The Reason Bill Barr Did Not Try to Prosecute Andrew McCabe

Amici,

If, as has been said, the whole "Trump Russia Hoax" was begun to hide the fact the Obama Administration had been mining the National Security Agency's database for political dirt, as Admiral Rogers discovered in 2016, it certainly seems to have also developed into a full coup d'état to remove Trump.

The recent, shocking news that the DOJ won't prosecute Andrew McCabe, a FBI high-level guy who actually confessed to lying, reveals a deeper problem.

So here's a great article here by "Sundance" on why Barr didn't prosecute McCabe, as in why he really could not do so: 

Basically, his argument goes thusly: the DOJ didn't prosecute McCabe for the same reason Jessie Liu didn't prosecute SSCI Director James Wolfe: both guys knew too much and would have revealed too much had they been formally prosecuted. They would have forced government bigshots to testify at their trials, and the whole rotten mess would have been exposed. For those who have forgotten, Wolfe, head of security at an important Senate committee, leaked the FISA material to his bed-partner journalist under orders from his Senator bosses, and McCabe would have brought down not only the FBI, but the DOJ, by revealing just high up the attempted coup against President Trump went. Bigshots throughout the government hierarchy were trying to stop and then remove President Trump. They can't let the extent of their actions be known.

As one commentator to the above-linked article, "Dutchman" summed it up (italics mine):

As I see it, Sundance is saying NOT that the prosecutions of McCabe and Wolfe can’t happen because they threaten the DOJ/FBI. He says such prosecutions threaten to expose a seditious conspiracy that involves ALL 3 BRANCHES of Government.
Executive; members of the Obama admon, up to Obama, AND career executive branch employees.
Judicial; the FISA court
Legislative; Leadership of BOTH parties, in BOTH Houses.

The evidence Republicans were ‘in on it’ can be seen by their actions, and inactions.

The Comment goes on in like vein. Or as "Sundance" of The Conservative Treehouse himself writes in the linked article:

When the prosecution of SSCI Director James Wolfe was being considered, AG Jeff Sessions was recused; the Robert Mueller probe was ongoing; and as a consequence Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and U.S. Attorney for DC Jessie Liu were decision-makers.

I’m not going to repeat all the issues, you can re-read them HERE; however, the baseline is that Wolfe could not be prosecuted without running the risk of collapsing key institutions of the U.S. government. The consequences of a Wolfe prosecution were beyond the capacity of Rod Rosenstein, or the DOJ to handle. There would have been massive constitutional crises created and the literal definition of ‘sedition' was at the center of it.

Accepting the 2018 objectives from Rosenstein; and factually I doubt Jeff Sessions would have made a different decision even if he was not recused; when AG Barr takes the helm in February 2019 he is forced to carry-over those same objectives.

In essence, regardless of Bill Barr’s outlook or opinion of what took place, he had no alternative except to defend the previous decisions. As a result, Barr has no option except to protect Rod Rosenstein.

If former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was ever to be prosecuted, the same issues that surfaced with James Wolfe would surface again. The actions by DAG Rosenstein in 2017 merged with the objectives of Andrew McCabe at the same time. 

Pretty grim, but it makes total sense.

Let me review some history, shall we?

Lyndon Johnson ran a pretty lawless administration. Jack Kennedy, too, remember he -- and Johnson? I'd have to look it up -- let the CIA try to assassinate Castro, and Kennedy did help in/lead to the assassination of the South Vietnamese president (and a Catholic!) Ngô Đình Diệm, on November 2, 1963 (20 days before JFK was hit, notice; how portentous was that?).

Then Nixon got (nearly) impeached for doing with private contractors in 1972 what Johnson had illegally did repeatedly with the FBI and the IRS when in 1964 LBJ spied on Goldwater, etc. Jimmy Carter was too moral for all of that, but Clinton and Obama had no such scruples. Remember when Nixon lost to Kennedy and wouldn't contest it back in 1960? Nixon said something like "People must not think their president is a crook", only to later be reduced himself to saying, "I am not a crook" thirteen years later. (There was some weakness, some indecisiveness, about Nixon; a character flaw not possessed by more ruthless people, such Johnson and Jack, the Clintons or Obama.)

"The Left" in the U.S. has a history of bringing down Republican presidents. Nixon had an overwhelming re-election in 1972, only to be ousted within two years, and all of his second, shortened, administration taken up with fighting the allegations that brought him down. (And let me repeat, Nixon did what LBJ did, but not as massively, and not using U.S. government agents. LBJ could get away with the great crime; Nixon, no way. Hypocrisy.) Ronald Reagan had an overwhelming re-election and his entire second term was taken up with the ridiculous "Iran-Contra Affair".

This time around, the Left is taking no chances, and have gone after Trump from the git-go.

But when the Left tried to unseat George W. Bush through electoral defeat in 2004, via the Texas Air National Guard "narrative", the "narrative makers" suddenly ran afoul an attack from a new quarter: the Internet and the "pajamas media." An irregular force of conservative citizen journalists used the new social media to stop the Left in its tracks. Ka-pow! The Left was, as the Irish say, "gobsmacked." Bush was re-elected, and with a national plurality of votes. The hold of the MSM and legacy media in general was broken! They still haven't quite figured that out. Or perhaps one should say, they still refuse to accept it.

Of course, McCain (McStain) and "Pierre Delicto" Romney were total campaign failures, but Trump beat all the next generation's McCain-Romney 2.0s.

The Left has, in response, gone completely mad.

So now Bill Barr and Rosenstein and God knows how many others are covering up yet another great U.S. government fiasco. This time a truly seditious one. Main players of the U.S. Federalis actively worked a coup d'état to prevent, then cancel, the presidency of Donald John Trump. These evil sods are desperately covering up for each other.

And here's that same Donald John Trump, the target of all their combined, focused, hate, who "tweets" at just the right moment, to millions of his followers, end-running completely around the legacy "narrative builders" in the MSM, to keep the heat on them all. It is great fun to watch, but in all seriousness, the coup has to be exposed. Left the chips fall where they may.

Fiat justicia ruat caelum.

An Préachan

Some Reflections, and a Bit of Gloating, on the Presentation of the Mueller Report

A political earthquake occurred last night, my friends.

And although I know it isn't right to gloat over another's misfortune, to enjoy the Schadenfreude moments that occasionally come in life, in this case, I must admit, I gloat.

As was written long ago (Proverbs 11:29):

He that troubleth his own house, shall inherit the winds: and the fool shall serve the wise.

That is being fulfilled today as the coup d'état against President Trump suffers a severe body blow.

So: Gloat, gloat, gloat! 

How could I not?

To quote from the above link:

"...Massive ‘splodey heads (beyond election night level) happening throughout leftist punditry and political analysts...". See as an example of that: Excerpt:

MSNBC’s top Russiagate conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow burst into tears on Friday — after the past two years of her reporting was revealed to be nonsense.

Chris Matthews was "apoplectic, inconsolable, and irate at the notion the Mueller team will not offer any further indictments in hopes of criminal charges concerning Russian collusion."

At least one Dem congressman, "Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) stated that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will be subpoenaed by Congress."

 Yeah, Democrats, let's now guillotine Mueller! /sarc

So, as this is a political essay and not a religious one, allow me to savor the moment. To cry: Haha, Hahaha! Crying on air! Apoplectic! Get Mueller!

They deserve a gloat or two. So, indeed, I gloat. :D

Caveat politicus magnus: I hasten to write that while we do not yet know exactly what the Mueller Report actually says, we apparently do know no other indictments are forthcoming. That's the most interesting news. And it's the most brutal news to the "Narrative makers" who tried to sell this false story for the past two years. And of course the very fact that this report was shoved under the door at the EOD (end of business day) on a Friday afternoon! That alone strongly suggests there's just "no there there" as Bill Clinton famously said. Otherwise they'd have released it with much fanfare first-thing Monday morning.

And notice at the initial link above how CNN's Laura Jarret (Valerie's lovely daughter) quickly follows on Wolf Blitzer's query by lining up other federal investigators / prosecutors who could do their own investigations into Trump. Yep, they "never say die!" Keep the torch burning, Kiddo.

Reflections 1

Reflect on all the hue and cry for Trump to fire Mueller that the Democrats talked up the last two years. They kept expecting the "unruly, impulsive, loose cannon" Trump to "do a Nixon" and fire Mueller. Trump was stupid, after all, a buffoon. Trump, the ogre! Trump was stupid and they were smart. Trump was "set up" to do just what they thought he'd do but...but...but...

...He eluded that bait.

Patience is a virtue.

The pain they spread around. And look at all the indictments they inflicted on "friends of Trump" for the past two years. Especially egregious is the way they treated General Michael Flynn. And Paul Manafort got arrested, tried and convicted for the same crimes Clinton friend Tony Podesta (and his brother) did with impunity! Hillary herself is running (er, stumbling) free whereas anyone else who tried what she did with the emails and the "bathroom server" would be in jail. (Actually, she might yet wear the orange jump suit.) It goes on and on.

Historical Reflections: Ways to remove a president

✔All of this was just the latest in a long, long Democrat Party pattern of Removing Republican Presidents. (For a larger picture of what they're up to generally, read Richard Fernandez.)

Permit me a review:

• "There are no coincidences." Obi-wan Kenobi

• Notice the patterns. In 1861, the Democrats refused to continence the election of the first Republican president ever elected, in November 1860, and to protest his election and in effect negate it, they seceded from the Union. When that president, none other than Abraham Lincoln, was re-elected in November 1864 after defeating the traitors in open war, he found himself dead by April of the next year.

• Then 100 years later, the Democrats refused to continence the re-election of someone they absolutely L.O.A.T.H.E.D, "Tricky Dick" Nixon in 1972, and had him out by August 1974 for doing something with private contractors that LBJ used the FBI itself for, i.e. spying on the opposing political campaign (LBJ also used the IRS, etc., as political weapons, just as Obama had against the Tea Party).
• The two-tiered Justice system is: LBJ could do X, Y, and Z, and get off Scot-free; a Republican tries that, he's run outta town. They tried that same trick with Reagan via Iran-Contra, too, if you recall. With Reagan, curiously enough, they hated him so bad there was (coincidentally, if coincidence does exist) BOTH an assassination attempt not long after he took office, and then a removal attempt in his second term.
• They're trying it yet again! LBJ used the FBI to spy on his opposition, and then Hillary stole emails, hid 'em in a bathroom server, then deletes 'em? No crime to see here; move on, folks. Hang that Genr'l Flynn, though and hang Manafort -- and wink at Podesta. Same old same old.

✔Impeachment of Presidents Fails

Of course, the Republicans under Newt Gingrich foolishly impeached and tried to remove Bill "The Rapist" Clinton for lying under oath about a sexual affair, and that absurd attempt, like the earlier impeachment of Andrew Johnson 100 years previously, failed miserably, and just showed the "official" way of removing a president just. doesn't. work.

However, the old tried and true methods (Lincoln's assassination, McKinley's) worked, and were used a number of times.

• I need hardly mention when Garfield was assassinated, July, 1881 (president only four months, and shot by a "disappointed office seeker") nearly 20 years after Lincoln; or
• William McKinley, assassinated in September, 1901 (almost exactly 20 years after Garfield), and as with the case of Lincoln, killed after his re-election (1900). Not part of the pattern was when someone tried to shoot Theodore Roosevelt, McKinley's vice president and successor, this time in October, of 1912, when "T.R." was running on the Bull Moose ticket. But you just couldn't kill T.R.; he had to politically kill himself in 1912, as it were, and then died  in his sleep in 1919. (He was to be nominated for president on the Republican ticket the next year. With T.R. dead, the bigshot Republicans were deadlocked, and they had to settle on that famous fornicator from Ohio, Warren G. Harding, who in his turn died – from his exertions? – and left us the best president of the 20th century, Calvin Coolidge. Had Coolidge run in 1928, he would have handled the 1929 Stock Market crash quite differently than Herbert Hoover did, and we might never have had a Great Depression or the Nazi takeover of Germany. The fate of 100s of millions literally were decided by the single choice of one man.)

• The assassin in McKinley's case, and in T.R.'s attempted assassination, were foreigners (well, Mckinley's assassin was actually born in Michigan of immigrant parents, but was a European-style anarchist), and in the latter case, the assassin, Bavarian John Flammang Schrank, was a saloon keeper, much like Jack Ruby, the nightclub owner to assassinated the assassin of Jack Kennedy.

• Curious, these parallels, aren't they?

✔Reagan, JPII

• Of course, Ronald Reagan was shot, too. And also, again, very early in his term, (March 30, 1981; Reagan had taken the oath on January 20 of the same year).
• Now it is -- so far as I know -- supposed to be universally accepted that Reagan's would-be assassin was a nut (he was "in love" with the Lesbian Jodie Foster!), but then, conveniently, they're all nuts, from John Wilkes Booth, an actor from a very successful acting family, through all the rest to Kennedy's assassin and JPII's Turkish would-be assassination --
• But of course, you'd have to get idiots to do the deed, otherwise everyone would realize what's going on, and come after you. The all-time champion example of that scenario is what happened to the non-nuts Brutus and Cassius (of the lean and hungry look) who took out Caesar! Can't do that again! By Jupiter! Get some Greek or Gaulish slave to do it. Or have the Praetorian Guard to do it in the basement, as was done with Caligula.

The Lone Democrat Assassinated

Jack Kennedy, of course, was assassinated in November 1963, the only Democrat president to be so removed from office, and -- whatever else can be said of Jack, almost all of it negative and all of that true -- he was a true Cold Warrior and his assassination was no doubt a KGB hit job, as was the attempted assassination of John Paul II in May of 1981. (They're bookends, those assassinations, set -- yet again! -- almost 20 years apart.) In Kennedy's case, however, the American media and the Lyndon Johnson administration wanted no part of a "hot" Cold War developing, so they swept all that under the rug, just to crucify the entire country with their idiotic Vietnam debacle. Johnson has to be one of the top three worst presidents in the country's history. (The others being the Democrats James "The Gay Blade" Buchanan, our first homosexual prez, whose failure to take strong and immediate action against the Secessionists forced Lincoln to war, and then either Jimmuh Carter or Pharaoh Obama, as you prefer.)

In any event, there's a pattern in the Democrats rejecting a Republican president: Lincoln, McKinley, and then the "political assassination" of Richard Nixon (to which Nixon himself provided the bullets, of course – Nixon should have known a Republican just can't get away with what a Democrat does!). All three of those men were popular presidents, and Trump's approval rating is trending at about 50 percent: this Mueller news will jolt it upwards of another ten percent or so; BUT TAKE CAREFUL NOTE: at least Trump – right now, I mean as of Friday morning yesterday – is twice or more than twice as popular in his country as are Macron, Merkel, or May (sounds like a Vaudeville troupe) in theirs. (And all three of the Ms are childless, unlike the fecund Trump.)

• Let's pray there's not a third (fourth?) time. The fourth time was what happened to Trump, and has apparently (we must carefully note: apparently) ended. Yet the pattern is there. Since the "Nixon Method" against Trump seems to have failed, Trump had better have the most excellent Secret Service protection! And if he is indeed re-elected in 2020, he'd better keep in mind these previous examples.

Reflection: Quo vadis nunc?

Of course, now that Mueller's report has been filed, Trump is free to release all sorts of hidden, "classified" documents such as the FISA warrants and Congressional investigation transcripts, redacted phone conversations, the lot. Had he done so earlier, the Democrats would have cried foul and "Obstruction of Justice." Now they can't.

Documents galore. You name it. We can expect he will. Bill Barr, I think even the most suspicious pundits aver, is the reason Mueller fired that scoundrel Andrew Weissmann and wrapped up his report as fast as he did. (It's as if the very pages burned Mueller's fingers!)

• If Barr proceeds to investigate this whole mess, just imagine the caterwauling of the Dems! Music, pure dulcet music, to this old Kingon's ears. :D

An Préachán

http://corvinescatholiccorner.blogspot.com

Final Reflection:

The MSM didn't shoot itself in the foot, it shot itself in the head. Roger L. Simon explains.

An Pr.

 

Donald Trump's Freedom Speech in Miami, and Black, Red, and Green Socialism

Love him or hate him, Trump’s speech in Miami about Venezuela was very well done. You can find it in full here. 

Trump was introduced by a woman who grew up in Communism (his wife, Melania) and

he introduced the mother of a Venezuelan murdered by the Maduro regime and also a mayor who's grandfather fled Socialism, and whose father fled it to, and now the mayor has had to flee it. Very well done, indeed. And Trump strongly asserted that the U.S. will never become a Socialist nation, to the cheers of the crowd.

It will never cease to amaze me how so many people can be so enamored of an economic system that just doesn't work. That never has worked. And no, Scandinavia is not Socialist; it is very capitalist economically, and wealthy enough because of its homogeneous dour, hard-working native population to afford extensive welfare states. (And it is having trouble now after importing for many Muslims.) Einstein was supposed to have said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, yet expect different results. Whether he said it or not, it is a real question of why so many people, especially educated ones such as the products of the American academies, can be so in favor of something that can only be kept in power by the gun.

Yes, the American youth have been educated by Communists on a "Long March" through the U.S. educational institutions. But what motivates the Long Marchers?

Socialism of course has been tried in different forms, like a demonic Vaudeville act that keeps changing costume but otherwise has the same unfunny, murderous skit. We've had Black or National Socialism (one-time Communist Mussolini invented this version, Hitler murdered tens of millions with it), Red or Class Socialism (a.k.a. Communism, which killed over 100 million people in the 20th century) and now Green or Environmental Socialism. Global Warming (Or now "Climate Change") is only the most recent effort to take a supposedly imminent natural catastrophe as the reason, the trigger, for imposing Socialism – we've had over-population and acid rain and also a new ice age-themed version of this, all since the Silly Sixties; but these were only essays in the craft: now has it come close to actually being imposed.

On and on it goes, like a Vaudeville act that won't get off the stage, but keeps machine gunning the audience.

There's a branch of metaphysics called First Philosophy. It details principles, indeed, the First Principles necessary for rational thought. There are Real Principles (pertaining to being itself, the principle from which being proceeds; Real Principles include beginning, foundation, origin, location, condition, cause of any type, and elements of composition), and Logical Principles (a principle of knowledge, a truth from which other truths proceed). As Fr Chad Ripperger writes, "A logical principle is one that governs how we come to know a thing and logical principals are said to be built into the very structure of our intellect. By virtue of the fact they are built into our intellect by nature they are said to be connatural...(belonging) to a nature as it exists". And "It is connatural to the human intellect to perform its operations according to first principles, e.g. it is contrary to the nature of the (human) intellect to violate the principle of non-contradiction."

These First Principles are innate to the human mind, and they are self-evident, such as the principles of non-contradiction (a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same respect or relation". They come "naturally" to us, as human beings, these first principles. Decartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am," but of course René had it backwards: because it is natural to the human mind to think, and because René was a human, therefore he should have written, "I am, therefore I think."

So, one can "mess up" even the most basic thinking, the most basic ways of knowing. Fr Ripperger points out that some humans don't have all this fully developed because they're children and of course still developing, or also the mentally ill or mentally handicapped in some manner. However, there's a third category of human that can't grasp these innate principles. Fr R writes, "Another impediment is the foolishness of the person, i.e. as Aristotle observes, it pertains to the fool to deny what is self-evident; or we may say a person who denies self-evident principles is irrational." An example would be David Hume, Fr R writes "For example, Hume in his critique of causality not only denies the principle of causality which is self-evident, but he must also deny the principle of sufficient reason and non-contradiction as a result of his rejection of the principle of causality."

(My favorite modern philosopher, Edward Feser, a superb Scholastic, has a great time pummeling the "plump Scotsman" David Hume, the doyen of the Enlightenment and a complete idiot.)

I think there can be no doubt that the literal "foolishness" of Hume (and Kant, who basically spent a lifetime arguing against Hume, but within Hume's demented intellectual framework) laid the foundation for the "foolishness" of the Moderns. It is obvious, as a matter of self-evident first principles, that a man cannot marry a man or change his sex via hormones and plastic surgery. And it is certainly self-evident, after all the blood and horror and tragedy of the 20th century, that Socialism, whether Black, Red, or Green, is a disaster.

Yet people of a certain type keep pushing for it. G. K. Chesterton wrote somewhere that a vice is bad enough, but no vice is as dangerous as a virtue gone bad. All Socialism is, on one level, is Christian Charity gone insane: "You will be charitable or you will be shot!" I'm sure that virtue gone rogue figures into it, at least in many confused individuals.

But maybe, in the end, and as we can see in different ways unique to each color of Socialism, it is just really a thanatos, a death wish. The Nazis were going to ultimately not just kill Jews and Gypsies, but the French were to be liquidated, and everyone else, eventually, and finally, no doubt, it was envisioned the Germans would commit national suicide (in actually, in very real way they did; look at how many Germans Hitler killed in general, or through his insanity made them toxic, which got them expelled from so much of Europe where they had live and contributed to for centuries; and finally, left them with such guilt that they seem to be not reproducing). Of course Red Socialism kills everyone in the end too, via starvation. The Ukraine in the Stalin times or Venezuela today. And there's absolutely no doubt that Green Socialism would be happiest if the human race just went out of existence. How often have you heard or read of someone saying the planet would be better off if humans went extinct?

A certain type of human will indeed eventually go extinct. The type that cannot grasp the self-evident.

An Préachán

www.corvinescatholiccorner.blogspot.hu