The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Phobias a la carte

Mueller could not find the Prancing Unicorn

There’s “Islamophobia,” which
literally means an “unreasoning” fear of Islam (a fear, but utterly reasonable,
based on the repeated jihadist attacks that have killed hundreds of people) and
what it can do to your rights or your life or your country – that is, to end
them .
And then there is
“Trumpophobia,” meaning a persistent, unreasoning, obsessive, incurable hatred
of Donald Trump, a phobia based on emotion stemming from an unremitting resentment
that Trump “robbed” them of another shot at a “transformative,” destructive hegemony
over the culture, as Obama had permitted them the luxury during his eight-year term.
 
The condition is similar to
the criminal psychosis inculcated by Islam. The neurosis – or rather the psychosis – goes on and on
like a yammering broken record with no off switch.
The Trump- Russia collusion investigation
that Robert Mueller has been
chasing as an elusive, highway mirage for a year, was finally declared without
substance
and basically illusionary. It was a highway to nowhere. State governments
have built many of those. One got tired of seeing Mueller’s morose face almost
everywhere one turned.
There is the phobia narrated
by a Swedish
countess
who moved from Sweden to Hungary because there are few if any Muslim
migrants
there to
molest her
, rob her, deny her job because her employment interviewers of
migrants. This is a common phobia, as the countess, explains, among Swedes who
are afraid to intervene in molestation, because they could be stabbed.  Many Swedes, she reports, are moving to
countries that do not permit the mass invasion of migrants.
Of particular concern is the
phobia exhibited by James
Comey
, the former FBI director fired by Trump. His legion of crimes and
misdemeanors is admirably explicated by
Joseph
E. diGenova

at Hillsdale College. After outlining Hillary’s numerous crimes, misdemeanors,
and acts of treason, Comey refused to indict her, as he said they weren’t
serious enough to merit a grand jury, and let her off the hook. In February 2018,
diGenova details those crimes in “The
Politicization of the FBI.”

The
Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of
Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in
Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that
accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t
until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton
had a secret, personal server that things really took off.
Thousands
of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently
disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of
Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the
least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using
the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the
House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.
One
tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal
investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a
prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation
is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A
grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by
issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors
cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases
where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents
or to testify.
Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney
General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation.
Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking
leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in
return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when
Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by
disgraced FBI agent Peter
Strzok
—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury,
Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.
 “Head injuries – a.k.a. phobias for the truth,
or, what European authorities habitually attribute to a murdering jihadi, “mental
problems” – seem to be fairly common in Washington, D.C.  The Islamic phobia is based on a fear of
offending Muslims or Islam, or of being accused of racism, even though Islam is
not a race, but a supremacist ideology in the guise of a religion. In Comey’s case
his phobia seems to have been viraly communicated from Hillary Clinton, a habitual liar.
Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the
failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules
that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:
Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four
material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.
After needlessly giving immunity to two
lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2,
2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat
in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a
grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without
a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.
Comey authorized the destruction of laptop
computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional
subpoena.
Comey ignored blatant evidence of
culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who
have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed
after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order
rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical
order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters
touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions
requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense.
Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling
classified materials.
Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton
about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false.
“I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not
email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did
not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to
juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.
Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain
of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of
the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case
against Clinton was closed.
The next excellently parsed
phobia of Comey, Mueller, and Company is by Victor David Hanson in his March
13th essay, “Swamp
Things in the Russia Investigation
,” in which he writes,
“The Swamp”
usually refers to the vast federal bureaucratic machinery of mostly unelected
top officials who exercise influence and power without worry about the
appearance of conflicts of interest. They are often exempt from the
consequences of the laws and regulations that affect others. The chief
characteristics of the swamp are the interlocking friendships, business
relationships, marriages and partnerships in Washington, and their immune
response against anyone who challenges them.
Robert Mueller’s
investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s
presidential campaign has proven the locus classicus of a
dysfunctional and highly incestuous Washington culture—so much so that it
borders on being a caricature of a Washington investigation.
The Origins of the
Robert Mueller Appointment: How did it come about? Mueller’s acquaintance,
former FBI Director James Comey (Mueller and Comey were lauded dating back to
the Bush Administration as “brothers
in arms”
), has testified that he was so exasperated with the president that
he leaked his own confidential and likely classified memos of presidential
meetings to the press via a friend in order that it
“might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” It certainly did that.
And mirabile
dictu
, the special counsel was soon none other than Robert Mueller with
whom Comey had had a professional relationship in a variety of contexts for
nearly 20 years. At some point, will one of Mueller’s staff have to depose him
to ask whether he ever discussed the possibility of a special counsel
appointment with Comey prior to Comey’s firing?
The two FBI investigators (and Lisa
Page
) had a long-concealed amorous relationship characterized by an
overriding antipathy for Donald Trump and a desire to ensure that he was not
elected president or, barring that, did not prove a successful president. Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, Huma
Abedin
, and Cheryl
Mills
. Both Page and Strzok communicated concerning the “insurance” idea
that might suggest efforts to stop Trump’s election or thwart his presidency,
with deputy director Andrew
McCabe
.
When the inspector general
released evidence of their prejudices and romantic involvement, they were
dismissed. But Mueller apparently did not announce exactly why they were taken
off his investigation. Their staggered departures were reported in the press as
normal reassignments and not as connected, as if to inform the public why they
were leaving would somehow not be in the Mueller investigation’s interest….
The two FBI investigators had a
long-concealed amorous relationship characterized by an overriding antipathy
for Donald Trump and a desire to ensure that he was not elected president or,
barring that, did not prove a successful president. Strzok interviewed Michael
Flynn, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Both Page and Strzok communicated
concerning the “insurance” idea that might suggest efforts to stop Trump’s
election or thwart his presidency, with deputy director Andrew McCabe.
When the inspector general released evidence
of their prejudices and romantic involvement, they were dismissed. But Mueller
apparently did not announce exactly why they were taken off his investigation.
Their staggered departures were reported in the press as normal reassignments
and not as connected, as if to inform the public why they were leaving would
somehow not be in the Mueller investigation’s interest.
In sum, all the Swamp
creatures discussed by Hanson and
diGenova worked secretively but assiduously to
find “dirt” on Donald Trump in order to remove him from office, and to manipulate
reality.  The dirt was not found, because
it didn’t exist. Their animus is incurable. 
They will not let go the inexorable fact that they lost. Their phobias will
likely follow them to their graves, and, hopefully, first, to their jail cells.

Previous

The Era of Malice

Next

Diabolic Dabiq: Or, Why We Hate Islam

3 Comments

  1. Tom

    Very good. I've long objected to the term "homophobia," which term is intended to portray anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda as being afraid of homosexuals.

  2. Mo

    If the shrinking remnants of The Enlightenment survive long enough, there's going to be great comedy looking back at the bungling serial criminals our government could never seem catch.

  3. Edward Cline

    Tom: I don't hate homosexuals. I pity them and members of the LGBTG crowd. They have demonstrable identity problems. My first literary agent (now deceased) was a gay but very successful in his profession in NYC (he got First Prize published and then reviewed in the NYT in 1988). I never had a problem with him and never discussed his "life style."

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén