Robert Mueller, the consummate DC schemer

It's time for a reckoning for Robert Mueller.  He is one of those D.C. veteran political appointees who carried a reputation as a righteous, honest man — as was said of James Comey not so long ago.  But the ability to get and keep bipartisan support as a high-level political appointee and maintain a broad but shallow reputation as honest seems to require more than small amount of craftiness, stealth, and duplicity when it comes to sensitive bureaucracies in the federal government's vast apparatus.

Clear-eyed realists like Howie Carr were never fooled by Mueller, who seems to have mastered the art of not rocking the bureaucratic boat, even when faced with actual corruption.

Now that his report is finished, with volume one an honest admission of failure to find any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians and volume two a dishonest attempt to lay out a case for impeachment of Trump on the spurious claim of obstruction of justice, as Alan Dershowitz conclusively demonstrates:

So it is now time to get the measure of the man, Robert Mueller.

Louis Gohmert, one of my favorite people in Congress, has been watching Mueller for a long time and is immune to the seductions of the Beltway consensus.  Speaking with Breitbart a few days ago, he laid out the answer to a question that has been puzzling me for a long time: when and where was the FBI politicized?  Gohmert fingers Mueller as the point man:

"I gave him a pass the very first time I questioned him years ago, when he was FBI director," recalled Gohmert.  "But then after that, I found out how much damage he was doing to the FBI, more than anybody, including Hoover in his worst days.  It was astounding.  He ran off thousands and thousands of years of experienced special agents in charge of offices, often went from having 25 years experience to five or six years experience.  He did not want anything but yes-men.  He didn't want people with experience.  He didn't want law enforcement agents with experience."

Purging the leadership of the offices of the FBI across the country and installing your own yes-men (and women) is an excellent way of seizing control of an organization and redirecting it.

"This guy is not a good guy," added Gohmert, "and I've been saying that since the day he was appointed.  This was a disastrous mistake.  He had been begging Trump to appoint him as FBI director again, one day before he was offered [the special counsel position], and Trump refused, and a day later he gets the chance to not just prosecute Trump but also persecute him, and that is what he's been doing.

"Both [Robert Mueller] and his joined-at-the-hip buddy Comey ... they both have a history of leaking when they want to hurt somebody that they don't have evidence to prosecute.  They've done that.  In fact, if you go back to James Hatfill, who Mueller accused of being behind the anthrax killings after 9/11, and at one point it was so bad that President Bush called him in and said, 'There doesn't appear to be any evidence against this guy.  You sure it's the right guy?'  He said, '100 percent.'  Well, there was no evidence."

Gohmert continued, "[James Comey and Robert Mueller] went after [James Hatfill] like they went after Ted Stevens when the FBI totally manufactured a case under Mueller's watch, and in that case, they prosecuted an innocent man — not just maybe not guilty but totally innocent — and got him convicted because they had gotten warrants, grabbed all the evidence Ted Stevens needed to prove his innocence, and didn't give him that.  They created [and] manufactured evidence, and they were able to convict a guy just days before the election which he lost by maybe a couple of thousand votes."

Gohmert concluded, "This is not a good man.  He should not have been allowed to get anywhere near a special counsel job, and I don't care what Lindsey Graham says, he just doesn't know the man like I do."

This news, only hours old from Paul Sperry, reinforces Gohmert's assessment of Mueller:  

If this is true — that Mueller has embedded spies in Horowitz's I.G. organization and has been getting updates from his spies — it is shocking, but maybe not surprising.  My understanding is that the I.G. is supposed to be independent and the work held confidential from those on whom reports are being researched and written.

Sperry needs to offer evidence, and I assume he had some before he tweeted his contention.  I suggest that the investigation of the investigators needs to take a look at more than the genesis of the FISA warrants and the finding of Fusion GPS.

Graphic credit: Donkey Hotey (cropped)

If you experience technical problems, please write to