The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

The Education of Robert Mueller

Imagine for a moment that I
have been elected a U.S. Senator for the state of Virginia, replacing one of
the two roll-with-the-punches Democrats who vote the straight Party line, and I
am on the Senate Judiciary Committee which is holding a special hearing on the
reported misconduct of FBI Director Robert Mueller over a
variety of issues, including the IRS probes Mueller denied knowledge of, and
the state of intelligence and law enforcement of the Bureau in combating Islamic
jihad and identifying and arresting homegrown
Islamic terrorists. I have been given carte
by the Committee chairman to interrogate Mr. Mueller on these and
related topics.
Picture me on the committee
dais, and Mr. Mueller at his table sitting next to his own legal counsel, a wonkish-looking
fellow with round spectacles. Mueller has been sworn in and the chamber has
quieted down. The only other sounds are the occasional whirl and click of a reporter’s
camera and the soft, almost inaudible staccato whisper of the stenography
machine of the Committee’s reporter.  
SEN. CLINE:  Thank you, Mr. Mueller. Let’s proceed with
our questioning.
MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir.
SEN. CLINE: Mr. Mueller –
when were you appointed Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
MR. MUELLER: In September,
2001, by then President George Bush.
SEN. CLINE: On September 4th,
about a week before 9/11, I should note. So, all in all, you have been in that
office for about thirteen years. Your previous careers in law and in the
military have already been entered into the record, so we won’t review that
information. Now, do you think you have performed your duties as Director
faithfully, in accordance with your oath of office?
MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir. I do
think that.
SEN. CLINE: Fine. You are of
the Christian faith, I assume.
MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir.
SEN. CLINE: Which one?
MR. MUELLER: I have been an
Episcopalian all my life, as were my parents.
SEN. CLINE:  Then you must be familiar with the Ten Commandments,
formally known as the Decalogue. These Commandments also occur in the Hebrew
Bible and are alluded to in the Koran.  I
am referring to Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-2.
MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir.
SEN. CLINE:  Just for the record, could you recite a few
of them for the committee?
(Mueller glances in
bafflement at his legal counsel. His legal counsel looks equally baffled, but
shrugs his shoulders and nods.)
MR. MUELLER: (Slightly
amused) Well…Thou shalt not kill….Thou shalt not steal….Thou shalt not cover a
neighbor’s wife, or his house….Honor your parents, and Sundays or the Sabbath….Thou
shalt not lie, or bear false witness….Or make graven images….Or swear….
SEN. CLINE:  (Holding up a hand.) All right. The Committee
is satisfied with that answer. Do you read the Bible, sir?
MR. MUELLER:  Now and then. I must admit I can’t remember
the last time I did. Not as regularly as I should.
SEN. CLINE:  Would you agree that the Ten Commandments are
the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality?
MR. MUELLER: Yes, sir, but I
have heard there has been some disagreement over that.
SEN. CLINE: (Smiling
benevolently at Mueller.) I agree with you, Mr. Mueller. I confess I am one of
the dissidents on that matter. However, that is beside the point. (Pauses to
turn over some papers in front of him.) All right. Now, Mr. Mueller, I am going
to pursue a novel line of questioning. Were you aware that the Bible, as well
as the Hebrew one, not to mention the Koran, in which there are vague
references to the Commandments, was a work-in-progress for centuries, having
been edited, adumbrated, and revised by numerous scholars and interpreters and
other notables? There are at least half a dozen “authorized” and
popular versions of the Bible, the most recent the English Standard which has
come down to us today, which is roughly based on the King James Version. (Cline
waves his hand.) There is a Cockney Bible, and a Bowdlerized Bible, in which
all the prurient references were excised from the text, especially from the Old
MR. MUELLER: (He blinks in
incomprehension, and answers with hesitation.) No, sir. I was not aware of it.
SEN. CLINE: (With barely
contained amusement.) And, as the story goes in all three doctrines, Moses
climbed Mount Sinai, disappeared into a fog, and a few days later emerged with
two stone tablets with the Commandments inscribed on them. That is, more or
less, the story. Am I correct?
MR. MUELLER: That is correct,
sir, if I remember correctly.
SEN. CLINE: You do. Now,
allow me to pose a hypothetical event. Suppose a new book of the Bible,
heretofore unknown to the Christian, as well as to the Judaic and Islamic
faiths and worlds, is discovered in the stacks of the British Museum, or in the
Bodleian Library at Oxford, or in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Let us for the moment
call it the Book of Robert.
(Subdued laughter in chamber.
Mueller and his legal counsel, however, look nonplussed. Senator Cline waits
for the laughter to subside and continues.)
Its discovery understandably causes
universal sensation and concern. Now, after careful study and examination of
the text of the Book of Robert, biblical scholars and other authorities
determine that it was written or recorded some centuries after Exodus and Deuteronomy. And its Ten Commandments abrogate
the earlier ones. These new Commandments condone murder, theft, dishonesty,
rape, slavery, and other crimes. In fact, they are the converse of the
originals. Further, an admonishing advisory in the Book of Robert categorically
warns that the new Commandments render the older ones null and void, and that
it is incumbent upon Christians to abide by the new ones. This dictum, of
course, also obviates the pacific nature of the New Testament, as well, and not
only redefines the contemporary understanding of Christianity, but calls for a
new name for it, the peaceful homilies of Jesus Christ having been all but negatived
in the Book of Robert. (Pauses.) What would you say to that, Mr. Mueller?
MR. MUELLER: (Frowning in
disgust.) That is a preposterous idea, sir.
SEN. CLINE: Is it? Why do you
say that?
blasphemous and irreligious idea. And disrespectful.
SEN. CLINE: But not
unprecedented. Although the idea is apocryphal, there have been private
organizations in the past, such as the British Hellfire Clubs, that mocked the
Bible and the Christian faith. And Thomas Jefferson, for example, removed all
the parts of the Bible that he agreed with and put together his own much
reduced version. Many of his contemporaries called his action blasphemous, as
well, but I don’t think his reputation has suffered much. 
MR. MUELLER: I…have heard these
stories, sir.
SEN. CLINE:  I am happy to hear it. Furthermore, as far as
precedents are concerned, it is done
in the Koran.
MR. MUELLER: I don’t follow
you, sir.
SEN. CLINE: (Under his
breath, “I didn’t expect you would.”) 
I think you will, sir. This won’t take long. Well, let’s hear some
examples of what I’m talking about here. Now, advocates of Islam claim it is a
“peaceful” religion. Indeed, it is true that once Islam’s purposes
are accomplished, it will be “peaceful.” Would you happen to know
what those purposes are, Mr. Mueller?
MR. MUELLER: Just that its
believers can live in peace, sir. That’s as I understand it. And without
discrimination or harassment or stereotyping or defamation.
SEN. CLINE: (Shaking his
head.) No, sir. By that – and Islamic authorities, in addition to the Muslim
Brotherhood and other Muslim organizations in this country, and in Europe, all
concur on its meaning, and will bear me out – by that is meant that once the
world is under Islamic rule, then jihad
will be pointless and unlawful, because all of Islam’s foes will have been
converted, subjugated, or vanquished.
MR. MUELLER: (Frowning,
shaking his head.) That isn’t what they mean, sir. Why, President Bush himself,
the day after 9/11, said that Islam wasn’t about terrorism, it meant peace. He
said that at the Islamic Center in Washington, standing with a group of Muslim
SEN. CLINE: (Smiling.) Yes,
he did. And they were all Brotherhood representatives, too.  But, let me read for the record exactly what Mr.
Bush said
that day. (Turns some pages, adjusts his glasses.) Ah, here, and
I quote: “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental
tenets of the Islamic faith.  And it’s important for my fellow
Americans to understand that. The English
is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote
from the Koran, itself:  In the
long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do
evil.  For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to
.” (Looks down at Mueller.) That was from Sura 30, verse 10. I should
point out that Mr. Bush’s quotation – and I don’t know who gave it to him –
places a period after the second instance of “evil.” The next clause
is treated as a separate sentence. I don’t think that was a typographical
error. In the original,
however, there is only a semicolon after the second instance, forming a
complete sentence, which changes the whole meaning of the quotation. Which
arguably makes it as violent a verse as any other to be found in the Koran.
MR. MUELLER:  (Looking angry.) You’re playing with periods
and semicolons and grammar just to change the meaning, sir, and I must protest
SEN. CLINE: It’s the
punctuation that changes the meanings, Mr. Mueller, not I. But – let’s examine
some other instances of later verses, verses that negate the meaning of the
earlier verses. (Cline turns some pages before him and reads calmly without
inflection or stress.)
Sura 64, verse 12: “Obey
God then and obey the Messenger (that being Mohammad), but if you turn away no
blame shall be attached to our Messenger, for the duty of our Messenger is just to
deliver the message.” (Cline shrugs and grimaces.) A rather vague
imperative, addressed to a simpleton, I should think.
Here’s Imam Muslim ibn
al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi about a Sunnah in the Hadith: “Whoever kills a
person who has a truce with the Muslims will never smell the fragrance of
Paradise.” And, another: “Whoever hurts a non-Muslim citizen of a
Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God.” That’s from
Bukhari, a Muslim scholar.
And, another: “He who
hurts a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall
be his adversary on the Day of a Judgment.” Again, Bukhari. Al-Mawardi:
“Beware on the Day of Judgment; I shall myself be complainant against him
who wrongs a non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility
greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him.”
(Cline puts aside the
quotations, and addresses Mueller.) Now, Mr. Mueller, did you notice any
significant qualifications in those quotations?
MR. MUELLER:  No. I can’t say that I did.
SEN. CLINE:  In al-Naysaburi’s quotation, he mentions a truce, the Arabic term being hudna, or a temporary cessation of
hostilities to buy time to regroup in order to renew an attack with a better
advantage. I doubt he was referring to a break time during a chess match. And
in the last three quotations – and I could have gone on with dozens more – the
non-Muslim who mustn’t be harmed is a citizen
of a Muslim state
. In a Muslim state a non-Muslim is a dhimmi, or an infidel who has accepted the political authority of Islam over him. Search as one might through
similar verses, one can find no such restraining order about non-Muslims in non-Muslim states. Now, what do you make
of that, sir?
MR. MUELLER: (After a
hurried, whispered huddle with his legal counsel.) I don’t know what to make of
it, sir, except I think you are putting words into the mouths of Muslims.
SEN. CLINE: The words I cited
come from authoritative texts, Mr. Mueller. Those were the words of revered
scholars and commentators through the ages. Furthermore, I should also remark
that there isn’t a single verse in either the Koran or the Hadith that does not
imply a global Islamic hegemony, that
is, a state in which Islam has the upper hand in all matters, over all men.
There is no other context in which to construe the verses or sayings,
regardless of their counseling violence or mercy. I will further remark that
any Muslim quoting one of the earlier “peaceful
verses as the final word, does so at the risk of being accused of blasphemy and
inviting retribution. Let’s sample a few more Sura from the Koran:
From Sura 8:12, “Allah
will throw fear into the hearts of the disbelievers, and smite their necks and
From Sura 72:15-17, “The
fires of hell will be fueled with the bodies of idolators and unbelievers. They
will experience an ever-greater torment.”
From Sura 4:56, “Those
who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins
are roasted through, we shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste
the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power.”
Shall I go on, Mr. Mueller?
There are even worse verses. My clerk prepared six pages of them. You and your
legal counsel are welcome to a copy.
MR. MUELLER: (After another
whispered conference with his legal counsel.) I suspect that you have
cherry-picked your verses, sir, and so I have nothing to say about them.
SEN. CLINE: If I have
cherry-picked my verses, sir, then I have practically denuded the tree.  Now, let us turn to the purpose of this
hearing. I will ask you this, Mr. Mueller: Would you regard Islam primarily as
a religion, or an ideology?
MR. MUELLER: (Almost
defiantly.) I regard Islam as primarily a religion, with some of its
regrettable verses serving as an excuse for some individuals to use violence. I
do not regard it as an ideology in the least. President Bush, bless his heart,
said Islam was hijacked by extremists.
SEN. CLINE: What is an
MR. MUELLER: Someone who
takes a teaching too far, or literally, to a criminal extent.
SEN. CLINE: So, an “extremist”
is someone who takes a teaching seriously enough to act on it?
MR. MUELLER: Yes, because he
misinterprets the teaching.
SEN. CLINE: I can cite a
number of Sura that instruct Muslims to slay or enslave non-believers, Jews,
apostates, homosexuals, and disobedient wives and daughters. How could so clear
a language be misinterpreted? Shall we blame the “extremist,” or the
MR. MUELLER:  It’s a matter of interpretation, that’s all.
SEN. CLINE: Mr. Mueller, I
ask you this because you have a law degree from the University of Virginia:
Would you call the Constitution of the United States – that is, the original
Constitution, minus later, egregious, and contradictory amendments – the law of
the land, one that governs the actions of American citizens?
thoughtful for a moment, then answers with confidence.) Yes, sir, I would call
it that.
SEN. CLINE: Would you agree
that the Constitution is not so much a set of rules by which Americans should
conduct themselves, as a document that defines the limits and the limited powers of government, so that Americans’ liberty
may be preserved and enjoyed?
MR. MUELLER: (After a moment,
frowning, and unsure of where this is leading.) Generally speaking, yes.
SEN. CLINE:  So, the Constitution as envisioned and
written by the Founders did not so much govern the actions of Americans, as it set
boundaries between them and the government? I include, of course, the Bill of
MR. MUELLER: (With wry
contempt.) That’s one way of putting it.
SEN. CLINE: That’s the only
way to put it, sir. So, one could not say that the Constitution is by any means
totalitarian in nature? That is, it doesn’t
prescribe every particular or concrete action or behavior or custom that an
American citizen may take or follow without fear of penalty?
MR. MUELLER: (Frowning again,
looking disgusted.) Like I said, that’s one way of putting it.
SEN. CLINE: And is not Sharia
law the jurisprudential guide of Islam, governing all the actions of its
MR. MUELLER: Yes, as I
understand it, that’s what it is. But –
SEN. CLINE: And if you
understand that much, would you not agree that Sharia law is the implementation
of a totalitarian ideology? That it is as unlike the Constitution as water is
unlike lava?
MR. MUELLER: You’re putting
words into my mouth!
SEN. CLINE: You mean I’m
asking you to concede a point, Mr. Mueller. One needn’t believe in Islam to be
governed by Sharia law as a subject, as a dhimmi.
I will remind you that one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is to replace
our Constitution with Sharia law. This has been said in this country on
numerous occasions by Brotherhood members. (Pauses to leaf through some papers
before him.) Now, we are coming to the nub of my questions, Mr. Mueller. If you
had been Director of the Federal Bureau during World War Two, would you have
instructed your personnel to not
identify enemy Nazi agents, for fear of offending domestic and foreign Nazis,
yet still expect your people to foil their plots and apprehend them?
MR. MUELLER: (Looking
flustered, and wags a finger at Senator Cline.) You’re not getting away with
this line of questioning, Senator! It’s wholly inappropriate! (Mueller consults
with his legal counsel.)
SEN. CLINE: And had you been
Director in the1950’s, would you have instructed your personnel to not identify Communist agents and their
schemes, for fear of insulting Communists foreign and domestic?
MR. MUELLER: I refuse to
answer that question. Those are different times you’re talking about!
SEN. CLINE: As Director of
the FBI, you in 2012 instructed that all training materials be purged
of all references to Islam and Muslims, together with all terms associated with
jihad, yet expected your personnel to
detect and foil acts of Islamic terrorism in this country, and even overseas.
From whom did that order come, Mr. Mueller?
MR. MUELLER: It came from the
Attorney General. It wasn’t my decision.
SEN. CLINE: So, instead of
resigning in protest, or publically opposing the order, you stayed on, and
helped to blind an agency charged with defending this country against enemy
action? In point of fact, you, sir,
were charged with defending this country from enemy designs and attacks.
MR. MUELLER:  It wasn’t my decision. It was a policy
decision. I don’t make such decisions.
SEN. CLINE: That, sir, is
obvious. (Reaches for another paper.) I read here a statement made by Clare
Lopez, a senior fellow of the Clarion Fund and the Center for Security Policy,
an expert on strategic intelligence and defense policy matters, and a former
employee of the CIA.  She is also a
deputy director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Team and an instructor for U.S.
Special Forces. And, I quote from a recent article of hers published this June,
Defense vs. the Ideology of Jihad
.” (Adjusts his glasses again.)
“It is impossible to
avoid the conclusion that the deliberate blinding of our homeland security
defense capabilities, perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in close
cooperation with the witting, willing assistance of our own national security
agency leadership – ” (Pauses to glance at Mueller.) – which includes you, sir – “is propelling the U.S.
towards catastrophe.” (Cline pauses to turn a page.)  Further on in her article, she writes,
“The methodical blinding of the intelligence community, its seventeen
aggregated agencies, and security and law enforcement units across the country,
is the unavoidable result of this kind of ‘outreach’ to jihadists, who are
determined to outlaw consideration of Islamic ideology as a motivating factor
for terror attacks.” (Puts the paper aside.)  I will refrain from declaiming on my distaste
for the term “homeland,” as that is my only reservation about Miss
Lopez’s statements. But, I should like to know if you, Mr. Mueller, concur with
her statements, or disagree with them.
MR. MUELLER:  I know about Lopez. She’s a right-wing
agitator sick with Islamophobia.
SEN. CLINE:  You appeared to be comfortable with the
policy of emasculating this country’s ability to defend itself against our
sworn enemy, Islam. Perhaps you are also comfortable with abetting censorship,
which is what is meant by “outlawing consideration of Islam
MR. MUELLER:  We are not at war with Islam. Two presidents
have said that, sir.
SEN. CLINE: Then two
presidents were wrong, Mr. Mueller, and you have served under both of them. The
first time Mohammad raised his sword to convert or slay or enslave
non-believers 1,400 years ago, that was the beginning of Islamic jihad, which has not ceased since then.
I might add that many scholars even question the existence of such a person,
and that the details of his life are just so much fantastic folderol. Now, who
instructed the Attorney General to communicate that policy to you, Mr. Mueller?
MR. MUELLER:  I refuse to answer. I will not entertain that
question. It’s politically motivated.
SEN. CLINE:  (Removes a sheet of paper from his notes.) May
I remind you of your oath
of office
, sir? (Reads from the paper.)
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” I lay special
stress on “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” (Puts down the paper.)
I will also remind you, sir, that you are under oath in these proceedings, as
MR. MUELLER:  You do not need to remind me. Are you
insinuating that I’m lying?
SEN. CLINE: No, sir. I’m
suggesting that you’re not as forthcoming with answers as you are required to
be in this chamber. You were not forthcoming about the farcical role of the FBI
in investigating the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in
Benghazi. I’m suggesting that you ignored the warnings of the Russians about
Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s newfound Islamic “extremism.” I’m suggesting that
you never investigated the Boston mosque which both Tsarnaev brothers attended,
one, as Mr. Gohmert
pointed out in the House hearing the other day, which was founded by a jihadist now serving time in prison –
MR. MUELLER: I’ll tell you what
I told him, sir, that we investigated that mosque
four days before the Boston bombing –
SEN. CLINE: Yes, I know. As
part of the FBI’s “outreach” program, Mr. Mueller. But Huggy-Bear
“outreach” is not the same thing as a criminal investigation or
rooting out Islamic terror cells or “sudden jihad” terrorists that these mosques seem to spawn. I would
like to know what you think of President Obama’s “outreach” to
terrorist organizations. He seems to think that Al-Qada is a branch of the
Rotarians, that Hamas is affiliated with the Mummers, and that the Muslim
Brotherhood is a college fraternity. And, fantastically enough, that neither
Al-Qada nor Hamas have anything to do with Islam. I suppose you and he think
they’re staffed with Free Masons.
MR. MUELLER:  (Scowling furiously.) Mr. Obama knows what I
think of his policies.
SEN. CLINE:  I’m sure he does, and he very likely invites
you to his frequent rounds of golf, too. My time is almost up, Mr. Mueller.
Your testimony has been interesting but not illuminating. Per the Committee’s special
subpoena, you will be required to appear here again tomorrow at 10 a.m. The
subject is, after all, your misconduct these twelve or so years, misconduct
which, given the negligence your department has exhibited lately, together with
your own acquiescence to a futile, perilous, and, if I may so, treasonous policy of accommodation
granted our enemies, can in all probability be joined with the charges of a
violation of your oath of office, and dereliction of a duty you voluntarily
assumed. Tomorrow, I think we shall focus on your parts in Benghazi and the IRS’s
enemies list. You are dismissed, Mr. Mueller.
MR. MUELLER:  (Angrily, standing with his legal counsel,
his face ugly with the malice he showed Representative Louis Gohmert.) I’ll see
you in hell, first!
SEN. CLINE: Now, now, Mr.
Mueller. No more of those dirty looks. Behave like an adult, please. (Rises as
he collects his papers, smiles at Mueller, and shrugs. He turns to the
Committee Chairman.) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me.


The Fatal Fallacies and Foibles of Race


The Anti-War “War on Terror”


  1. Iceherinit

    Thank you, Ed. That has great cathartic value.

  2. Joe

    Thanks Senator!

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén