Secret Policeman Mueller Reinforces Hoax of Russian Threat To U.S. "Democracy," Tells Democrats Don't Bother Getting Him to Testify

Those were the two points he hammered home in a political theater performance, a show to which he summoned the media to attend as his audience, and just as audiences do not participate in the performance, Mueller barred them from questioning him. Just be stenographers, you propagandists. Or political theater reviewers.

Just as he did when helping justify aggression against Iraq by the Bush regime, by falsely testifying to Congress, pretending to know that Iraq had prohibited weapons plus ties to Al-Qaeda, once again Mueller spewed lies designed to further a covert yet obvious political agenda. Back then it was furthering the campaign to create the warlike atmosphere to enable the invasion of Iraq. This time it's perpetuating the Big Lie that Russia mounted a major assault on U.S. democracy. (Leave aside the fact that the existence of U.S. "democracy" is itself a myth. The U.S. is a corporate oligarchy, a bourgeois class dictatorship, with a secret police state that is more powerful than the legislature, a legislature that exists to do the bidding of big corporations and rich plutocrats, and that is monopolized by a two-party political cartel.) [1]

Mueller had it both ways about Trump's guilt. Playing it coy, he claimed the reason he didn't accuse Trump of any crimes was because Department of "Justice" policy (set by fiat by itself) is that a sitting president of the U.S. cannot be indicted. (Which flies directly in the face of the oft-repeated political slogan that "no one is above the law, including the president," but that contradiction is NEVER mentions by ANY corporate media propagandist, establishment politician, or state apparatchik, so you're not supposed to THINK the most obvious thing, once again.) Talking out of the other side of his mouth, he pointedly said that wasn't an exoneration either. So guilty as NOT charged, I guess. He was miffed that Trump's hand-picked Attorney General, William "Maximum Authoritarianism" Barr, spun the Mueller report as exoneration of Trump. But the U.S. Constitution does not bar indictment of a president. It provides the mechanism of impeachment on the obvious presumption that a president would be able to block his own prosecution by the executive branch he controls. And Kenneth Starr, another special prosecutor and a GOP hitman, had no problem accusing President Bill Clinton of crimes in his report, which he turned over to Congress where the GOP-controlled House of Representatives duly impeached Clinton. (The Senate fell short of the 2/3rds majority needed to convict and remove Clinton from office.)

Mueller disingenuously said it would be "unfair" to Trump to accuse him of crimes without Trump having the option to legally clear himself. As if the report was an indictment, which it is NOT. He would have been perfectly free to accuse Trump of crimes in a report that isn't an indictment without violating DO"J" absurd Can't Indict A President policy. As for Trump somehow being unable to "clear" himself, perhaps it has escaped Mueller's notice, but Trump has the biggest bully pulpit in the nation (indeed in the world) and uses Twitter several times a day as a mega-bullhorn, the noise of which is amplified daily by U.S. media quoting it. So Trump is hardly prevented from replying to anything in the Mueller report.

Speaking of people who will never have a chance to clear themselves, and how unfair that is, what about the Russian spam farm people Mueller indicted? Seeing how adept U.S. courts are in political frame-ups, and seeing the legal crucifixions of Viktor Bout and Maria Buttina, it is obvious that the U.S. can convict anyone it targets (Julian Assange is next!) so that the Russian defendants have no choice but to stay in Russia instead of subjecting themselves to a U.S.kangaroo  political court with a foregone conclusion. By the way, Mueller dropped that indictment like a bomb on the eve of Trump meeting with Putin, with obvious political intent to affect the meeting. But "Bob" Mueller is a "straight arrow!" Just ask anyone in the power elite!

Mueller could have written that Trump broke the law, or there was evidence of crimes, but he was barred by DO"J" policy from indicting the president. Instead he's playing to both sides, the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are taking what they want from the Mueller report and from Mueller's stunt performance. And both have a real basis for doing so, thanks to Mueller's deliberately mealy-mouthed evasions and obliqueness. He didn't accuse Trump of any crimes, even though the point of the two-year-long exercise was to determine that one way or the other. On the other hand, he says he didn't exonerate Trump. Instead he persecuted a couple of dozen marginal figures who had brief ties to Trump, destroyed Paul Manafort, and most consequentially bolstered the Big Lie of "massive Russian election meddling."

EVERYONE in the U.S. political establishment agrees that there was MASSIVE Russian "interference" in the 2016 election, a whopping Big Lie that rivals any Big Lie in world history. This lie will continue to mold U.S. policy towards Russia for years, perhaps decades to come. And only ill will come of the U.S. pretending to be victimized by Russia. The reality is the reverse, of course, with the U.S. constantly punishing Russia with more and more sanctions, and waging economic warfare, for example by trying to sabotage Germany's agreement with Russia for a gas pipeline to carry Russian natural gas to Europe.

What Mueller did was rather craven but perfectly reflects the political crosscurrents. He positioned his "report" and himself to protect himself from attack by either faction of the two-party political cartel, and artfully gave each faction, Republican and Democratic, something they could seize on. Mueller, who rose to the top of the Deep State apparatus as FBI secret police chief, is a consummate political animal. [2]

Numerous U.S. presidents have broken U.S. laws countless times. And forget about international law. The U.S. has contempt for that. except when it can cynically use it to beat an adversary nation over the head with it. So U.S. presidents are not merely "above" the law, they are virtually immune, with only rare exceptions.

Just a few examples of outrageous presidential criminality: Trump's "favorite president," Andrew Jackson, ignored a Supreme Court ruling upholding the treaty rights of Native Americans in the Southeast and sent 16,000 men, women, and children on a death march, killing 4,000 of them on the so-called Trail of Tears, as they were forced to walk from Florida and Georgia to Oklahoma, a trek of about 1,500 miles. And the second president, John Adams, had laws, the Alien and Sedition acts, which turned the Bill of Rights into useless verbiage, imprisoning publishers of newspapers who criticized him. 

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon (and John Kennedy too) waged undeclared war on Vietnam (and Laos and Cambodia, which were "secretly" bombed- i.e. U.S., but not foreign media, refused to report it- thus "secret" from the duped American public who get their "news" from corporate propaganda organs.

Ronald Reagan and his henchmen broke various laws in the Iran-Contra scheme, by which they funded international terrorism against Nicaragua.

There are too many more examples to cite.

Mueller's other big theme was making it clear he would add nothing to what was already in the report and that therefore the Democrats shouldn't bother getting him to testify to House Committees. Everything he has to say was already in the report, he insisted. Which is ridiculous. Of COURSE there are questions to ask! Like how he arrived at his various decisions. And the evidentiary basis for the reports "findings." Trump's handpicked Attorney General William Barr refuses to provide Congress with an uncensored version of the report and the supporting documentation. (They hate saying "censored," so they say "redacted," just an evasive way of saying "censored," like "enhanced interrogation technique" obfuscates "torture.")

The Democrats, instead of focusing on the awful policies of Trump, instead are still angling to unseat him in the 2020 election with this ginned up "Russian collusion" campaign. One irony is that Clinton paid for the "Steele Dossier," a fantastical piece of disinformation by a former MI6 British secret policeman which cites as sources Kremlin officials! So WHO got help from Russia! And this dossier was fraudulently used by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant to start a so-called foreign counterintelligence investigation targeting Trump campaign people like Carter Page. The secret police dripped factoids to undermine Trump in the media. And despite their proven hostility and adversarial posture towards Trump, media propagandists and Democratic political hacks regularly attack him for "siding with Putin" (or others) "against his own intelligence agencies." 

They are hardly "his own" agencies. They're his enemies! Not to defend Trump: a pox on ALL their venal houses!

The reason the Democrats DON'T criticize Trump for his actual evil policies (excepting the persecution of Hispanic migrant issue, which the Democrats are using ONLY to curry favor with Hispanic voters- Trump's policies are merely an intensification of Obama's, and the Democrats haven't made much of the murders of migrant children by medical neglect and indifference), is that they FAVOR those policies. They don't really mind gargantuan tax cuts for corporations and the rich, who are their real constituents. They are enthusiastically beating the drums for the U.S. coup effort in Venezuela. They are indifferent to the destructiveness of Trump's anti-environment policies. However on foreign policy they want him to be even more hostile to Russia- apparently words matter more than actions to the Democrats. The fact is that Trump's actions have been highly hostile to Russia. I already cited the matter of the gas pipeline project with Germany, which Trump's ambassador has been aggressively trying to kill. There was the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats. The ratcheting up of sanctions. Sending lethal military aid to the Kiev cabal in Ukraine, something Obama refrained from doing. Supporting opposite sites in the Syrian civil war. And now on opposite sides in Venezuela. Trump has actually done nothing FOR Russia, except be verbally polite to Putin and accept Putin's denial of election "meddling." (The "meddling" was so inconsequential as to not be worth mentioning. But the U.S. politico-media system has inflated a nothingburger into a gigantic propaganda balloon. The universe hasn't seen such a huge expansion from nothingness since the Big Bang that created the universe!)

Like this guy below, who insists that the fabricated Russian "hack" of the DNC server was JUST LIKE THE JAPANESE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR! He's Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler, a "liberal" from New York City (a fanatical enemy of the Palestinian people, by the way). You'll read more about him in the footnotes below.

Nadler interpreted Mueller's little speech thusly: "Mueller told us that Russia attacked our political system."  And that "Trump welcomed it." "The president is lying about Mueller's conclusions" of no collusion or obstruction. [No he's not. Mueller didn't SAY Trump obstructed "justice," and he definitively concluded the Trump campaign did NOT conspire with Russia or Russians.] Nadler went on to take a swipe at lifelong GOP apparatchik William Barr: "The Attorney General is lying about that too."

Well Jerry, I got news for you. You, your party, the "intelligence community," and the GOP are all FULL OF IT. The Great Russiagate Hoax is just that. Once in a blue moon Trump is right about something. 

This is one of those rare times. 

Self-Styled Grand Inquisitor Jerrold Nadler

Donald J. Trump. He's so innocent, says he! (And his stooges, flunkies, and flacks all agree!)

1] I don't want to go off on too long of a tangent, so for now I'll just briefly illustrate how exiguous the Russian "effort" to "elect Trump" was. It consisted of the false claim that they gave damning Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, exposing Hillary Clinton's mendacity by revealing just what she said in her secret speech to Goldman Sachs that she had refused to release, and how the Democratic National Committee (DNC) under the control of Clinton agent Debbie Wasserman Schultz, used underhanded methods to tilt the primaries for Clinton and against Senator Bernard Sanders. Those emails made the American electorate better informed! So far from being an "attack on our democracy," it made for BETTER democracy, such as it even exists in the U.S. Unless you understand "our democracy" in the way "La Cosa Nostra" is understood, "Our Thing." "Our democracy" means the criminal system of power in which a two-party political cartel maintains monopoly political power for the benefit of themselves, their corporate masters, the military-industrial complex, and the Deep State secret police agencies. But career NSA technical experts (now retired) William Binney and Kurt Wiebe have proven that the DNC emails were NOT downloaded over the Internet, but were copied to a flash drive. Nor has any evidence at all ever been presented by the "intelligence community," establishment politicians, or the pseudo-journalists who act as conduits for secret police disinformation and Democratic Party propaganda to substantiate their CLAIM that this occurred. Instead it is assumed a priori as a fact, and anyone who so much as asks for evidence is smeared as a Russian agent, pawn, or stooge.

As for the effect of those emails on the outcome, they apparently had none. They were released in July 2016. In October 2016 Clinton was ahead in the polls by a comfortable 14%. Then in late October, then-FBI secret police chief James Comey announced that the investigation into the Clinton private server scandal was alive again because the FBI found more State Department emails, this time on a device belonging to officially disgraced and ridiculed former Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York City. (Weiner had an irresistible compulsion to send women photos of his genitalia via the Internet.) The emails turned out to be mere copies of previously examined ones, but the effect on Clinton's poll numbers was startling- dropping her to a lead of only 3.5% (same as the typical polling margin of error) to dead even with Trump. On Election Day ten days later in November, she won by 2.9 million votes, but lost because of the absurd and archaic U.S. electoral college. (There is good evidence the GOP stole the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.) 

Instead of blaming Comey, the Electoral College, GOP voter suppression and cheating, the Democrats decided to falsely blame the Russians. The GOP has obvious reasons to go along with this. And the corporate propaganda, which also wants to preserve the reactionary Electoral College system and hide GOP election malfeasance, is happy to scapegoat Russia. 

The other evidence that can be adduced to claim extensive Russian "meddling" in sacred U.S. "democracy" was $50,000 spent on Facebook ads before the election, and $4,700 spent on all Google platform, including youtube. This according to the testimony of Google's CEO to Nadler's Judiciary Committee, when Nadler himself asked. So that's something. When weighed against the combined $1 BILLION ($1,000,000,000) spent by the Clinton and Trump campaigns, plus additional gargantuan sums spent by other U.S. persons and entities, plus the estimates $2 BILLION worth of free air time that "the" media bestowed on Trump, so fascinating did and do they find him, it is extremely risible to be squealing about "massive" Russian "interference." 

In light of all this, you can see how cynical, farcical, and just plain demented is the insistence that Russia is "undermining our democracy." It would be a bad joke if they weren't so serious and persistent in perpetuating this Big Lie.

2] Trump and his lackeys reiterated the "no collusion no conspiracy" theme. Trump himself said no charge equals innocence. (If he'd been acquitted at trial- or if the Democrats impeach him and the Senate doesn't convict, and it is impossible to imagine the necessary two/thirds of Senators voting to convict, especially with a Republican majority in the Senate- that would be a verdict of "not guilty." Whether "not guilty" equals "innocent" is a semi-Talmudic question.

The Democrats continued to interpret this latest manifestation of Muellerism their way, both in regards to Trump and the frame-up of Russia as guilty of "attacking" so-called "American democracy." For example, one of the worst Russiagaters, who has said the mythical Russian "hack" of the DNC computer server was the same thing as the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor (!), the screwball political hack Democrat Jerrold Nadler of New York City, who now sits as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, hysterically opined after The Mueller Show that "Mueller told us that Russia attacked our political system." 

I'll tell you a country attacking another nation's political system: the U.S. attacking the Venezuelan government, trying to overturn the result of the last election there by force, violence, and economic warfare. Oh, and the U.S. does that sort of thing all the time. With Nadler's full-throated support.

What's In Store For Julian Assange

Julian Assange will be forced to "confess" falsely that Russia gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails in return for "leniency." Read on:

The U.S. and its foreign government stooges have victimized Julian Assange for the past decade. But their hunger to punish Assange is nowhere near sated yet.

With the seizure of Assange by the British police, the U.S.' clutches are inexorably closing around him. The smarmy and dishonest president of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, who duped his predecessor Rafael Correa into helping him become president (Moreno has repaid the favor by bringing bogus criminal charges against Correa, forcing him into exile) made a corrupt bargain with the U.S. to obtain loans from the International Monetary Fund (which his poor population will have to pay back, with interest) and other secret favors to turn on Assange (who Correa granted asylum and Ecuadorean citizenship to), denouncing Assange publicly and calling in the British police to haul him into British captivity. (A yearlong campaign by the Moreno regime to make Assange's life as miserable as possible inside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where Assange has been trapped by the British on orders of their U.S. masters for the last 7 years, failed to induce Assange to turn himself over to the tender mercies of the U.S.)

Thus the years-long nefarious scheme by the U.S. to dig its claws into Assange is reaching its goal. Who says the U.S. can't be patient?

Now, what does the U.S. want from Julian Assange? Besides silencing him and stopping the revelation of U.S. crimes by WikiLeaks? What does Assange have to "trade" to the U.S. in return for "leniency?"

"Cooperation." But what form would such "cooperation" take?

It is now established dogma in U.S. mythology that Russia "hacked" the computer of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and engaged in "massive" "interference" with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a sacrilege against Holy American Democracy. This is contemptibly laughable on numerous grounds, as well as factually false. The U.S. is a corporate oligarchy and bourgeois class dictatorship. The Congress is bought and paid for by these dominant economic players, and the Congress enacts laws to serve the interests of the very rich and large corporations. The elections themselves involve a lot of vote stealing and voter suppression and all manner of dirty tricks. The U.S. media and election officials connive to ensure that candidates from parties outside the two-party political cartel are marginalized to the maximum degree.  Billions were spent on manipulating the minds of the American people by the two oligarchical political parties and various shadowy organizations set up by rich plutocrats. Trump got billions in free air time from "the" media.

Other ways in which this canard is repulsive in its cynicism is the fact that the U.S. has intervened in other nations' elections AT LEAST 81 times since 1945- and in ways that were effective, unlike what Russia is said to have done. (Not to mention U.S. invasions, coups, and other forms of subversion to change governments it didn't like.) 

The DNC emails were released by WikiLeaks in July, 2016. In OCTOBER 2016, Clinton was ahead of Trump in the polls by 14%. In late October, FBI chief James Comey announced that emails related to the investigation of the private server Clinton used as Secretary of State under President Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama were found on a device belonging to disgraced penis-texter Anthony Weiner. (It turned out they were merely copies of already-discovered emails, a big nothing.) That caused a big change in the polls, to between dead even and a 3.5% lead for Clinton (within the polling margin of error). Ultimately Clinton won by 2.9 million votes, so Trump became president because of the Electoral College. That's how it works in the self-proclaimed World's Greatest Democracy.

Thus did Russian steal the election for Trump.

But I did leave a few things out.  Russia spent $4,700 on all Google's platform's, including Youtube, according to the Congressional testimony of Google's CEO. And there was some drop-in-the-ocean Facebook activity by Russia, like pictures of Satan arm-wresting Jesus, and an anti-masturbation meme. This span and clickbait from a Russian troll farm was elevated into a devastatingly effective Russian election meddling operation by the unholy alliance of the Democratic Party, the corporate media, and the anti-Trump elements of the Deep State.

As to the factual basis for what has become a "fact" taken for granted- that Russia "hacked the DNC computer," there is none. There is only the assertion by the FBI and CIA that it did. There has never been any evidence provided. And in fact there is evidence conclusively proving that the assertion is false.

The DNC refused to allow any government agency to examine their computer. The FBI just took the DNC's word for it that "Russia hacked" it. Considering the accusation that a "hostile foreign power" committed a computer crime and "meddled" in a U.S. election, this is amazing. What kind of "investigation" is this? 

Tellingly, the NSA doesn't assert that Russia hacked it. The NSA is the only agency that, absent examining the computer server, could determine if Russia had intruded and downloaded data, because the NSA captures and stores all Internet traffic in the U.S. and most of that outside it.

Two retired career NSA veterans with years of technical expertise, William Binney and Kurt Wiebe, then analyzed the speed at which the DNC emails were downloaded, and found it would have been impossible to transfer them over the Internet at anywhere near the speed they were downloaded at. Rather it was the speed copying the emails to a flash drive plugged into the computer system.

Case closed. But there's even more. There's a likely person who did it.

Seth Rich was a young man who worked for the DNC. He was murdered in Washington, D.C. in what the police say was a "botched robbery." "Botched" because nothing was stolen from him. Not his cellphone, not his wallet, not his watch.

Two men shot him in the back a few steps from his home. No arrests have been made.

WikiLeaks put out a $25,000 reward on the case. Out of all the murders in the U.S., in the whole world, they offered a reward in just this one murder case. And in a Dutch television interview, Assange walked right up to the line of saying that Rich was the source of the DNC emails.

But you want me to believe, indeed demand I believe, that "Russia hacked the DNC's computer." And if I refuse to swallow your propaganda and go along with your hoax, that makes me a Russian agent and/or a kook.

Sorry, no sale. Go ahead and slander me.

Now, what about What's In Store For Julian Assange?

Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that WikiLeaks got the DNC emails from Russia. The "Mueller Report" repeats without evidence the FBI-CIA ASSERTION that Russia "hacked" the DNC server, and states that Assange LIED in denying this. Those are now Official Facts. Totally false, but unchallengeable "facts."

Here's something that surprised me, something that in days of blather now that the (censored) report has been released hasn't even been mentioned in "the" media:

The title of the "Mueller Report" is "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election."

Nothing about Trump or his campaign in that. So what has ended up as the target here?

Russia. As the table of contents, and the mass of Russian individuals named in the report, makes clear.

So it's obvious that both rival wings of the two-party political cartel, the Deep State, and most of the major media all agree on a Big Lie, "Russian election meddling." Something for which there is virtually no evidence.

Thus "evidence" would certainly be useful to them.

Given this political context, and the demented viciousness and relentless fanaticism of the U.S. power system, here's what I predict they're going to do to Julian Assange. They're going to offer him a choice. "Cooperate," and get a "light" sentence of "only" twenty years for the numerous charges they're gonna heap on his shoulders under draconian, repressive U.S. "law," or die in a U.S. "Supermax" prison, a psychological torture center designed to isolate political prisoners from the world.

"Cooperation" means not just betraying WikiLeaks internal structure and methods in detail, but most important politically, it means "confessing" to a lie, the Big Lie, that WikiLeaks got "hacked" emails "from Russia." And furthermore, we're gonna drag you into Grand Jury star chamber proceedings and Congressional hearings and maybe criminal trials and you're gonna degrade and humiliate yourself and lose the respect of your admirers and colleagues (you won't have any self-respect left) and make you lie and lie and lie about Russia and WikiLeaks, discredit the very organization you worked so hard to nurture, disgrace yourself and turn your back on your life's mission of speaking truth to power, in return we'll only make you live in a tiny cell by yourself, cut off from the world, for twenty years instead of for the rest of your life. (If you even survive longer than twenty years.)

What a choice.

Abandoned by the new, venal Ecuadorean government, by his homeland Australia, a lickspittle of a nation that can't get its tongue far enough up the asshole of the U.S. (or arsehole, if you prefer), an object of opprobrium in "Western" propaganda media, and target of relentless hatred by the U.S. imperialist power establishment, Assange's only allies are scattered dissidents, a handful of lawyers, and compromised "civil liberties" organizations that so far only weakly mewl tepid objections to this vicious repression.  (This means you, ACLU.) Absent an unexpected change in the correlation of forces (a useful term despite its "Marxist" "taint"), Assange's fate looks grim.

Assange helped reveal numerous crimes against humanity and corruption by numerous governments. It is a revealing commentary on the state of so-called "civilization" that the result isn't accolades, awards, and support for him and for WikiLeaks but an all-out attempt to crush him completely, silence him for life, and to destroy WikiLeaks.

I'm imagining the agony Julian's loving mother is going through right now. She made the "mistake" of raising an ethical son. That's something very dangerous to do in the "Free World."

Possibly the last photo we'll be allowed to see of Julian Assange for quite a while.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good synopsis on Julian Assange, at least as of this writing before secret police agents sabotage it again. Just click on this bold text.