Robert Mueller Should Be Executed For Treason

11 03 2018

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The crime of treason against the United States is punishable by imprisonment or death.  Article III, Section 3 of our Constitution defines treason and its punishment:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.[2]

The United States Code states at 18 U.S.C. § 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.[3][4]

As FBI Director, Robert Mueller was a co-conspirator and complicit in the “Uranium One”-Russian-Clinton scandal, involving the payment by Russia’s killer Vladimir Putin[5] (directly or indirectly) of approximately $145 million to former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and their foundation—in exchange for the transfer of 20 percent of America’s critical Uranium assets to Russia.[6]  This is undisputed.

Putin kills people. He does not authorize the payment of a penny, much less $145 million, without expecting results—which he and Russia received in spades.  As FBI Director, what did Mueller know and when did he know it?  And what, if anything, did he do to prevent both the Clinton payments and the Uranium transfers?

Also, there are reasons to believe that Mueller has conspired and continues to conspire with Rod Rosenstein and others to reverse the results of the last American presidential election.  This alone constitutes treason, which is punishable by imprisonment or death.  And a multitude of other crimes have been perpetrated by them.[7]

These are not idle or frivolous statements, but contentions that go to the very essence of our great nation’s constitutional republic.  Indeed, it is posited that no greater internal threat to our nation’s existence has occurred since its founding.  Even our Civil War was a war of secession by the South, not a war to alter our form of democratic government.

Mueller and his co-conspirators have given aid and comfort to our enemies by trying to bring down the duly-elected presidency of Donald Trump.  Their efforts and funding should be cease immediately; all of their ongoing activities should be turned over to rank-and-file employees of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)[8]; and they should be prosecuted.

The DOJ and FBI corrupted an American election, and the wrongdoers must be brought to justice.  To make certain that it never happens again, an example must be made of Mueller, not dissimilar to that of Benito Mussolini in Italy during World War II.  He must be prosecuted for treason and other crimes, convicted, and executed—to send the message of “Never Again” far and wide.


Robert Mueller the criminal


© 2018, Timothy D. Naegele


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at

[2]  See

[3]  See

[4]  Possibly the last person charged with and executed for treason was Adam Yahiye Gadahn “for videos in which he appeared as a spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened attacks on American soil.  He was killed on January 19, 2015 in an unmanned aircraft (drone) strike in Waziristan, Pakistan.”


[5]  See (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”)

[6]  See (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”)

[7]  See, e.g., (“WILL BARACK OBAMA GO TO PRISON?”) and (“A Reckoning For The Corrupt DOJ, FBI And Robert Mueller”) and (“As FBI Director, Mueller Helped Cover Up Fla. 9/11 Probe, Court Docs Show”) and (“BARACK OBAMA’S FAILED, CHAOTIC, RACIST AND TREASONOUS PRESIDENCY’S FINAL DAYS”) and (“Remove, Disbar, And Prosecute Robert Mueller!”) and (“The Designated Target Of A TREASONOUS Elite FBI Cabal: The President Of The United States”) and (“THE FACE OF EVIL: ROBERT MUELLER”)

[8]  See (“The United States Department of Injustice”)



20 responses

11 03 2018
Jonathan Buttall

Robert Mueller; United States Marine, War hero and combat veteran of Vietnam, former FBI director and now Special Counselor. Most American man in the USA.

Timmy, I stopped participating in this site because your articles were getting too extreme, but with this one, I sadly have to leave this site altogether. This is beyond the pale, sick and the most Anti American column I’ve ever seen.


11 03 2018
H. Craig Bradley

Jonathan, spoken like a True Liberal (Progressive) Democrat. You surely won’t be missed around here.

Liked by 1 person

11 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Jonathan, for your comments. I respect your feelings on the subject.

Obviously, I feel just as strongly as you do; and both of us are free to present our views.

First, the Vietnam War was a tragedy in which approximately 58,000 Americans lost their lives; many more were maimed for life; vast riches of the United States and the American people were wasted; and tragically, more than a million people died for nothing.

See, e.g., (“Vietnam War casualties”)

It was perpetrated by John F. Kennedy, who was despicable for a myriad of reasons; Lyndon Johnson; and Robert McNamara. Each was a criminal in his own right.

See, e.g., (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

I had friends who died in that war, or were among the “walking wounded,” and their sacrifices were for nothing. They were used and abused by our “leaders.”

Today, Vietnam is our “ally”; and many who fought in that war have had to atone for their sins. Without knowing all of the facts about Mueller, one cannot draw a conclusion about his role and misdeeds in that war.

Second, what we do know is Mueller’s role at the FBI and now as Special Counsel. It is despicable; and there are reasons to believe that he has been and is in the process of committing treason.

My guess is that history will not be kind to him. He is not a hero in any respect, but a sanctimonious traitor who is every bit as evil as Russia’s Putin.

See, e.g., (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”)

Third, what we do know for certain too is that the DOJ and FBI have been corrupt for decades. Anyone who has dealt with them knows this as a fact.

See, e.g., (“The United States Department of Injustice”)

Lastly, I am struck by your description of Mueller as the “Most American man in the USA.” Again, with all due respect, I believe he ranks as one of the greatest traitors in U.S. history. For that reason, as I have written:

[A]n example must be made of Mueller, not dissimilar to that of Benito Mussolini in Italy during World War II. He must be prosecuted for treason and other crimes, convicted, and executed—to send the message of “Never Again” far and wide.

Nothing less will suffice.


11 03 2018
H. Craig Bradley


Fusion One: The Dossier, was a covert, orchastrated attempt by Hillary Clinton et. al to influence the 2016 Presidential election and win the Presidency ( Hillary’s Holy Grail ). She lost but the hanger’s-on and moles in the Federal system are not about to surrender any time soon. Thus, official corruption (cancer) is still spreading. Diagnosis: Terminal Disease to the Body Politic.
Rx: Purges, once daily by mouth (orally).

Liked by 1 person

11 03 2018
H. Craig Bradley


Sanctuary State Status in California is “nullification”, exactly what the South did prior to the Civil War. Nullification of Federal Laws by a State is in itself unconstitutional. However, our weakened politic and Federal Government cannot deal with this progressive state law decisively enough to eradicate all the conspirators. Thus, California may eventually end-up seceding from the Union by default, without a shot or a confrontation with its leadership.


11 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Craig.

I believe those governmental functionaries in California who are engaged in such lawless practices will lose; they may go to jail; and California will not secede.

Yes, in many respects, California is a far-Left “wacko” state governmentally, but the people of California will only allow it to go so far. Also, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court, among other federal courts, will curtail California’s lawlessness.

California is the state in which I was born and raised; and I will always love the state. But the pendulum swings. Among other things, Earl Warren, Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger were its GOP governors.

Last but not least, all federal funding to so-called “sanctuary” cities and/or states can be cut off completely. I have cited what Lincoln did, and Donald Trump can engage in similar practices.

See (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond”)

Also, the executive branch can ignore what “lawless” judges decree. Clearly, the judiciary does not have a military to enforce anything.


12 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Ban Robert Mueller

Victor Morton has written in the Washington Times:

There is no evidence of collusion between the Kremlin and President Trump’s campaign, the House intelligence committee said in a statement Monday.

Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican who led the probe, announced Monday the completion of a 150-page draft report with findings.

“We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” the committee statement said.

Mr. Conaway went further than that in an interview with Fox News, saying the panel also could not conclude that Russian President Vladimir “Putin favored Trump” in the Kremlin’s effort to sow chaos in the U.S. democratic process.

The report still need to be perused by the panel’s minority Democrats and sent to the White House for a declassification review by America’s intelligence agencies.

See (“House intel committee finds no evidence of collusion between Trump campaign, Russia“)

Robert Mueller should shut down his “witch hunt” immediately. Otherwise, as stated in the article above, he should be prosecuted for treason, and subjected to the maximum punishment possible, including death by execution for his many crimes.


17 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Criminal McCabe falls

Todd Beamon has written for Newsmax:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Friday fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, citing “an unauthorized disclosure to the news media” and lacking “candor” with Justice Department investigators, two days before his retirement on Sunday.

The attorney general’s decision makes McCabe, 49, a frequent target of attacks by President Donald Trump, ineligible for full retirement benefits derived from more than two decades of federal government service.

“I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately,” Sessions said in a statement. “The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability.”

McCabe immediately responded in a statement: “I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey.”

He joined the FBI in 1996 and became No. 2 under former Director James Comey in early 2016.

McCabe briefly [headed] the agency after President Donald Trump fired Comey in May 2016, abruptly taking leave in January after a report from the Justice Department’s inspector general about his actions during a probe of the Clinton Foundation.

He told CNN on Friday that “I absolutely never misled the inspector general in any way.”

McCable also slammed the termination as resulting from “a series of attacks designed to undermine my credibility and my reputation.”

In his statement, Sessions said that the Justice Department’s inspector general and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) found that McCabe “had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and had lacked candor, including under oath, on multiple occasions.”

He called the IG’s investigation “extensive and fair,” leading to a report on “allegations of misconduct” by McCabe that was provided to the FBI.

OPR, Sessions said, “reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending” McCabe’s dismissal.

In its recommendation Wednesday, OPR said that “all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand,” Sessions said.

The inspector general’s report has yet to be made public.

McCabe was to turn 50 on Sunday, making him eligible for retirement benefits at an “enhanced” rate because he was a law-enforcement officer covered by the system for federal employees, according to news reports.

The IG announced a wide-ranging investigation last year into the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe — and Trump has repeatedly slammed McCabe’s actions during the inquiry.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Thursday described him as “a bad actor” to reporters in light of the IG’s report.

“We do think it is well documented that he has had some very troubling behavior and by most accounts a bad actor and should have some cause for concern,” she said at the daily briefing.

McCabe was at the Justice Department on Thursday with his lawyer to plead his case against termination.

In addition, Republicans on Capitol Hill have blasted McCabe, suggesting that Justice and FBI officials conspired against Trump when it began an investigation into the president’s ties to Russia.

According to the IG’s report, McCabe authorized FBI officials to talk to a reporter from The Wall Street Journal in October 2016 for a story on differing views within the FBI and Justice Department on how aggressively the Clinton Foundation should be investigated.

The report is also expected to allege that McCabe was not forthcoming with the agency about the media leak, which McCabe has denied.

In his attacks on McCabe, President Trump cited campaign contributions that his wife, Jill McCabe, had received during a failed run for the Virginia state Senate in 2015 from a political action committee of then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton ally.

Because McCabe was fired on Friday, he lost out on an annual pension of nearly $60,000 under formulas published by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for law-enforcement officers, according to news reports.

McCabe also most likely will be docked that amount until he reaches just under 57 years of age or as late as 62.

Further, McCabe most likely will also lose other benefits from serving in law enforcement, as well health and medical benefits.

See (“AG Sessions Fires Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe“) (emphasis added); see also DOJ’s Office of Inspector General’s “A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe” (PDF version) and (“Justice Department IG Submits Criminal Referral on McCabe“)

Hopefully McCabe is indicted, convicted and goes to prison for the rest of his life, and is joined by other despicable wrongdoers (e.g., Barack Obama, the Clintons, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Susan Rice).

The dominos are falling one by one, which—when the process is completed—may cleanse the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI of corruption that has existed for literally decades.

Like Hollywood’s century-old depravity, we can only hope that this is not too much to ask for or expect.

The dominos fall


18 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Traitor Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks

Robert Mueller the criminal

Daniel Ashman has written for The Federalist:

Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump’s side.

We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator 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. They now brag about spending “hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case.” Let’s take a closer look at Mueller’s response to understand the context of the investigation — who his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty.

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax, setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers. Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax: Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from “bumping into a suitcase,” and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for “skin irritation.” A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. 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 John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued, Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed was 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 writer was atypical in many respects and not “comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case lettering.” The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled American with bad personal skills.

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 a Muslim.

Mueller’s FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit — 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.

There was no direct link from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI’s own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill. The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.

While Hatfill’s dignity and life was being trampled on by America’s secret police, Mueller took a stand. But on a different topic. He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an American in the FBI’s largest-ever investigation.

Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million dollars.

After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI’s face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins, another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and had been doing so for years. It wasn’t until five years after the attack that Mueller’s men decided Ivins was a target.

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

The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but Frontline documented this was not true. Ivins was “familiar” with the area from which the anthrax letters were mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the case showing 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, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive — so sophisticated and dangerous 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, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was 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 Ivins was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and they were “confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks.”

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks, did not believe that Ivins was the sole actor. Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI’s case by the National Academy of Science, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the FBI’s science and conclusions were not solid.

A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI, alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.

Mueller made his position known, saying, “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-Qaida for the anthrax letters because he couldn’t find a direct link. But then he targeted American citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone (except Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert).

Now he’s running the Trump-Russia investigation.

See (emphasis added); see also (“[It is surprising] that lawmakers have lauded Mueller as a stellar and well-respected former FBI director but have little knowledge about the former bureau director’s past from the criticism during his years in Boston, challenges with the 911 Commission findings when he was first appointed to the FBI and handling of the Anthrax case to name a few”—”In Boston, Mueller was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and then became the Acting U.S. Attorney from 1986 through 1987.
It was Mueller’s actions during that time that raised questions about his role in one of the FBI’s most controversial cases involving the FBI’s use of a confidential informant that led to the convictions of four innocent men, who were sentenced to death for murders they did not commit. Local law enforcement officials, the media, and some colleagues criticized Mueller and the FBI for what they believed was the bureau’s role in covering up for the FBI’s longtime dealings with mobster and informant James ‘Whitey’ Bulger”—”Mueller who was first an assistant US attorney, ‘then as the acting US attorney in Boston’ had written ‘letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset'”—”In 2001, those four men, who were convicted in 1965 of Teddy Deegan’s murder were exonerated by the courts. It was discovered that the FBI withheld evidence from the court to protect their informant that would have cleared the men”

As stated in my article above, Mueller must be removed from office, indicted, convicted and executed for treason, to send a message loud and clear to the world that his conduct will not be tolerated in the United States ever again.

Nothing less will suffice.


20 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Wing Nut Congressman Suozzi Should Be Prosecuted For Treason

President Trump and traitor Suozzi

Ed Kilgore has written in the New York Magazine:

In pursuit of the ever-popular Beltway sport of False Equivalence, it’s common to see today’s left-bent resistance to Donald Trump compared to right-wing extremist movements of the recent past, from the tea party movement to precincts further off in the fever swamps. This sort of talk is often the product of laziness or malice. But now and then something happens that makes left-right parallels unavoidable and accurate. One such incident, surprisingly, comes from the loose lips of a member of Congress, New York’s Tom Suozzi. According to the New York Post, the Nassau County Democrat had this to say about the remedies available to deal with Donald J. Trump during a town hall meeting last week:

“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president,” Suozzi said in a newly released video of the March 12 talk in Huntington. “This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

A listener then blurts out, “What’s the Second Amendment?”

The left-leaning Democrat says, “The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.

First time I read about this, I thought maybe Suozzi was joking. Apparently not.

Suozzi political adviser Kim Devlin denied the pol was “advocating for an armed insurrection.”

But the Suozzi campaign at the same time seemed to double down on the comments, as they forwarded a line penned by Thomas Jefferson that called for armed resistance.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” the quote said.

The idea that the Second Amendment is intended to preserve the right of the people to undertake a violent revolution against some present or future “tyrannical” government is dangerously common on the political right. It’s usually articulated by those who oppose any firearm regulations whatsoever. But at a deeper level, the availability of “Second Amendment remedies” is the foundation stone of the militia movement, and represents a not-very-subtle threat from anti-democratic (not to mention anti-Democratic) activists of all sorts that there are rights — ranging from property rights to the so-called right to life of the unborn — that no popular majority will be allowed to violate perpetually without provoking righteous violence. This Second Amendment–based right of revolution was embraced by 2016 Republican presidential candidates Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Mike Huckabee.

This sort of loose talk has largely been accepted as part of conventional conservative politics, though Donald Trump did raise some eyebrows during the 2016 general election by hinting that he might share it:

Repeating his contention that Mrs. Clinton wanted to abolish the right to bear arms, Mr. Trump warned at a rally here that it would be “a horrible day” if Mrs. Clinton were elected and got to appoint a tiebreaking Supreme Court justice.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

So Suozzi is in some pretty strange company in adopting the Second Amendment remedies meme, including, perhaps, the man whose threats to the Constitution apparently pushed him in this direction in the first place.

I’m sure Suozzi will issue a “clarification” before the sun sets tonight. But his remarks should serve as an opportunity for left-of-center folk to swear off similar thinking once and for all. There are few things more frightening than the possibility that participants in today’s hyperpolarized partisan politics will all get into the habit of threatening to take up shooting irons to redress the imperfections of our political system. Progressives would be well-advised to leave this sort of extremist reasoning to the gun nuts and the wing nuts.

See (“Democratic Congressman Hints at Armed Rebellion Against Trump“); see also (“Dem Congressman Suggests Taking Up Arms to Oppose President Trump“)

Democrats have done enough already to undermine our electoral and constitutional processes.

Like Robert Mueller who should be executed for treason, as discussed in my article above and the comments beneath it, traitors and swine like Suozzi should be indicted, convicted and incarcerated for treason.

Nothing less will suffice.

And yes, lots of us began as Democrats but will never vote for one again.


21 03 2018

Not very long ago, I said the “coup” could possibly be in play. Now, I know it is, and it’s up to “you out there” to put an end to it.

Liked by 1 person

21 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Yes, indeed, Smilin Jack.

It is nice to see you back.


21 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


John Brennan traitor

George Neumayr has written for the American Spectator:

It was the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky who coined the phrase the “dustbin of history.” To his political opponents, he sputtered, “You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!”

It is no coincidence that John Brennan, who supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party in the 1970s (he has acknowledged that he thought his vote for its presidential candidate Gus Hall threatened his prospects at the CIA; unfortunately, it didn’t), would borrow from Trotsky’s rhetoric in his fulminations against Donald Trump. His tweet last week, shortly after the firing of Andrew McCabe, reeked of Trotskyite revolutionary schlock: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.”

America will triumph over a president it elected? That’s the raw language of coup, and of course it is not the first time Brennan has indulged it. In 2017, he was calling for members of the executive branch to defy the chief executive. They should “refuse to carry out” his lawful directives if they don’t agree with them, he said.

Trump has said that the Russians are “laughing their asses off” over the turmoil caused by Obamagate. No doubt many of the laughs come at the sight of Brennan, a supporter of Soviet stooges like Gus Hall, conducting a de facto coup from the top of the CIA and then continuing it after his ouster. Who needs Gus Hall when John Brennan is around? This time the Russians don’t even have to pay for the anti-American activity.

Another hardcore leftist, Samantha Power, who spent the weeks after Trump’s victory rifling through intelligence picked up on his staff, found Brennan’s revolutionary tweet very inspiring. “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan,” she wrote. Sounded pretty dark and grave. But not to worry, she tweeted later. She just meant that the former CIA director was going to smite Trump with the power of his “eloquent voice.”

Out of power, these aging radicals can’t help themselves. They had their shot to stop Trump, they failed, and now they are furious. The adolescent coup talk grows more feverish with each passing day. We have a former CIA director calling for the overthrow of a duly elected president, a former attorney general (Eric Holder) calling for a “knife fight,” a Senate minority leader speaking ominously about what the intelligence community might do to Trump (“they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer has said), and assorted former FBI and CIA officials cheering for a coup, such as CNN’s Phil Mudd who says, “You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win.”

In all this unhinged chatter, the partisan origins of Obamagate become clearer. The same anti-Trump hatred on display in their tweets and punditry drove the political espionage. James Kallstrom, the former FBI Assistant Director, notes that the “animus and malice” contained in Brennan’s tweet is “prima facie exposure of how he felt about Trump before the election.”

All the key figures in the decision to open up a probe on Trump wanted him to lose — from Brennan to Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump machinations included, according to the latest batch of texts with his mistress, plotting to manipulate a buddy on the FISA court. In one text, he wonders if he can finagle a meeting with his friend by inviting him to a “cocktail party.” The impropriety aforethought on display in that tweet is staggering, but of course the media has paid no attention to it, preoccupied as it is with Andrew McCabe’s retirement income.

McCabe, by the way, has removed all doubts about his capacity for partisan lying with his post-firing statement, which rests entirely upon it. With all of its anti-Trump special pleading, the statement reads like it was cobbled together by Rachel Maddow. Like so many other ruling-class frauds, McCabe seeks absolution for his perjury and leaking through liberal politics. I stand with the liberal powerful against Trump, you can’t touch me — that’s the upshot of his defense. Comey has taken the same tack. The title of his forthcoming book should be: How the Law Doesn’t Apply to the Self-Appointed Ruling Class.

What an amazing collection of entitled creeps, who long ago convinced themselves that the “rule of law” is identical to what they see as their sacred right to exercise power in any way they see fit. All the blather about Trump’s violation of the law is simply a projection of their own lawlessness. So far the coup has been thwarted. They had hoped to stop him in the campaign through political espionage. But that didn’t work. Then they tried to upend him through spying during the transition, holding out hope until the very last moment, as evidenced by Susan Rice penning her sham exculpatory note only after Trump’s swearing-in. Now they join Brennan in seeking to bury Trump in Mueller’s dustbin.

Trotsky would have understood the shorthand of all the tweets, polemics, and posturing perfectly. Nothing in this show trial bears any relationship to reality or justice. It is simply an expression of power politics, which doesn’t always end well for its exponents. As even an old Gus Hall supporter like John Brennan must know, and perhaps his fulminating panic indicates a dawning awareness of it, those who talk the loudest about their enemies heading for the ash heap of history often end up in it.

See (“John Brennan’s Thwarted Coup“) (emphasis added)

Like Robert Mueller who should be executed for treason—as discussed in my article above, and in the comments beneath it—traitors and swine like Barack Obama’s former CIA Director Brennan should be indicted, convicted and incarcerated for treason, at the very least.

Nothing less will suffice.


22 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Traitor James Clapper

Distinguished writer and editor Bill Gertz has written for the Washington Free Beacon:

A House Intelligence Committee investigation of Russian election meddling has concluded that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper misled Congress about disclosing information to CNN.

The committee’s final report on the investigation was approved on Thursday and now awaits an intelligence agency review.

Despite 472 days of investigation and thousands of witnesses, the committee stated in its list of final conclusions and recommendations that it found no evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump, his campaign aides, and Russia.

“The committee found no evidence that meetings between Trump associates—including Jeff Sessions—and official representatives of the Russian government—including Ambassador Kislyak—reflected collusion, coordination, or conspiracy with the Russian government,” the list states.

The report also said former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI regarding conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak “even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents did not detect any deception during Flynn’s interview.”

The finding suggests the FBI improperly charged Flynn.

The Obama administration also failed to notify the Trump campaign that members of the campaign were assessed to be counterintelligence concerns, the report said.

The committee said opposition to Trump from the U.S. national security establishment prompted the campaign to hire unqualified aides such as George Papadopoulous and Carter Page.

Trump advisers had contacts with the pro-Russian Wikileaks, but none were involved in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign emails, the report said.

On the former DNI, the report says that Clapper, now a contributor to CNN as a national security analyst “provided inconsistent testimony to the committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN.”

A CNN spokeswoman did not return an email seeking comment. Clapper could not be reached for comment.

The report also states that leaks of classified information about Russian intentions to sow discord in the U.S. presidential election began prior to Election Day. The disclosures of U.S. secrets alleging Russia was working to help elect Trump “increased dramatically” after the Nov. 8, 2016 election.

The panel suggested that the leaks “correlate to specific language” in a U.S. intelligence community assessment of Russian election meddling.

The finding suggests that leaks of classified information were politically motivated to undermine Trump after he won the election.

The findings also say the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign funded the anti-Trump dossier produced by former British intelligence officers Christopher Steele.

Steele “claims to have obtained his dossier information second- and third-hand from purported high-placed Russian sources, such as government officials with links to the Kremlin and intelligence services,” the report says.

“Christopher Steele’s information from Russian sources was provided directly to Fusion GPS and Perkins Cole and indirectly to the Clinton campaign,” the report said.

The report suggests that the research group Fusion GPS was used by Russia for disinformation. “Prior to conducting opposition research targeting candidate Trump’s business dealings, Fusion GPS conducted research benefitting Russian interests,” the report said.

The Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS early in the 2016 election campaign but had no role in the Steele dossier.

The report also concluded that Russia intelligence used social media to sow political discord and undermine the election.

The FBI was criticized by the committee for not providing victims information about Russian hacking operations.

Also, U.S. intelligence community judgments regarding Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s strategic intentions “did not employ proper analytic tradecraft,” the report said.

The report said Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted former Trump campaign aide Paul Manafort on charges unrelated to collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

See (“House Probe Accuses Clapper of Misleading Congress“) (emphasis added)

Like Robert Mueller who should be executed for treason—as discussed in my article above, and in the comments beneath it—traitors and swine like Barack Obama’s former U.S. Director of National Intelligence Clapper should be indicted, convicted and incarcerated for treason, at the very least.

Nothing less will suffice.


31 03 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Dershowitz On Special Counsel: The Investigation Should End [UPDATED]

Alan Dershowitz

Jack Fink has reported for CBS in Dallas-Fort Worth:

Civil Liberties attorney Alan Dershowitz said Wednesday that he is fearful of the criminalization of political differences in today’s discourse and that he doesn’t think special counsels are the right way to approach criminal justice.

Dershowitz spoke to CBS 11 political reporter Jack Fink about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

“I think the investigation should end and I think the Congress should appoint a special non-partisan commission,” said Dershowitz. He said he thinks a Congressional committee would be too partisan.

“That’s the way it’s done in other western democracies,” he continued. “They don’t appoint a special counsel and tell them to ‘Get that guy . . .’ that’s what they did in the Soviet Union. Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the KGB said to Stalin, ‘Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime!’” That’s what special counsel does.”

Dershowitz was quick to point out that he was not making a direct correlation between the United States and the former Soviet Union. “I’m not comparing obviously the Soviet Union and the United States. We have structural protections in our Bill Of Rights but it’s going down the wrong direction.”

“The issue of criminalization [of political differences] has not been subject to rational discourse,” said Dershowitz. “Democrats hate when they politicize and criminalize political differences against Democrats . . . when they did it with Bill Clinton. Republicans hate when they do it against their people . . . President Trump. But each one supports it when they’re against their enemies and partisanship prevails over principle. It’s very hard to have a reasonable discussion.”

Dershowitz said that citizens should fear the direction of this investigation for their own sake. He warned that today criminalization of political differences appears – now – to only affect presidents and political leaders. “Tomorrow it can affect you and me. If you give the prosecutor the ability to stretch the criminal law to fit a target, it’s very dangerous.”

Dershowitz said that special counsels are not the right way to approach criminal justice. “When you appoint a special counsel you give them targets and you say, ‘You better get that guy or the people around him . . . and we’re going to give you tens of millions of dollars. And if you come up empty handed you’re a failure.’”

Dershowitz said that if an ordinary prosecutor goes months without finding a crime then “that’s great, no . . . there have been no crimes committed.” He says not so with a special counsel. “Special Counsel always has the goal of ‘getting the people.’ They’re going to find crimes, or they’re going to manufacture crimes or they’re going to stretch the criminal law to fit the ‘crimes’ because they’re not going to come away empty handed.”

Dershowitz was asked what he thinks should happen now. Should Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein curtail the investigation? “I think Rod Rosenstein needs to say to the special counsel, ‘Do not investigate the private finances of the president before he became president; do not investigate his relatives; do not investigate his sex life.’ Don’t do – to President Trump – what Ken Starr did to President Clinton,” said Dershowitz . “It started with Whitewater and ended up with a blue dress. That’s not the appropriate way a special counsel should operate.”

Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.

Dershowitz had some strong words for Rosenstein. “I think Rod Rosenstein is concerned more about his reputation than anything else. I don’t understand why he’s not recused,” said Dershowitz. “He is the key witness in the firing of Comey.”

Dershowitz said if he were President Trump’s lawyer, Rosenstein would be the first witness he would call asking him, “Rod Rosenstein, you wrote the memo . . . you justified the firing . . . explain how you justified the firing. Did the President tell you to do it? Did you tell the President to do the firing?”

Dershowitz said the American public is quickly losing faith in the justice system and he called that a terrible, terrible tragedy. “We need neutral objective people administering justice. You can’t have an FBI agent like Strzok who is writing messages saying ‘oh we have to stop Trump from becoming President.’”

Dershowitz was referring to text messages between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer who was also working on the Mueller team.

During the campaign, Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while Clinton was Secretary of State. The texts sent between Page and Strzok were dated between August 2015 and December 2016, the duration of the campaign. They raise concerns about Strzok’s impartiality and were likely to prompt more questions about the investigation into Clinton’s server.

Strzok was dismissed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in August, 2017.

“The American public insists that justice not only be fair, but be seen to be fair – appear to be fair. You need the appearance and the reality of justice. We’re not having that today,” said Dershowitz.

Dershowitz said he thought Trump should not have fired former FBI Director James Comey in the way that he did. “Look, Comey should have been fired. I think Clinton would have fired him had she been elected,” said Dershowitz. “[Comey] did a terrible, terrible thing during the election and he may have influenced the election. That’s not the job of the FBI. He should have been fired but I think it was a mistake for the President to fire him in the manner that he did,” he continued. “I don’t think it was illegal – I think it was a constitutionally authorized act – but I think we wouldn’t have a special counsel today if not for that firing.”

Dershowitz said he sees absolutely no evidence that there was either collusion between Trump and the Russian government and/or obstruction of justice. “I would think by this time there would be some public disclosure of any such charges,” said Dershowitz.

“Collusion – if it happened, and there’s no evidence that it happened – would be a sin, it would not be a crime,” said Dershowitz. “It is not a crime to collude about an election unless there are payments made, or violations of the federal law involving gifts to campaigns from foreign governments. But collusion itself is not a crime.”

“I think that the president cannot be charged with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority. He has the authority to fire anybody in the executive branch – the Supreme Court has said that.”

Regarding a possible impeachment, Dershowitz said “no one knows” whether or not there has to be a crime committed by the President – while he is in office – for him to be impeached.

“I believe the Constitution says what it means. The Constitution says in order to be impeached, the President must have committed bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” said Dershowitz. “I take that seriously. And I don’t think a President can be impeached for doing something that isn’t criminal.” He said he did not think President Bill Clinton should have been impeached either.

Dershowitz said he believes that no party should take up impeachment unless they are sure they can remove the President.

“You don’t go after the President unless he’s committed an act which would warrant removal. And for that to happen, [there] would have to be wide bipartisan support,” said Dershowitz. “There is no bipartisan support for impeachment of this president today.”

Dershowitz said he has taken a lot of heat from friends because some of his positions appear to “help” President Trump. “I didn’t vote for President Trump, I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m going to be honest about the law, whoever is the President.”

Dershowitz was in town to speak before the Institute of Policy Innovation’s Hatton W. Sumners Distinguished Lecture Series Wednesday. The Institute of Policy Innovation is a free-market think tank based in Irving.

He also talked with CBS11 about how it’s likely the census citizenship question issue will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Dershowitz: Mueller Sent Trump ‘Magic Code Word’ With ‘Target’ Comment“)

Several things are abundantly clear.

First, Mueller must never be trusted, as discussed in my article above and in the comments beneath it.

Second, Mueller, McCabe, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice and a whole cast of miscreants must be prosecuted for treason and other crimes, before applicable statutes of limitation run.

Third, I respectfully disagree with Professor Dershowitz about the appointment of a “special non-partisan commission,” and its utility. The first thing that I did when I began working in the U.S. Senate was to staff a presidential commission.

None are “non-partisan”—that is not the way Washington works—and they are convened to bury issues from scrutiny, and buy time, not to resolve them, much less expeditiously.


3 04 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

The Traitor Mueller Found A Very Dishonest Way To Shroud His Investigation In Secrecy [UPDATED]

Robert Mueller the criminal

Colin Kalmbacher has written for Law & Crime:

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his deputy Andrew Weissmann filed a three-page notice on Monday arguing that Alex Van Der Zwaan should not be allowed to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to the ongoing Russia investigation.

As the notice points out, Van Der Zwaan originally agreed to waive his rights to “request or receive” such records from the government during his plea agreement. In the notice, Mueller claims his legal arguments are being filed because the court “drew attention” to a similar waiver agreement during Richard Gates‘ recent arraignment.

That’s likely true, but it strains credulity to think there’s not at least something else going on behind the scenes here. One plausible scenario: Van Der Zwaan’s attorneys have signaled their intent to challenge the government’s FOIA waiver because there’s not much in the way of precedent that actually binds the court to enforce the waiver.

Such waivers are generally considered enforceable, but this is a hotly contested body of law and civil libertarians–as well as defense attorneys–frequently press the issue in the U.S. court system. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the exact question, so consider this all in flux. In a pointed bit of opinion from Price v. DOJ Attorney Office, where a waiver was found unenforceable, the D.C. Circuit noted:

To be clear, we do not hold that FOIA waivers in plea agreements are always unenforceable. We simply hold that the government may not invoke Price’s FOIA waiver as a basis for denying him access to the records he requests because, in this case, the government has given us no adequate rationale for enforcing this waiver in light of the public-policy harms Price has identified. That’s it.

Therefore, the law on point suggests that such waivers can only be enforced when the government can articulate cognizable criminal justice concerns that outweigh the public’s sacred right to information.

Mueller’s notice is aware of the law here–and apparently scared of it. But does the notice outline sufficient criminal justice concerns that could plausibly defeat Van Der Zwaan’s rights? Not really.

The anti-transparency filing reads, in relevant part:

[S]trong interests support the government’s and defendant’s agreement to include this particular waiver, which is limited to the “duration of the Office’s investigation.” The conduct underlying van der Zwaan’s plea arose in the context of an ongoing investigation–indeed one part of a larger ongoing investigation. A waiver that is limited in duration to the remainder of this Office’s investigation thus prevents a defendant from taking further actions that could interfere with the Office’s work. It prevents a defendant, for example, from effectively seeking discovery while the investigation is ongoing.

This is a high water mark for prosecutorial hubris. The government is constitutionally bound to provide criminal defendants with potentially exculpatory evidence or any evidence that may be favorable to them. Here, Mueller has attempted to pull a slight of hand with a classic and dirty lawyer’s trick. Mueller, of course, understands that the constitutional mandate known as the Brady Rule is, well, mandatory.

So, Mueller plays innocent by crowing about the “duration” language used in the original waiver agreement and implies that Van Der Zwaan’s inability to access records related to his case is only a temporary setback. But let’s get a bit real here: Mueller’s case isn’t ending any time soon and the nature of Van Der Zwaan’s legal trouble (he signed a guilty plea) means this durational language is of very little importance.

In other words, Mueller has created a false time line and scenario which makes it look like his office’s anti-transparency efforts are simple and plain but simultaneously shrug-worthy and deathly necessary. But that’s not all.

To be clear: there are nine statutory exemptions which would likely frustrate any potential FOIA request filed by Van Der Zwaan during the ongoing investigation. Whether an appeal to a denied request might force some discovery later in time is an open question and highly fact-specific but that’s not really the issue here. The issue is that Van Der Zwaan is barred from even filing FOIA requests because Mueller has a problem with transparency. Mueller’s court notice employs language akin to statutory FOIA exemption language but this is too clever by a quarter at least. There’s no need for FOIA exemption language because under the waiver agreement, Van Der Zwaan isn’t allowed to even access the FOIA regime.

Furthermore, Mueller’s argumentation is ridiculous in the extreme. The filing continues:

[T]he waiver conserves the scarce resources of the Special Counsel’s Office by avoiding the drain on members of the Office who might be called upon to assemble records and to help explain to other both their significance and the potential that their release could harm the ongoing investigation.

Let’s dispense with this insulting subterfuge as quickly as possible. In a criminal prosecution and otherwise, the government effectively has unlimited resources. As of December last year, Mueller’s investigation had ballooned to roughly $7 million worth of Justice Department funds. The Justice Department’s budget for Financial Year 2017 was nearly $28 billion.

The final argument in Monday’s notice reads:

Additionally, van der Zwaan is in an unusual position of having information related to the Office’s investigation that is not widely known–including information that he knows first-hand due to his role in the conduct the Office is investigating. That kind of information could be used by a defendant to submit highly targeted requests or even requests designed to impose burdens on the Office. And requests filed by someone with non-public information could, themselves, suggest to third parties investigative facts that are otherwise not widely known.

This is fairly remarkable. Here, Mueller has basically offered the public policy argument for why the waiver request should not be allowed. Van Der Zwaan is a high-profile player in a high-stakes U.S. political drama that’s been drawn out longer than most observers expected. His perspective and knowledge, to a large degree, is actually exactly what the public wants.

Mueller’s shook-sounding warning that “requests filed by someone with non-public information could, themselves, suggest to third parties investigative facts that are otherwise not widely known,” is really just a very summation and description of how FOIA laws work in tandem with the news media. Or, in other words, [i]f Alex Van Der Zwaan even attempts to file a FOIA request, journalists might be clued in to information that Mueller doesn’t want them to know about.

The FOIA regime relies upon information requesters having some sort of insight into or familiarity with an issue before they file their requests–and those requests have to be fairly specific. Third parties (re: the news media) frequently learn information from requests they never even thought about filing in the first place. This is literally just how everything works. That Mueller is repackaging this as some sort of potential bad is telling.

The additional blather about “highly targeted requests . . . designed to impose burdens on the Office” is more of the same. Defendants are allowed to–and expected to–impose burdens on the prosecutors who are after them. Notably, however, FOIA laws delineate an exemption more or less along these lines. Again, Mueller is cynically employing the language of FOIA to foreclose against basic access to FOIA. Elementary aspects of the U.S. legal system are being transmogrified into arguments against transparency and defendants’ rights.

Every law student learns lots of pretty myths about the adversarial nature of the U.S. legal system. Maybe they really are just myths. Mueller doesn’t want a formidable adversary. He wants his targets to lay down and take it. But that’s not how justice should work. Not even–especially–not in the Trump era.

See (emphasis added)

Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein are at the center of a massive cover-up of efforts undertaken by Barack Obama, the Clintons and many others (1) to insure that Hillary Clinton would be elected; and after that failed, (2) to undermine a duly-elected American president, Donald Trump, and his new administration.

This is T-R-E-A-S-O-N, and it must be dealt with as such. Indeed, it is probably the greatest constitutional scandal in American history.

Why should any American ever believe in our government again, much less in the DOJ and FBI, unless ALL of the treasonous wrongdoers are brought to justice and punished severely?

Nothing less will suffice.


10 04 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Ban Robert Mueller

Donald Trump is being prosecuted for winning the presidential election.

Civil Liberties attorney Alan Dershowitz—and the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School—has written for TheHill:

There is much speculation as to the significance of the search of the offices and hotel room of President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. To obtain a search warrant, prosecutors must demonstrate to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that the premises to be searched contain evidence of crime. They must also specify the area to be searched, the items to be seized and, in searches of computers, the word searches to be used.

At least that’s the constitutional requirement in theory, especially where the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is involved, in addition to the general Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. Yet, in practice, judges often give the FBI considerable latitude, relying on the “firewalls” and “taint teams” they set up to protect the subject of the search from violation of his or her constitutional rights.

But the firewalls and taint teams are comprised of government agents who themselves may not be entitled to read or review many of the items seized. It is an imperfect protection of important constitutional rights. That’s why Justice Department officials must be careful to limit the searching of lawyers’ offices to compelling cases involving serious crimes. We don’t know at this point what the prosecutors are looking for but, if it relates to payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels, that would not seem to justify so potentially intrusive a search of Cohen’s confidential lawyer-client files.

There are, of course, exceptions to the lawyer-client privilege. First, the lawyer must be acting as a lawyer, not as a friend or business associate. But the scope of a lawyer’s work is quite broad, encompassing much more than merely giving legal advice. It includes settling cases by making payments to potential litigants. Second, the lawyer must be engaged in lawful activities on behalf of the clients. Illegal or fraudulent activities are not covered by the privilege. Nor are communications with third persons, such as the lawyer for the other side, though such communications may be covered by the much weaker “settlement privilege.”

Civil libertarians should be concerned whenever the government interferes with the lawyer-client relationship. Clients should be able to rely on confidentiality when they disclose their most intimate secrets in an effort to secure their legal rights. A highly publicized raid on the president’s lawyer will surely shake the confidence of many clients in promises of confidentiality by their lawyers. They will not necessarily understand the nuances of the confidentiality rules and their exceptions. They will see a lawyer’s office being raided and all his files seized.

I believe we would have been hearing more from civil libertarians— the American Civil Liberties Union, attorney groups and privacy advocates — if the raid had been on Hillary Clinton’s lawyer. Many civil libertarians have remained silent about potential violations of President Trump’s rights because they strongly disapprove of him and his policies. That is a serious mistake, because these violations establish precedents that lie around like loaded guns capable of being aimed at other targets.

I have been widely attacked for defending the constitutional rights of a president I voted against. In our hyperpartisan age, everyone is expected to choose a side, either for or against Trump. But the essence of civil liberties is that they must be equally applicable to all. The silence among most civil libertarians regarding the recent raid shows that we are losing that valuable neutrality.

What else does the raid tell us? It seems likely that special counsel Robert Mueller is bifurcating the investigation: He will keep control over matters relating to Russia, the campaign and any possible obstruction. But he has handed over to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York any matters relating to Trump’s personal and business affairs. Mueller will work hand in hand with the New York prosecutors, but they will be in charge of the other matters. If they manage to find prosecutable evidence against Trump’s lawyer, they may try to squeeze him into cooperating against his client.

It is doubtful that Cohen would cooperate, even if he has anything on his client. But prosecutors often try to get lawyers to “sing” against their clients — to become “canaries” — in order to save their own feathers. Some flipped witnesses will tell prosecutors anything they want to hear in order to earn a “get out of jail free card.” They know that the “better” their story, the more leniency they will earn. So, in addition to singing, they “compose” by making up incriminating details.

I have seen this on many occasions. Mueller has already apparently flipped several witnesses, but Cohen would be his biggest catch in the unlikely event he could be induced to turn against his client. So, stay tuned to this unfolding drama, but remember that prosecutorial tactics used today against President Trump may tomorrow be used against Democrats — and even against you.

See (“Dershowitz: Targeting Trump’s lawyer should worry us all“) (emphasis added); see also (“Mueller violated Michael Cohen’s constitutional rights just by seizing his records says Dershowitz“) and (“‘This has gone too far!’ White House says Trump has had it with Justice Department targeting lawyer Michael Cohen after he accused Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein of approving FBI raid”—”Trump vented Monday evening, saying a ‘witch hunt’ had been ‘going on for over 12 months now – and actually … you could say it was right after I won the nomination, it started'”—”The president also lashed out privately about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who he blames for approving the warrant application that allowed FBI officials to raid Cohen’s office, home and hotel room”—”[H]e called on Justice Department investigators to focus on ‘crimes’ on the ‘other side’ – meaning Democrats and the Hillary Clinton camp. . . . where there are crimes and those crimes are obvious – lies under oath all over the place, emails that are knocked out, that are acid washed and deleted, 33,000 emails were deleted after getting a subpoena from Congress. And nobody bothers looking at that,’ Trump ranted”) and (“Rand Paul warns gloating Trump critics: Mueller’s ‘great overstep’ a danger to all Americans“)

As political pundit Dick Morris has written:

The FBI raid on the offices of Trump attorney Michael Cohen will give special counsel Robert Mueller access to all of the president’s legal files in Cohen’s possession on any subject.

What is becoming crystal clear with each day that passes is that Robert Mueller is a traitor who must be indicted, convicted and executed for treason.

Nothing less will suffice.

His goals—and those of Rosenstein, Barack Obama, the Clintons and many others—from Day One have been to remove a duly-elected President of the United States, and undue the election results of 2016, which is treason.

Unless each of these individuals is brought to justice, and punished severely, there is no reason to believe in this great nation ever again. The DOJ and FBI are no better than killer Putin’s Russian KGB ever was—and just as corrupt for decades.

. . .

At the very least, President Trump should pardon Michael Cohen, just as he pardoned Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio.


12 04 2018
Timothy D. Naegele


Ban Robert Mueller

Patriotic Americans who elected Donald Trump are incensed at attempts to weaken his presidency and/or to destroy it.

One commenter expressed the sentiments of millions of law-abiding U.S. citizens who have never taken to the streets over anything:

Let’s get the EFFING Civil War Started!!! I’m SOOOOO sick of these Deep Stater child molesters, Leftist Communist TRAITORS and RINO Leftists. They need to be KILLED. This is a COUP attempt of our FAIRLY ELECTED PRESIDENT!!!! These SCUM need to DIE.


MAGA 2020.

See (“Senate GOP leaders warn Trump not to fire Mueller but reject calls for legislation to protect him“) (see the comments beneath the article); see also (“Robert Mueller Should Be Executed For Treason“) and (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin“) and (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“)


16 04 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

Congress Must Impeach Deputy AG Rosenstein And FBI Director Wray

Watch the video

See also (“Joe diGenova calls on Congress to impeach Deputy AG Rosenstein and FBI Director Wray“)


16 04 2018
Timothy D. Naegele

James Judas Comey: A Rat And Drama Queen

Mueller Witch Hunt

Piers Morgan has written in the UK’s Daily Mail:

‘My book is about ethical leadership,’ tweeted former FBI Director James Comey yesterday.

To which my immediate response, having watched his shockingly self-serving, unctuously arrogant and cynically exploitative ABC interview to launch the book, is this:

1) What would he know about ethics?

2) What would he know about leadership?

The central premise of Comey’s lengthy literary whine is that Donald Trump’s ‘morally unfit’ to be President.

Yet, as revealed by his own damning words, it’s Comey himself who is not only ‘morally unfit’, but was also ultimately most responsible for getting Trump elected.

It was HIS decision to announce, just 11 days before the 2016 election, that the FBI was re-opening its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails after new ones had been uncovered.

Nine days later, just 48 hours before America voted, and after a week of fevered media coverage, Comey then announced the new emails had been reviewed and Hillary was in the clear.

By then, the damage was done and many people, including Hillary herself, believe the sudden onslaught of negative publicity that followed the original bombshell news helped tip Trump into the White House.

They or may not be right about that, but nobody could argue it was anything but massively unhelpful to the Democrat candidate.

Now, astonishingly, Comey’s admitted he made this decision for political, not legal reasons.

‘It is entirely possible that because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president,’ he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, ‘my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight that it would have if the election appeared closer or if Trump were ahead in all polls.’

Sorry, WHAT?

It wasn’t Comey’s job to factor in his personal interpretation of the political landscape while making any decision, and before reviewing the emails.

It was his job to ensure the FBI reviewed the new information as fast as possible and then make a decision as to what may or not be relevant to inform the American public.

Comey’s rush to go public without knowing the material facts was entirely in keeping with his unsettling lust for self-publicity that ensured his name and face were in the headlines throughout election year.

(An odd character trait, you might think, for an FBI Director?)

The reality is that James Comey’s a snivelling, egotistical worm who quite possibly swung an election through disastrous misjudgment, was correctly fired for staggering incompetence, and is now cashing in on his abject failure in a manner that should make all right-minded Americans, Republican or Democrat, puke in disgust.

It seems quite outrageous to me that he should be able to publish such a lurid, sensationalist, secret-spilling, tell-all book exploiting his own ineptitude – and make millions of dollars by doing so.

The book itself is contaminated by Comey’s deep loathing of the President which is so intense it drags him into the very Trump-style gutter of personal insult and false ‘nudge nudge, wink wink’ smear innuendo he professes to find so distasteful.

For instance, he gleefully recounts how Trump asked him to investigate the notorious, unverified pee-tape prostitute allegations so he could reassure his wife Melania they weren’t true.

This seems a perfectly understandable reaction given the furore that erupted around such humiliating allegations contained in an intelligence dossier that’s since been widely discredited.

But ‘Saint’ Comey thought differently.

‘In what kind of marriage, to what kind of man, does a spouse conclude there is only a 99% chance her husband didn’t do that?’ he opines in his book.


What kind of man concludes that such an intensely private and potentially embarrassing conversation between a president and his then FBI chief should now be made public to sell books?

Comey has no evidence to support the pee-tape claims, but that doesn’t stop him hinting they may be true. Just as when Stephanopoulos pressed him on whether Russia may ‘have something’ on Trump, he replied conspiratorially: ‘It’s possible.’

For Comey, facts don’t matter when unsubstantiated rumours scream book sales ‘KER-CHING!’

Some of the content is pathetically petty.

Comey wants us to know Trump’s not as tall as him and his hands aren’t as large as his, face is ‘slightly orange’ and he has ‘bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assumed he placed small tanning goggles.’


This from a man professing to be mortally offended by Trump’s failure to live up to the high standards of public office?

The timing of Comey’s spiteful gossip-mongering tome seems especially inappropriate given Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation into alleged Russian collusion.

Yet I’m not remotely surprised he’s put personal fortune and self-aggrandising PR before any sense of professional propriety.

When Comey was dismissed a year ago, I wrote then that he was a man with a bizarre, emotion-charged streak of narcissism for someone running the FBI.

His appearance in front of the Senate committee confirmed him to be not a dispassionate, methodical gatherer of facts but a drama queen of toe-curling proportions.

Comey painted a picture of heroic self-sacrifice as he weighed up his two options the week before the election: one ‘bad’ (revealing the development in the Hillary email investigation), the other ‘catastrophic’ (as he put it, ‘concealing’ that development.)

‘I knew this would be disastrous for me personally,’ he said, his face etched with torment. ‘Look, this is terrible,’ he sighed, bottom lip trembling. ‘It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election.’

Ironically, it’s turned out to be the best thing that’s ever happened to Comey, who will now be all he ever wanted to be: a multi-millionaire celebrity; whilst making the rest of us a damn sight more than ‘mildly nauseous.’

The bottom line is this: James Comey was fired for no other reason than being bad at his job.

Rod Rosenstein’s first act when he was appointed Deputy Attorney-General a year ago, was to address the ‘Comey problem’.

Rosenstein spoke to all the relevant people, and then sent President Trump a memo with his assessment and recommendation.

It said that under Comey, the FBI had suffered ‘substantial damage’ to its reputation and credibility.

It hammered him for the way he handled the reopening of the Hillary email investigation, and for ‘his refusal to accept the near universal judgment that he was mistaken.’

The memo also cited former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson’s damning description of Comey’s behaviour as ‘real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation’ that is ‘antithetical to the interests of justice.’

It concluded: ‘The FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.’

Trump read the memo, and rightly fired him.

Now, from his own mouth, Comey’s confirmed Trump why was right.

Aside from numerous other failings, he made a massive decision based on how he viewed the politics of an investigation.

It was a catastrophically bad decision that may well have determined the outcome of a US election.

So if Comey wants someone to blame for President Trump, he needs look no further than his own mirror.

He would have us believe he’s a man of deep integrity but in reality he’s shown himself to be a treacherous, useless, money-grabbing weasel.

If, as Comey offensively claims, Trump behaves like a mob boss – then he is a Sammy the Bull type rat.

His book is entitled ‘A Higher Loyalty’.

I wouldn’t trust James ‘Judas’ Comey to run a bath, let alone the FBI.

See (“No wonder Trump fired James ‘Judas’ Comey – I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw the egotistical, money-grabbing worm and his treacherous, disgraceful, secret-spewing book“) (emphasis added); see also (“‘Comey comes into this moment as sort of a man without a country. . . . Democrats are unhappy in 2016 for having supposedly taken the election away from Hillary Clinton. Republicans are now unhappy with him. He doesn’t have a natural constituency'”) and (“Obama compromised Hillary email probe by putting Clinton in the clear while FBI was still probing her secret server, says Comey“)

Like Mueller, Rosenstein and so many others, Comey is a traitor who should spend the rest of his life in prison—at the very least. Also, the profits from his book should be seized.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: