Day: January 15, 2018

DACA Will Be a Wall around the White House


Walls have a variety of purposes.  In the Soviet Union and East Germany, walls and fences were designed to keep people in, not to keep people out.  Few chose to go “Back to the USSR,” as The Beatles sang, other than newlyweds Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned there.

Walls also keep people out.  Examples include the wall around Vatican City, the one in Israel’s West Bank, and the ones around the homes of open borders advocates like Mark Zuckerberg.  Many of the “walls for me but not for thee” virtue-signaling Hollywood elites have walls, fences, and all manner of security measures keeping uninvited guests from invading their domiciles.

How can DACA be a wall?  Not in the way you might think.  If Lindsey Grahamnesty and his fellow congressional amnesty fanboys and fangirls get their way, giving the “DREAMers” citizenship and the right to vote, this will create a wall around the White House.

This wall is not to be confused with the fence around the White House that mischievous sorts like to jump over, embarrassing the Secret Service.  Instead, this wall will keep any Republican from ever living in the White House again.

Where are the 700,000 “DREAMers” in the U.S. living?  And twice the number of illegal immigrants eligible for DACA?  And if they vote, how will they vote?  What does that mean for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election?

From the Migration Policy Institute’s map of DACA recipients by state and Politico’s election results by state, how might the next presidential election play out if “DREAMers” are able to vote?

A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born naturalized immigrants found that 62 percent identified as Democrats and 25 percent as Republicans.  That’s a 2.5-fold difference favoring Democrats.

A Pew Research Center study from the same year found that undocumented latino immigrants identified 31 percent Democrat and 4 percent Republican, an eightfold difference.

Suffice it to say that the majority of “DREAMers” would pull the lever for the presidential candidate with the letter D after his name.

Where are DACA recipients living in the U.S.?  Let’s also distinguish between actual DACA recipients and those meeting all the criteria to apply.  If DACA recipients are given a pathway to citizenship, it’s likely that most or all those eligible will take advantage of American largess and become voting citizens.

The Migration Policy Institute identifies about 690,000 recipients and 1,326,000 eligible.  For this analysis, I will use the numbers for the DACA-eligible, about twice the number of current recipients.

The Washington Post provides a rough approximation of where they live.

Forget large states like California, Illinois, and New York, as these are already solidly blue.  Trump won Texas by around 800,000 votes, while only 182,000 DACA-eligible live in Texas, so that state won’t likely flip.

Trump won Arizona by 85,000 votes, with 36,000 DACA-eligible – not an insurmountable margin.  Michigan went for Trump by only 12,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible.  Easy state to flip.  Wisconsin voters picked Trump by 27,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible.  Again, easy to flip.

Trump won Florida by 119,000 votes, with 72,000 DACA-eligible.  The small remaining difference is easily surpassed by a good portion of the 73,000 hurricane refugees from Puerto Rico, now living in Florida, voting Democrat.

You get my point.  It won’t be difficult to flip a few states from red to blue, painting the Electoral College map mostly blue and keeping a Republican out of the White House for the foreseeable future – all accomplished by legalizing the “DREAMers” and those eligible for DACA.

Going farther is blanket amnesty for all illegals in the U.S. – not a million, but perhaps ten or twenty million.  Enough to turn a solidly red state like Texas blue.  Lights out for a Republican ever winning the presidency after that.

Lastly, if Trump caves on immigration, his core issue, many of his supporters will stay home, amplifying the votes of the “DREAMers” and painting the electoral map a deeper shade of blue.

No wonder Democrats are so eager for DACA amnesty.  Don’t listen just to Pelosi and Schumer.  Instead, read what the Center for American Progress (better named the Center for Liberal Progress) circulated in a memo written by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri.  She admitted that the DACA “DREAMers” are “[a] critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

No kidding.  That’s exactly why Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, opening American doors to anyone able to get here as well as his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins, plus any other supposed relatives, filling the voter rolls with loyal Democrats for generations.

Legalizing the “DREAMers” will have a similar effect, especially if Congress doesn’t end chain migration.

Immigration is one of the primary reasons why Donald Trump is president.  His supporters are understandably nervous about his recent promise that whatever immigration Congress send him, “I will be signing it.”

Trump’s a smart guy, despite assertions to the contrary in Michael Wolff’s book, and knows the importance of dancing with the base who brought him.  I’m sure the Republican leadership in Congress knows this as well and won’t allow a lousy bill to reach Trump’s desk – meaning one without funding for the wall as well as continuation of chain migration and the green card lottery.

If Trump get what he wants but legalizes the “DREAMers,” his road to 270 electoral votes in 2020 may be far more difficult, if not impossible.  If I can see this, I am sure he can, too.  Despite my trepidation over his recent comments, I am content to wait for the final bill to emerge.  “Let’s see what happens,” as the president likes to say.

Trump has kept his campaign promises thus far, and I suspect that despite Lindsey Grahamnesty’s giddiness over a “pathway to citizenship,” the president will have the last laugh.  His political future depends on it.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter

Walls have a variety of purposes.  In the Soviet Union and East Germany, walls and fences were designed to keep people in, not to keep people out.  Few chose to go “Back to the USSR,” as The Beatles sang, other than newlyweds Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned there.

Walls also keep people out.  Examples include the wall around Vatican City, the one in Israel’s West Bank, and the ones around the homes of open borders advocates like Mark Zuckerberg.  Many of the “walls for me but not for thee” virtue-signaling Hollywood elites have walls, fences, and all manner of security measures keeping uninvited guests from invading their domiciles.

How can DACA be a wall?  Not in the way you might think.  If Lindsey Grahamnesty and his fellow congressional amnesty fanboys and fangirls get their way, giving the “DREAMers” citizenship and the right to vote, this will create a wall around the White House.

This wall is not to be confused with the fence around the White House that mischievous sorts like to jump over, embarrassing the Secret Service.  Instead, this wall will keep any Republican from ever living in the White House again.

Where are the 700,000 “DREAMers” in the U.S. living?  And twice the number of illegal immigrants eligible for DACA?  And if they vote, how will they vote?  What does that mean for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election?

From the Migration Policy Institute’s map of DACA recipients by state and Politico’s election results by state, how might the next presidential election play out if “DREAMers” are able to vote?

A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born naturalized immigrants found that 62 percent identified as Democrats and 25 percent as Republicans.  That’s a 2.5-fold difference favoring Democrats.

A Pew Research Center study from the same year found that undocumented latino immigrants identified 31 percent Democrat and 4 percent Republican, an eightfold difference.

Suffice it to say that the majority of “DREAMers” would pull the lever for the presidential candidate with the letter D after his name.

Where are DACA recipients living in the U.S.?  Let’s also distinguish between actual DACA recipients and those meeting all the criteria to apply.  If DACA recipients are given a pathway to citizenship, it’s likely that most or all those eligible will take advantage of American largess and become voting citizens.

The Migration Policy Institute identifies about 690,000 recipients and 1,326,000 eligible.  For this analysis, I will use the numbers for the DACA-eligible, about twice the number of current recipients.

The Washington Post provides a rough approximation of where they live.

Forget large states like California, Illinois, and New York, as these are already solidly blue.  Trump won Texas by around 800,000 votes, while only 182,000 DACA-eligible live in Texas, so that state won’t likely flip.

Trump won Arizona by 85,000 votes, with 36,000 DACA-eligible – not an insurmountable margin.  Michigan went for Trump by only 12,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible.  Easy state to flip.  Wisconsin voters picked Trump by 27,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible.  Again, easy to flip.

Trump won Florida by 119,000 votes, with 72,000 DACA-eligible.  The small remaining difference is easily surpassed by a good portion of the 73,000 hurricane refugees from Puerto Rico, now living in Florida, voting Democrat.

You get my point.  It won’t be difficult to flip a few states from red to blue, painting the Electoral College map mostly blue and keeping a Republican out of the White House for the foreseeable future – all accomplished by legalizing the “DREAMers” and those eligible for DACA.

Going farther is blanket amnesty for all illegals in the U.S. – not a million, but perhaps ten or twenty million.  Enough to turn a solidly red state like Texas blue.  Lights out for a Republican ever winning the presidency after that.

Lastly, if Trump caves on immigration, his core issue, many of his supporters will stay home, amplifying the votes of the “DREAMers” and painting the electoral map a deeper shade of blue.

No wonder Democrats are so eager for DACA amnesty.  Don’t listen just to Pelosi and Schumer.  Instead, read what the Center for American Progress (better named the Center for Liberal Progress) circulated in a memo written by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri.  She admitted that the DACA “DREAMers” are “[a] critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

No kidding.  That’s exactly why Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, opening American doors to anyone able to get here as well as his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins, plus any other supposed relatives, filling the voter rolls with loyal Democrats for generations.

Legalizing the “DREAMers” will have a similar effect, especially if Congress doesn’t end chain migration.

Immigration is one of the primary reasons why Donald Trump is president.  His supporters are understandably nervous about his recent promise that whatever immigration Congress send him, “I will be signing it.”

Trump’s a smart guy, despite assertions to the contrary in Michael Wolff’s book, and knows the importance of dancing with the base who brought him.  I’m sure the Republican leadership in Congress knows this as well and won’t allow a lousy bill to reach Trump’s desk – meaning one without funding for the wall as well as continuation of chain migration and the green card lottery.

If Trump get what he wants but legalizes the “DREAMers,” his road to 270 electoral votes in 2020 may be far more difficult, if not impossible.  If I can see this, I am sure he can, too.  Despite my trepidation over his recent comments, I am content to wait for the final bill to emerge.  “Let’s see what happens,” as the president likes to say.

Trump has kept his campaign promises thus far, and I suspect that despite Lindsey Grahamnesty’s giddiness over a “pathway to citizenship,” the president will have the last laugh.  His political future depends on it.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter



Source link

Confirmed: Trump Is, Indeed, a Very Stable Genius


By now, everyone has heard about President Donald Trump’s tweet countering accusations made by the Wolff in sheep’s clothing, who wrote a book detailing the supposed Shakespearian machinations that Wolff asserts are consuming the Trump White House.  In his tweet, President Trump claimed he is, in fact, a “very stable genius.”

Throughout the media world, this made journalists’ heads explode.  Dilbert creator Scott Adams points out the genius of this move by reminding people that liberals will forever mock Trump for it and that it is not a bad thing for Trump to have his name and “genius” associated with each other in perpetuity.

I recently wrote that it was genius when Trump called Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” at a White House ceremony.  Had he merely mentioned her false claim of American Indian ancestry in order to procure a job at Harvard University, the media would have made sure no one heard about it.  He set a trap, and in a futile effort to destroy him, the media took the bait.

Trump calling her “Pocahontas” and the media publicizing it made millions of people aware of what Warren had done – potential 2020 voters who would have never learned that little embarrassing tidbit from the shady past of the one who persists.  (Or is she the one who resists?  It’s so confusing.)  

Donald Trump is a master of controlling the conversation.  Every time people think of Warren now, they will think of her lying to get a job, and every time someone mentions Wolff’s book, people are now going to associate Donald Trump with “very stable genius.”

With this president, unlike any Republican for decades, the swamp and the media no longer control the conversation.  They are bystanders, and this makes them so mad that they scream and search endlessly for that one thing Trump will say that will be the bridge too far, the thing they can use to dethrone him.  They want this so much that they will jump on everything he says – playing his game instead of forcing him to play theirs.

Take the infamous tweet he made about his nuclear button being bigger than little Rocket Man’s nuclear button.  People were appalled.  It was going to start a war; it was unpresidential; it was a disaster, they said.  You could almost hear liberal heads pop. 

Kim Jong-un is an isolated leader who had gotten used to stealing Obama’s lunch money every day.  (Why do you think Obama’s so thin?)  It was all so predictable with Barry, but he is terrified of Donald Trump, a volatile hothead.  He knows that attacking America would signal the end of his regime and his life.  The Chinese have already said they won’t come to his defense if he starts a war.  (Note: They never did that when Barry was in charge.)  So what does Kim have?  Threats worked well against Barry, but everything worked well against Barry, whose brilliant idea on North Korea was a policy of “strategic patience” – you know, a seven-course meal of “do nothing and leave it for the next guy,” only with a clever, pithy name because Barry never tired of showing poor deplorables how smart he was.  “Do nothing” was, incidentally, his idea about almost everything, unless it was something where he could pretend to be an emperor ruling with his pen and phone.

If you watched the news this past week, there was Kim taking a meeting with his counterpart in South Korea, and there was the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, thanking Trump for helping to make it happen.  Wow: I guess his confrontational approach might actually bring results after all.

Let’s look at ISIS, Obama’s bastard Middle Eastern child.  Maybe he should have called them “the Snows” instead of “Daesh,” an appellation he used instead of “ISIS.”  It is an acronym for the Arabic phrase “al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham.”  Everything Barry did had to have a little sham to it. 

Obama said it would be a long fight comprising years of costly sacrifice in the form of American blood and treasure.  You see, he had strict rules of engagement, dictating that American forces were not allowed to shoot first or return fire if there was a possibility of civilians around.  It was the first war in history where one side wasn’t allowed to shoot first and sometimes couldn’t even shoot back.  I wonder how many American lives were sacrificed for that.  Keep in mind that this is the guy they told us is a “genius.” 

Once Trump threw away those ROEs, and changed Obama’s policy of “defeat and allow retreat” to “defeat and pursue to the death,” it took less than a year for Trump to wipe the floor with ISIS. 

Liberals and the media will not admit it, but I think it’s clear with both Lil’ Kim and ISIS that Trump has been successful.

They say the president has the bully pulpit, and until now, that has meant getting his message out by making speeches and giving interviews.  Yet the narrative has always been controlled by the left.  The last Republican president able to dictate the conversation was Ronald Reagan, and even the “great communicator” was only partially successful.

Well, Donald Trump has been one hundred percent successful.  When he tweets or says something off the cuff, it drives leftists crazy to the point where they will bang their heads against the wall repeatedly until they draw blood in the hope of convincing the public how unsuited and ignorant our president is.

There is a subtle genius to what Trump does and says.  If you allow yourself to step back and see the big picture, Trump is extremely effective.

Ask Steve Bannon how effective he is.  Bannon was presented to us by the media as the man whose hand controlled Trump the puppet, much as Cheney supposedly controlled Bush.  How did that work out for him?  First, he lost his job in the White House.  In anger, he gave the Wolff in the henhouse many delectable quotes.  For a few weeks, he was even contemplating running for higher office.  That’s all gone today.  Forever labeled “Sloppy Steve,” he lost benefactors and then his job at Breitbart.  Now (with apologies to Yeats), there is no country for that old man.  He is nothing more than “a tattered coat upon a stick.”

I will close with this.  In his book, the boy who cried “Wolff” presented Donald Trump as a semi-literate eleven-year-old boy, paranoid, delusional, and more than just a little unbalanced – so much so, in fact, that the Wolff maintains that the 25th Amendment should be invoked to depose him as president in what would be a bloodless (they should think again about that) coup.

The first thing Trump did was the “very stable genius” tweet.  Then he held a successful televised bipartisan and bicameral meeting on immigration.  Trump sat between Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer, two vocal supporters of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  Just as a successful CEO would do, he went around the room asking those from each party for ideas.  He then vowed to sign any legislation presented to him. 

As a means to an end, he dangled the return of “earmarks,” whereby, in order to get a congressman’s vote, money would be allocated for some project in that congressman’s district.  Earmarks are wrong – but as a strategy to get bipartisan support, they are effective.  It’s surprising how inexpensive it is to buy a politician, and wouldn’t it be better to waste a few million dollars in a Democrat’s district or state and get his vote for a Republican bill than have the bill fail?  Maybe promising a Democrat something can get his vote to end chain migration, or to end the visa lottery, or build a wall. 

It’s called negotiating, and earmarks at least give Republicans something to negotiate with.

Besides, Obama spent a billion dollars on his vacations, parties, and golf outings.  Are we now going to worry about a few billion dollars out of our serial multi-trillion-dollar budgets?

In any case, Trump looked every bit the statesman, CEO, and president.

In many ways, the man really is a very stable genius.

By now, everyone has heard about President Donald Trump’s tweet countering accusations made by the Wolff in sheep’s clothing, who wrote a book detailing the supposed Shakespearian machinations that Wolff asserts are consuming the Trump White House.  In his tweet, President Trump claimed he is, in fact, a “very stable genius.”

Throughout the media world, this made journalists’ heads explode.  Dilbert creator Scott Adams points out the genius of this move by reminding people that liberals will forever mock Trump for it and that it is not a bad thing for Trump to have his name and “genius” associated with each other in perpetuity.

I recently wrote that it was genius when Trump called Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” at a White House ceremony.  Had he merely mentioned her false claim of American Indian ancestry in order to procure a job at Harvard University, the media would have made sure no one heard about it.  He set a trap, and in a futile effort to destroy him, the media took the bait.

Trump calling her “Pocahontas” and the media publicizing it made millions of people aware of what Warren had done – potential 2020 voters who would have never learned that little embarrassing tidbit from the shady past of the one who persists.  (Or is she the one who resists?  It’s so confusing.)  

Donald Trump is a master of controlling the conversation.  Every time people think of Warren now, they will think of her lying to get a job, and every time someone mentions Wolff’s book, people are now going to associate Donald Trump with “very stable genius.”

With this president, unlike any Republican for decades, the swamp and the media no longer control the conversation.  They are bystanders, and this makes them so mad that they scream and search endlessly for that one thing Trump will say that will be the bridge too far, the thing they can use to dethrone him.  They want this so much that they will jump on everything he says – playing his game instead of forcing him to play theirs.

Take the infamous tweet he made about his nuclear button being bigger than little Rocket Man’s nuclear button.  People were appalled.  It was going to start a war; it was unpresidential; it was a disaster, they said.  You could almost hear liberal heads pop. 

Kim Jong-un is an isolated leader who had gotten used to stealing Obama’s lunch money every day.  (Why do you think Obama’s so thin?)  It was all so predictable with Barry, but he is terrified of Donald Trump, a volatile hothead.  He knows that attacking America would signal the end of his regime and his life.  The Chinese have already said they won’t come to his defense if he starts a war.  (Note: They never did that when Barry was in charge.)  So what does Kim have?  Threats worked well against Barry, but everything worked well against Barry, whose brilliant idea on North Korea was a policy of “strategic patience” – you know, a seven-course meal of “do nothing and leave it for the next guy,” only with a clever, pithy name because Barry never tired of showing poor deplorables how smart he was.  “Do nothing” was, incidentally, his idea about almost everything, unless it was something where he could pretend to be an emperor ruling with his pen and phone.

If you watched the news this past week, there was Kim taking a meeting with his counterpart in South Korea, and there was the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, thanking Trump for helping to make it happen.  Wow: I guess his confrontational approach might actually bring results after all.

Let’s look at ISIS, Obama’s bastard Middle Eastern child.  Maybe he should have called them “the Snows” instead of “Daesh,” an appellation he used instead of “ISIS.”  It is an acronym for the Arabic phrase “al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham.”  Everything Barry did had to have a little sham to it. 

Obama said it would be a long fight comprising years of costly sacrifice in the form of American blood and treasure.  You see, he had strict rules of engagement, dictating that American forces were not allowed to shoot first or return fire if there was a possibility of civilians around.  It was the first war in history where one side wasn’t allowed to shoot first and sometimes couldn’t even shoot back.  I wonder how many American lives were sacrificed for that.  Keep in mind that this is the guy they told us is a “genius.” 

Once Trump threw away those ROEs, and changed Obama’s policy of “defeat and allow retreat” to “defeat and pursue to the death,” it took less than a year for Trump to wipe the floor with ISIS. 

Liberals and the media will not admit it, but I think it’s clear with both Lil’ Kim and ISIS that Trump has been successful.

They say the president has the bully pulpit, and until now, that has meant getting his message out by making speeches and giving interviews.  Yet the narrative has always been controlled by the left.  The last Republican president able to dictate the conversation was Ronald Reagan, and even the “great communicator” was only partially successful.

Well, Donald Trump has been one hundred percent successful.  When he tweets or says something off the cuff, it drives leftists crazy to the point where they will bang their heads against the wall repeatedly until they draw blood in the hope of convincing the public how unsuited and ignorant our president is.

There is a subtle genius to what Trump does and says.  If you allow yourself to step back and see the big picture, Trump is extremely effective.

Ask Steve Bannon how effective he is.  Bannon was presented to us by the media as the man whose hand controlled Trump the puppet, much as Cheney supposedly controlled Bush.  How did that work out for him?  First, he lost his job in the White House.  In anger, he gave the Wolff in the henhouse many delectable quotes.  For a few weeks, he was even contemplating running for higher office.  That’s all gone today.  Forever labeled “Sloppy Steve,” he lost benefactors and then his job at Breitbart.  Now (with apologies to Yeats), there is no country for that old man.  He is nothing more than “a tattered coat upon a stick.”

I will close with this.  In his book, the boy who cried “Wolff” presented Donald Trump as a semi-literate eleven-year-old boy, paranoid, delusional, and more than just a little unbalanced – so much so, in fact, that the Wolff maintains that the 25th Amendment should be invoked to depose him as president in what would be a bloodless (they should think again about that) coup.

The first thing Trump did was the “very stable genius” tweet.  Then he held a successful televised bipartisan and bicameral meeting on immigration.  Trump sat between Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer, two vocal supporters of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  Just as a successful CEO would do, he went around the room asking those from each party for ideas.  He then vowed to sign any legislation presented to him. 

As a means to an end, he dangled the return of “earmarks,” whereby, in order to get a congressman’s vote, money would be allocated for some project in that congressman’s district.  Earmarks are wrong – but as a strategy to get bipartisan support, they are effective.  It’s surprising how inexpensive it is to buy a politician, and wouldn’t it be better to waste a few million dollars in a Democrat’s district or state and get his vote for a Republican bill than have the bill fail?  Maybe promising a Democrat something can get his vote to end chain migration, or to end the visa lottery, or build a wall. 

It’s called negotiating, and earmarks at least give Republicans something to negotiate with.

Besides, Obama spent a billion dollars on his vacations, parties, and golf outings.  Are we now going to worry about a few billion dollars out of our serial multi-trillion-dollar budgets?

In any case, Trump looked every bit the statesman, CEO, and president.

In many ways, the man really is a very stable genius.



Source link

Trump-Russia: Not Mueller's First Botched Investigation


Controversy surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into the Trump-Russia collusion mirage.  Some maintain that he is the ultimate professional dedicated to following the truth, but others say he is a political hack.

There is no need to wonder about how Mueller operates.  His history has made it quite clear.  One needs only to study his actions as FBI director when he managed the FBI’s most important investigation ever.

In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the U.S. postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Tom Daschle’s office.  The terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized.  The world panicked.

Under Mueller’s management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years.  The bureau now brags about spending “hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case.”  To fully appreciate the Mueller response – whom his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty – it is appropriate to first build context.

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack.  Simultaneous to planning the airplane hijackings, al-Qaeda had also been weaponizing anthrax.  One of their scientists who ran an anthrax lab in Afghanistan also housed 9/11 hijackers.  In fact, one of the hijackers, Ahmed al Haznawi, went to the emergency room in an American hospital with a skin lesion, which a team of bioterrorism experts from Johns Hopkins confirmed was probably due to anthrax.  Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes.

So how did Mueller’s investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found “no direct link to organized terrorism.”  The Johns Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued; Haznawi never had an anthrax infection.  The crop-dusting airplanes they needed were possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack. 

A few weeks later, the FBI released a remarkable profile of the attacker.  FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the letters, where it was written in bold block letters, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great.”  Instead, they focused on a “linguistic analysis,” stating that the letter’s author was not “comfortable or practiced in writing in lower[]case lettering.”  They therefore concluded that the author was likely an American.

The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period but then became “mission-oriented” following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be Muslim.

Mueller’s FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill – a “flag-waving” American who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases – as the culprit. 

There was no direct link from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI’s own admission.  The FBI never even charged Hatfill.

The bureau only spied on, followed, and harassed him, non-stop, for years.  The Department of Justice publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist. 

While America’s secret police trampled on Hatfill’s dignity and life, Mueller took a stand – but on a different topic.  He made front-page news for threatening President George W. Bush with resignation over NSA policy – all while his own team was destroying the rights of an American in the FBI’s largest ever investigation.

Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions.  He won almost six million dollars.

After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI’s face, the agents moved on to Bruce Ivins, another Army researcher.  Ivins had actually been helping the FBI for years after having gone out of his way to contact the FBI to volunteer his expertise.  It wasn’t until five years after the attack that Mueller’s men decided that Ivins was a target.

The FBI case against Ivins was, once again, based on circumstantial evidence. 

  • The prosecution stated that Ivins had purposefully given a misleading sample of anthrax spore.  Frontline documented that this was a lie. 
  • Ivins was “familiar” with the area from which the anthrax letters were mailed – even though Pulitzer Prize-winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the case, showing that it was impossible for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters.
  • The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins worked – which ignores the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive, so sophisticated and dangerous that a scientist commented, “This is not your mother’s anthrax,” that was likely produced by a nation-state or al-Qaeda.

Ivins was never indicted.  He was just given the Hatfill treatment: house raided and threatened with a death sentence, or, as his lawyer put it, put under “relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo.”  He committed suicide.

One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor stated that Ivins was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and law enforcement was “confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks.” 

Director Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI’s case by the National Academy of Science but then quietly closed the case before the audit was finished.  Mueller concluded that Ivins alone committed the terror attack.  One year after Mueller closed the case, the NAS released its results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the FBI’s science and conclusions were wrong.

The handling of the case was so egregious that a former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI, alleging that the FBI had concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.

Mueller made his position known – “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation” – and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes.

The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America.  Mueller didn’t go after al-Qaeda for the anthrax letters because he denied seeing a direct link.  But then he spent years abusing Americans without showing a direct link.

Mueller enjoyed the second longest tenure of any FBI director and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone (except Louie Gohmert).  For his behavior he was also awarded special counsel status to go after Donald Trump, in a process where, still, no one has any idea what specific crimes are even alleged.  There is every reason to think he will handle his most important investigation the same way he handled his second most important investigation.  We can safely predict that it will be a prolonged, abusive, and politically correct attack.  Actually, that isn’t even a prediction of the future.  It has already become a mere explanation of the past nigh year.

Controversy surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into the Trump-Russia collusion mirage.  Some maintain that he is the ultimate professional dedicated to following the truth, but others say he is a political hack.

There is no need to wonder about how Mueller operates.  His history has made it quite clear.  One needs only to study his actions as FBI director when he managed the FBI’s most important investigation ever.

In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the U.S. postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Tom Daschle’s office.  The terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized.  The world panicked.

Under Mueller’s management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years.  The bureau now brags about spending “hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case.”  To fully appreciate the Mueller response – whom his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty – it is appropriate to first build context.

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack.  Simultaneous to planning the airplane hijackings, al-Qaeda had also been weaponizing anthrax.  One of their scientists who ran an anthrax lab in Afghanistan also housed 9/11 hijackers.  In fact, one of the hijackers, Ahmed al Haznawi, went to the emergency room in an American hospital with a skin lesion, which a team of bioterrorism experts from Johns Hopkins confirmed was probably due to anthrax.  Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes.

So how did Mueller’s investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found “no direct link to organized terrorism.”  The Johns Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued; Haznawi never had an anthrax infection.  The crop-dusting airplanes they needed were possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack. 

A few weeks later, the FBI released a remarkable profile of the attacker.  FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the letters, where it was written in bold block letters, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great.”  Instead, they focused on a “linguistic analysis,” stating that the letter’s author was not “comfortable or practiced in writing in lower[]case lettering.”  They therefore concluded that the author was likely an American.

The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period but then became “mission-oriented” following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be Muslim.

Mueller’s FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill – a “flag-waving” American who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases – as the culprit. 

There was no direct link from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI’s own admission.  The FBI never even charged Hatfill.

The bureau only spied on, followed, and harassed him, non-stop, for years.  The Department of Justice publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist. 

While America’s secret police trampled on Hatfill’s dignity and life, Mueller took a stand – but on a different topic.  He made front-page news for threatening President George W. Bush with resignation over NSA policy – all while his own team was destroying the rights of an American in the FBI’s largest ever investigation.

Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions.  He won almost six million dollars.

After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI’s face, the agents moved on to Bruce Ivins, another Army researcher.  Ivins had actually been helping the FBI for years after having gone out of his way to contact the FBI to volunteer his expertise.  It wasn’t until five years after the attack that Mueller’s men decided that Ivins was a target.

The FBI case against Ivins was, once again, based on circumstantial evidence. 

  • The prosecution stated that Ivins had purposefully given a misleading sample of anthrax spore.  Frontline documented that this was a lie. 
  • Ivins was “familiar” with the area from which the anthrax letters were mailed – even though Pulitzer Prize-winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the case, showing that it was impossible for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters.
  • The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins worked – which ignores the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive, so sophisticated and dangerous that a scientist commented, “This is not your mother’s anthrax,” that was likely produced by a nation-state or al-Qaeda.

Ivins was never indicted.  He was just given the Hatfill treatment: house raided and threatened with a death sentence, or, as his lawyer put it, put under “relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo.”  He committed suicide.

One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor stated that Ivins was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and law enforcement was “confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks.” 

Director Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI’s case by the National Academy of Science but then quietly closed the case before the audit was finished.  Mueller concluded that Ivins alone committed the terror attack.  One year after Mueller closed the case, the NAS released its results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the FBI’s science and conclusions were wrong.

The handling of the case was so egregious that a former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI, alleging that the FBI had concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.

Mueller made his position known – “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation” – and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes.

The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America.  Mueller didn’t go after al-Qaeda for the anthrax letters because he denied seeing a direct link.  But then he spent years abusing Americans without showing a direct link.

Mueller enjoyed the second longest tenure of any FBI director and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone (except Louie Gohmert).  For his behavior he was also awarded special counsel status to go after Donald Trump, in a process where, still, no one has any idea what specific crimes are even alleged.  There is every reason to think he will handle his most important investigation the same way he handled his second most important investigation.  We can safely predict that it will be a prolonged, abusive, and politically correct attack.  Actually, that isn’t even a prediction of the future.  It has already become a mere explanation of the past nigh year.



Source link