Oklahoma City (1995).
Waco Casualties — Some 76 people dead, including more than 20 children Oklahoma City Casualties — 168 dead and over 800 people injured [A reader points out Ruby Ridge, April 19, 1992 — three people killed]
These numbers obviously understate the horror.
No doubt, the FBI and Homeland Security are properly on alert, trying to prevent a deadly marking of these anniversaries.
Here's some thoughts on a few things that we should consider doing.
Realize that advocating antigovernment (whatever this amorphous term is meant to convey) sentiments and holding rightwing, whacko views do not constitute crimes. Gary Kamiya of Salon and numerous other progressive writers make this mistake, assigning culpability to rightwing figures for a recent mass murder of police.
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the GOP, and for that matter the Tea Party idiots are not guilty of thought crimes for the compelling reason that a thought crime is no crime at all. The popular proposition that the rightwing is inciting imminent, violent action by spouting foolish thoughts is without merit.
If every bigot holding homophobic, racist sentiments were to be found guilty of thought crimes, we would not have too many non-criminals in America. Bigots are truly banal.
Personally and truly, I despise racism. But I try to expose it when I see it, and point out that race is a myth (never did get that Montagu book back to Rick Kieferndorf (sorry dood)), an invalid reification, a sociopathology and a sentiment pervasive just about everywhere.
If people want to call Obama the anti-Christ, express (unfounded) fears that Obama is going to take their guns, or believe as Jon Stewart asked facetiously of Obama last April that Obama wants to "enslave the white race," hey this is America. And please do be the face of the GOP.
Expose, challenge and condemn hate and ignorance, yes. But the state has no part to play in monitoring political thought because human beings have a right to hold whatever nutty notions that they can conjure.
The state's developing a psychological profile prone to violence is worthy, monitoring a political group advocating anti-governmental views is unworthy, and grotesque in a classical liberal democracy for the same reason that HUAC and the racist southern state government "security" bureaucracies were grotesque and anti-human.
But for many progressives, the recession-depression-global economic crisis appears about ready to supply more evidence for the frustration-aggression hypothesis and they are afraid, and reaching for the state instead of rational argumentation. [Now more than ever we need Karl and Alma Tauber (inventors of the Tauber segregation index) and the UW-Madison Sociology department, for example, to reach the populace on the reality and destructiveness of racial segregation].
But the conventional GOP hate bears no moral culpability for violence.
Let us encourage our fellow citizens to use their capacity to think, though often it seems that the most compelling argument against violence and racism is made by Mel Brooks, that wonderful, crazy filmmaker who joyfully eviscerates bigotry and taboo morality in 1970s movies.
After Waco, as recalled by FBI profiler John Douglas, Attorney General Janet Reno asked what could have been done differently, asking Douglas and his unit to "compile a list of scenarios for standoff situations and assign each a percentage success rating." (Journey into Darkness, Mindhunters Inc. 1997. p. 18) Douglas turned down Reno's silly request. But he could have said, 'Try not killing and persecuting an off-brand shoot of Christians because they are different and happen to like guns.'
As the April 19 anniversary is marked, let's acclaim our humanity and all the respect and admiration that this status ought to hold for all of us. To the extent that our government fails on this score, let's all try to be a little bit more anti-government.
Clinton, Reno and Waco Remember What They've Done By MICHAEL LEON
In Sidney Blumenthal's new book The Clinton Wars (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003) Blumenthal includes a passages summing up the 1993 Waco tragedy.
Writes Blumenthal (page 54): "On February 23, 1993 agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms surrounded a compound outside Waco, Texas, housing a cult group called the Branch Davidians. Its leader, Vernon Howell, who called himself David Koresh after the biblical King David and Cyrus the Great, preached to his small band of followers that the federal government was the source of evil in the world and that they themselves represented the forces of goodness. All women were sexually shared with him as his 'wives.' Apocalyptic war must be waged against the government to bring about the reign of peace on earth and the second coming of the Messiah, who was himself. He stockpiled an arson of weapons. There were reports of sex abuse of children. In their effort to storm the compound four federal agents were killed. The FBI took the place of the ATF and returned on April 19, lobbing tear gas and bulldozing into the building. Suddenly, a fire consumed it. Eighty-nine people were killed, including Koresh and the children."
Blumenthal also points out that despite criticism mostly from the political right the Clinton administration was exonerated of all charges and that the Branch Davidians were found to have to have been responsible for their own demise in the fire.
The timing of this published version of events at Waco by a key Clinton player is apropos. This spring marked the tenth anniversary of this infamous domestic slaughter, though it has been rarely acknowledged as a slaughter by the few remembrances published in April (2003).
In memory of the 84 people killed at Waco, the standard narrative as promulgated by Blumenthal merits a challenge.
I remember Waco. In April 1993, I wrote a letter of encouragement to Attorney General Janet Reno urging her to stand tall in the shower of condemnation following the deadly FBI assault.
The media, President Clinton and government spokespersons had assured the public that in so many words the Branch Davidians were a bunch of gun-stocking, child-molesting, religious crazies, and that one David Koresh was a dangerous and depraved cult leader.
Taking the broadcast media and government spokespersons at face value I sympathized with Reno, the BATF, and the FBI in their apparent attempt to rescue children from the throes of a bunch of religious whackos. And I had little good will for the efforts of the religious-minded in general, much less these benighted clowns from Texas.
But the Waco attack and its aftermath demonstrate that a bias against the religious-minded among us can be as blinding and deafening as any religious dogma.
A gentle, earnest, and mildly unorthodox group of Americans gathering together and searching for meaning in their lives was deprived of their civil liberties, their religious community center, their home and their lives, and many of the grieving survivors were imprisoned, lied to and slandered afterwards.
Why? Because to make money in Texas some of the religious group sold and bought guns, and then reportedly screwed around with some of the guns making semi-automatics into automatics--not an exceedingly rate occurrence in Texas. And, it was reported as Blumenthal noted, that in accordance with their interpretation of Biblical scripture, David Koresh had parent-sanctioned sexual relationships with teenage women in the community in an apparent effort to repopulate the planet in their reading of God's Biblical Prophecy. Hardly capital offenses.
Setting the Record Straight
Reno wrote me back a brief note a few weeks later that she supported a full investigation into the events and circumstances of the two deadly government assaults on Waco. Not surprisingly, the subsequent government-sponsored investigations --including former Republican Senator John Danforth's (as special counsel for the department of Justice)--exonerated the BATF and FBI.
And a bullying political offensive launched by congressional Democrats in the 1995 Joint Sub-Committee Hearings, (with detestable performances by then-Rep. Chuck Schumer D-New York and Rep Tom Lantos D-California) aimed to head off the political damage to the Clinton administration through a mean-spirited attempt to smear anyone as part of the "lunatic fringe" who dared to question the BATF and FBI and ultimately the Clinton administration for its 1993 killing of 80 innocents.
Denial of civil liberties, rampant and deadly police/military power, cover-ups, and bullying political offensives. Does that sound like anything happening today? It surly does, except in 1993 we had an opposition party (as wrong-headed in most other matters as they were and are) with the requisite backbone to come out and call a spade a spade, and not be bullied into silence. Judged solely in terms of guts, a solid sense of right and wrong, and the truth of conviction, I will take the 1993-94 Republicans over today's supine Democrats any day.
For the record, we can remember Waco by considering the following points of an alternative narrative of the FBI attack that is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence:
--The reported Koresh sexual irregularities were not under the jurisdiction of the BATF and FBI, and no evidence of sexual abuse was ever made public. The allegations were simply reported in the press after being pushed by some in the Waco religious community with a theological ax to grind against Koresh and echoed by the Clinton administration, and then becoming conventional wisdom.
--The whole pre-February 28 investigation and raid smelled of a political stunt against an easy target designed to protect and enhance the reputation of a near-rogue agency, the BATF. Basically, the BATF were looking for a loud and safe gunfight.
--That the FBI lied about the lethality of the CS gas (a type of tear gas) used against the Branch Davidian community center banned by the Geneva Convention for use in warfare.
--The FBI lied about the presence of fragmentation grenades at the scene, which have no use except to kill people.
--The FBI lied about shooting machine gun fire into the building.
--The FBI initially lied to Janet Reno about babies being beaten by the Branch Davidians.
For insightful analyses of Waco, recommended reading is: David Thibodeau. "A Place Called Waco" (BBS, 1999), lauded by Howard Zinn as "An extraordinary account of one of the most shameful episodes in recent American history." And, James Tabor and Eugene Gallagher. "Why Waco, Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America" (University of California Press, 1995), described by Ramsey Clark as "a critically important book... "
But it is a film that graphically illustrates the horror of the attacks and the mendacity of the government line--the Grammy-winning, Oscar-nominated documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement (1997)," (www.waco93.com). To this day the executive producer Dan Gifford, a former reporter for ABC, CNN and the McNeil Lehrer Report, remains incensed at the way critics of the government assaults on Waco, including him, have been painted out-of-hand as somehow belonging to the lunatic fringe sympathetic to blowing up federal buildings.
Politics and Violence
Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, Wounded Knee, Kent State, Jackson State, deadly attacks on citizens working for labor and civil rights, and the numerous wars against perceived international enemies of the moment, government violence is government violence, irrespective of whom the victims are. In this case that still directly affects the lives of 100s, the American left and liberal/left's response was/has been inadequate to hostile.
One historical truth is that the raison d'etre for war and government violence generally is a damn lie.
In 1994, with memories of Waco and the Republican and citizens' vocal challenges to the Waco murders ringing in the political culture, Republicans swept into control of the Senate and House.
For Democrats today, there is perhaps a political lesson to be learned --Speak the truth loudly to those in power, and speak out for the victims of violence. For the survivors and the victims of Waco, there should have been a loud acknowledgment of the truth at Waco: You were murdered because you were different and were thought to be an easy target for a duplicitous and violent federal agency.
In Dan Gifford's film Waco: The Rules of Engagement, a powerful interview segment presents a sympathetic Sheriff Jack Harwell of McLennan County, Texas nearly in tears as he speaks of his experience with the Branch Davidians: "They were all good people. They had different beliefs than others, different beliefs than I have, maybe different beliefs than you have in their way of life, especially in their religious beliefs. But basically they were good people I was around them quite a lot. They were always nice, mannerly, they minded their own business. They were always clean, and courteous. I liked them."
In the face of continued government violence and its intimate relative, mendacity, one can take solace in the fact that in the work of a handful of people of all political stripes who identified with the victims of violence the truth can still emerge.
Democrats seeking the truth about war today and the path to an election victory in 2004 can take a cue from Waco--the American electorate does not like liars and accessories to mass killing in charge of its government. But the truth needs to be told.
Edmonds (pictured above-right) says the American corporate media has refused her offer to disclose classified information not before reported that includes allegations of criminal negligence and information concerning the "security of Americans," among other government crimes and incompetence.
Edmonds says several mainstream publications have been informed of the "full story" of administration and FBI misconduct and incompetence regarding 9/11 by other FBI leakers, but have killed stories on the matter. The Brad Blog has been all over the story, and is running an exclusive interview with Daniel Ellsberg on the affair.
Writes Brad Friedman of the Brad Blog:
The BRAD BLOG spoke recently with the legendary 1970's-era whistleblower in the wake of our recent exclusive, detailing Edmonds' announcement that she was prepared to risk prosecution to expose the entirety of the still-classified information that the Bush Administration has "gagged" her from revealing for the past five years under claims of the arcane "State Secrets Privilege".
I'd say what she has is far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers," Daniel Ellsberg told us in regard to former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.
"From what I understand, from what she has to tell, it has a major difference from the Pentagon Papers in that it deals directly with criminal activity and may involve impeachable offenses," Ellsberg explained. "And I don't necessarily mean the President or the Vice-President, though I wouldn't be surprised if the information reached up that high. But other members of the Executive Branch may be impeached as well. And she says similar (things) about Congress."
See more of the interview and links to other aspects of the story at: Brad Blog ###
