Saturday, March 30, 2019

Chomsky scoffs at Russia collusion tale


Image result for chomsky

Noam Chomsky says that there is a lot about President Trump that rates criticism, but not 'Russia collusion.' He points out that the Senate and House results in 2016 were comparable to Trump's win, but no one is charging that Russians meddled in House and Senate races.

Chomsky scorns collusion story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtqWezfIhMY

SANDY HOOK: WHY AREN'T
PARENTS UPSET AT OFFICIALS?

Why did parents decline to sue ex-professor?



This image of the purported Sandy Hook killer that was
issued to the media shows signs of distortion. Why?

kk


Interesting how corporate media pounce on 'conspiracy theorists,' such as Alex Jones, while for two years they peddled the kooky Russia collusion witch hunt, despite an obvious lack of evidence. And -- go figure -- the courts have been hostile to defamation cases brought against anti-Trump media with respect to collusion smears.

Parents who are suing Alex Jones for defamation on grounds that his "conspiracy theory" is hurting them don't seem to be interested in calling out officials who gave accounts of the Sandy Hook incident that were inconsistent and full of holes.

Lenny and Veronique Pozner — whose son, Noah, was one of the 26 children and teachers who were officially reported to have died in the December 2012 event — is suing Jones for repeating assertions that the incident was a hoax meant to promote gun control.

Neither the Pozners, nor any other of those listed as parents, have focused on any of the disturbing omissions and disparities in official accounts and demanded answers to the questions raised.

Further, it seems strange that though the Pozners got into a verbal tussle with one of the main conspiracy theorists, James F. Tracy, apparently they did not sue him for defamation. If they did, Google searches return no such result.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-reg-james-tracy-fau-testifying-20171130-story.html

Sandy Hook Hoax Confirmed: Adam Lanza’s Photoshopped Face - nodisinfo.com/ http://nodisinfo.com/adam-lanzas-photoshopped-face/
It has been pointed out that the face of the 'shooter,' Adam Lanza, appears to have been technically altered ('photoshopped') in order to make him look sufficiently sinister. This image, with the superposed red marks, comes from a site, MoralMatters.org, which has been stripped by Google and others of a number of links, pages and videos. YouTube has forbidden you to see the videos in order to protect you from yourselves, no doubt.

Adam Lanza shot each victim between 3 and 11 times during a 5 to 7 minute span, according to officials. If one is to average this out to 7 bullets per individual—excluding misses—Lanza fired 182 times, or once every two seconds. Yet according to the official story Lanza was the sole assassin and armed with only one weapon. Thus if misses and changing the gun’s 30-shot magazine at least 6 times are added to the equation, the average comes out to about one shot per second — extremely skilled use of a single firearm for a young man with no military training.

The parents were not permitted to identify the bodies personally, but only via photograph.

Where are the photos and smartphone videos of the crowd of evacuated children?


Below are two reports by James F. Tracy on the Sandy Hook matter. I do not necessarily agree that every "disparity" cited by Tracy is meaningful. But some things he says grab my attention. For example, it is rather remarkable that there is hardly any photographic or video record of the hundreds of children who were ushered out of the school.


The Sandy Hook School Massacre:
Unanswered Questions and Missing Information


Words enclosed in square braces [word word] are from Tracy. Words enclosed in curly brackets {word word} are from Conant.


By James F. Tracy
Sept. 26, 2014


“[My staff] and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” – Connecticut Medical Examiner D. Wayne Carver II, MD, Dec. 15, 2012

Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the {reported} Newtown school massacre. The public’s general acceptance of the event’s validity and faith in its resolution suggest a deepened credulousness borne from a world where almost all news and information is electronically mediated and controlled. The condition is reinforced through the corporate media’s unwillingness to push hard questions vis-à-vis Connecticut and federal authorities who together bottlenecked information while invoking prior restraint through threats of prosecutorial action against journalists and the broader citizenry seeking to interpret the event on social media.

Along these lines on Dec. 19 the Connecticut State Police assigned individual personnel to each of the 26 families who {reportedly} lost a loved one at Sandy Hook Elementary. “The families have requested no press interviews,” State Police asserted on their behalf, “and we are asking that this request be honored.[1] The de facto gag order will be in effect until the investigation concludes—now forecast to be “several months away” even though lone gunman Adam Lanza has been confirmed as the sole culprit.[2]

With the exception of an unusual and apparently contrived appearance by Emilie Parker’s alleged father, victims’ family members have been almost wholly absent from public scrutiny.[3] What can be gleaned from this and similar coverage raises many more questions and glaring inconsistencies than answers. While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.

The Accidental Medical Examiner
An especially important yet greatly under-reported feature of the Sandy Hook affair is the wholly bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, at a Dec. 15 press conference. Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably amateurish and out of character.

H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured, almost swaggering presence in Connecticut state administration. In early 2012 Carver threatened to vacate his position because of state budget cuts and streamlining measures that threatened his professional autonomy over the projects and personnel he oversaw.

Along these lines, the pathologist has gone to excessive lengths to demonstrate his findings and expert opinion in court proceedings. For example, in a famous criminal case Carver “put a euthanized pig through a wood chipper so jurors could match striations on the bone fragments with the few ounces of evidence that prosecutors said were on the remains of the victim.” [4] One would therefore expect Carver to be in his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise.

Yet the H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the Dec. 15 press conference is an almost entirely different man, appearing apprehensive and uncertain, as if he is at a significant remove from the postmortem operation he had overseen. The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he is either under coercion or an impostor. While the latter sounds untenable it would go a long way in explaining his {inadequate} grasp of medical procedures and terminology.

With this in mind, extended excerpts from this exchange are worthy of recounting here in print. Carver is accompanied by Connecticut State Police Lieutenant H. Paul Vance and additional Connecticut State Police personnel. The reporters are off-screen and thus unidentified and so I have assigned them simple numerical identification based on what can be discerned of their voices.

Reporter #1: So the rifle was the primary weapon?

H. Wayne Carver: Yes.

Reporter #1: [Inaudible]

Carver: Uh (pause). Question was what caliber were these bullets. And I know—I probably know more about firearms than most pathologists but if I say it in court they yell at me and don’t make me answer [sic]—so [nervous laughter]. I’ll let the police do that for you.

Reporter #2: Doctor can you tell us about the nature of the wounds. Were they at very close range? Were the children shot at from across the room?

Carver: Uhm, I only did seven of the autopsies. The victims I had ranged from three to eleven wounds apiece and I only saw two of them with close range shooting. Uh, but that’s, uh y’know, a sample. Uh, I really don’t have detailed information on the rest of the injuries.

[Given that Carver is Connecticut’s top coroner and in charge of the entire postmortem this is a startling admission.-JT]

Reporter #3: But you said that the long rifle was used?

Carver: Yes.

Reporter #3: But the long rifle was discovered in the car.

State Police Lieutenant Vance: That’s not correct, sir.

Unidentified reporter #4: How many bullets or bullet fragments did you find in the autopsy. Can you tell us that?

Carver: Oh. I’m lucky I can tell you how many I found. I don’t know. There were lots of them, OK? This type of weapon is not, uh … the bullets are designed in such a fashion that the energy—this is very clinical. I shouldn’t be saying this. But the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in [the tissue].

[In fact, the Bushmaster .223 Connecticut police finally claimed was used in the shooting is designed for long range field use and utilizes high velocity bullets averaging 3,000 feet per second, the energy of which even at considerable distance would penetrate several bodies before finally coming to rest in tissue.]

Reporter #5: How close were the injuries?

Carver: Uh, all the ones (pause). I believe say, yes [sic].

Reporter #6: In what shape were the bodies when the families were brought to check [inaudible].

Carver: Uh, we did not bring the bodies and the families into contact. We took pictures of them, uhm, of their facial features. We have, uh, uh—it’s easier on the families when you do that. Un, there is, uh, a time and place for the up close and personal in the grieving process, but to accomplish this we thought it would be best to do it this way and, uh, you can sort of, uh … You can control a situation depending on the photographer, and I have very good photographers. Uh, but uh—

Reporter #7: Do you know the difference of the time of death between the mother in the house and the bodies recovered [in the school].

Carver: Uh, no, I don’t. Sorry [shakes head excitedly] I don’t! [embarrassed laugh]

Reporter #8: Did the gunman kill himself with the rifle?

Carver: No. I -- I don’t know yet. I’ll -- I’ll examine him tomorrow morning. But, but I don’t think so.

[Why has Carver left arguably the most important specimen for last? And why doesn’t he think Lanza didn’t commit suicide with the rifle?]

Reporter #9: In terms of the children, were they all found in one classroom or—

Carver: Uhm … [inaudible] [Turns to Lieutenant Vance] Paul and company will deal with that.

Reporter #9: What?

Carver: Paul and company will deal with that. Lieutenant Vance is going to handle that one.

Reporter #10: Was there any evidence of a struggle? Any bruises?

Carver: No.

Reporter #11: The nature of the shooting; is there any sense that there was a lot of care taken with precision [inaudible] or randomly?

Carver: [Exhales while glancing upward, as if frustrated] Both. It’s a very difficult question to answer … You’d think after thousands of people I’ve seen shot but I … It’s … If I attempted to answer it in court there’d be an objection and then they’d win—[nervous laughter].

[Who would win? Why does an expert whose routine job as a public employee is to provide impartial medical opinion concerned with winning and losing in court? Further, Carver is not in court but rather at a press conference.]

Reporter #12: Doctor, can you discuss the fatal injuries to the adults?

Carver: Ah, they were similar to those of the children.

Reporter #13: Doctor, the children you had autopsied, where in the bodies were they hit?

Carver: Uhm [pause]. All over. All over.

Reporter #14: Were [the students] sitting at their desks or were they running away when this happened?

Carver: I’ll let the guys who—the scene guys talk—address that issue. I, uh, obviously I was at the scene. Obviously I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are, uh, the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them—let that [voice trails off].

Reporter [#15]: How many boys and how many girls [were killed]?

Carver: [Slowly shaking his head] I don’t know.

More Unanswered Questions and Inconsistencies
In addition to Carver’s remarks several additional chronological and evidentiary contradictions in the official version of the Sandy Hook shooting are cause for serious consideration and leave doubt in terms of how the event occurred vis-à-vis the way authorities and major media outlets have presented it. It is now well known that early on journalists reported that Adam Lanza’s brother Ryan Lanza was reported to be the gunman, and that pistols were used in the shooting rather than a rifle. Yet these {apparent contradictions represent} merely the tip of the iceberg.

When Did the Gunman Arrive?
After Adam Lanza {reportedly} fatally shot and killed his mother at his residence, he {reportedly} drove himself to the elementary school campus, arriving one half hour after classes had commenced. Dressed in black, Lanza {then reportedly} proceeds completely unnoticed through an oddly vacant parking lot with a military style rifle and shoots his way through double glass doors and a brand new yet apparently poorly engineered security system.

Further, initial press accounts suggest {that} no school personnel or students heard gunshots and no 911 calls are made until after Lanza begins firing inside the facility. “It was a lovely day,” Sandy Hook fourth-grade teacher Theodore Varga said. And then, suddenly and unfathomably, gunshots rang out. “I can’t even remember how many,” Varga said.[5]

That recollection contrasts sharply with an updated version of Lanza’s arrival where at 9:30 a.m. he walked up to the front entrance and fired at least a half dozen rounds into the glass doors. The thunderous sound of Lanza blowing an opening big enough to walk through the locked school door caused Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Scherlach to bolt from a nearby meeting room to investigate. He shot and killed them both as they ran toward him {,officials said.}

Breaching the school’s security system in such a way would have likely triggered some automatic alert of school personnel. Further, why would the school’s administrators run toward an armed man who has just noisily blasted his way into the building?

Two other staff members attending the meeting with Hochsprung and Scherlach sustained injuries “in the hail of bullets” but returned to the aforementioned meeting room and managed a call to 911, {,officials said.} [6] This contrasted with earlier reports where the first 911 call claimed students “were trapped in a classroom with the adult shooter who had two guns.” [7] Recordings of the first police dispatch following the 911 call at 9:35:50 indicate that someone “thinks there’s someone shooting in the building.” [8] There is a clear distinction between potentially hearing shots somewhere in the building and being almost mortally caught in a “hail of bullets.”

How did the gunman fire so many shots in such little time?
According to Dr. Carver and State Police, Lanza shot each victim between 3 and 11 times during a 5 to 7 minute span. If one is to average this out to 7 bullets per individual—excluding misses—Lanza shot 182 times, or once every two seconds. Yet according to the official story Lanza was the sole assassin and armed with only one weapon. Thus if misses and changing the gun’s 30-shot magazine at least 6 times are added to the equation Lanza must have been averaging about one shot per second—extremely skilled use of a single firearm for a young man with absolutely no military training and who was on the verge of being institutionalized. Still, an accurate account of the event is even more difficult to arrive at because the chief medical examiner admittedly has no idea exactly how the children were shot or whether a struggle ensued.

Where is the Photo and Video Evidence?
Photographic and video evidence is at once profuse -- yet lacking, in terms of its capacity to demonstrate that a mass shooting took place on the scale described by authorities. For example, in an era of ubiquitous video surveillance of public buildings ... no visual evidence of Lanza’s violent entry has emerged. And while studio snapshots of the Sandy Hook victims abound there is little if any eyewitness testimony of anyone who has observed the corpses except for Carver and his staff, and they appear almost as confused about the conditions of the deceased as any layperson watching televised coverage of the event. Nor are there any routine eyewitness, photo or video evidence of the crime scene’s aftermath—broken glass, blasted security locks and doors, bullet casings and holes, bloodied walls and floors—all of which are common in such investigations and reportage.

Why Were Medical Personnel Turned Away From the Crime Scene?
Oddly enough, medical personnel are forced to set up their operation not at the school where the dead and injured lay, but rather at the fire station several hundred feet away. This flies in the face of standard medical operating procedure where personnel are situated as close to the scene as possible. There is no doubt that the school had ample room to accommodate such personnel. Yet medical responders who rushed to Sandy Hook Elementary upon receiving word of the {apparent} tragedy were denied entry to the school and forced to set up primary and secondary triages off school grounds and wait for the injured to be brought to them.

Shortly after the shooting “as other ambulances from neighboring communities rolled up, sirens blaring, the first responders slowly realized that their training would {seemingly} be tragically underutilized on this horrible day. ‘You may not be able to save everybody, but you damn well try,’” 44-year-old emergency medical technician James Wolff told NBC News. “’And when (we) didn’t have the opportunity to put our skills into action, it’s difficult.’”[9]

In light of this, who were the qualified medical practitioners that pronounced the 20 children and 7 adults dead? Who decided that none could be revived? Carver and his staff are apparently the only medical personnel to have attended to the victims—yet this was in the postmortem conducted several hours later. Such slipshod handling of the crime scene leaves the State of Connecticut open to a potential array of hefty civil claims by families of the slain.

Did a mass evacuation of the school take place?
Sandy Hook Elementary is attended by 600 students. Yet there is no photographic or video evidence of an evacuation on this scale. Instead, limited video and photographic imagery suggest that a limited evacuation of perhaps at most several dozen students occurred.

A highly circulated photo depicts students walking in a single file formation with their hands on each others’ shoulders and eyes shut. Yet this was the image of a drill that took place prior to the event itself.[10] [See Correction]. Most other photos are portraits of individual children. Despite aerial video footage of the event documenting law enforcement scouring the scene and apprehending one or more suspects in the wooded area nearby the school [11], there is no such evidence that a mass exodus of children from the school occurred once law enforcement pronounced Sandy Hook secure. Nor are there videos or photos of several hundred students and their parents at the oft-referenced fire station nearby where students were routed for parent pick-up.

Sound Bite Prism and the Will to Believe
Outside of a handful of citizen journalists and alternative media commentators, Sandy Hook’s dramatically shifting factual and circumstantial terrain has escaped serious critique because it is presented through major media’s carefully constructed prism of select sound bites alongside a widespread and longstanding cultural impulse to accept the pronouncements of experts, be they bemused physicians, high-ranking law enforcement officers, or political leaders demonstrating emotionally-grounded concern.

Political scientist W. Lance Bennett calls this the news media’s “authority-disorder bias.” “Whether the world is returned to a safe, normal place,” Bennett writes, “or whether the very idea of a normal world is called into question, the news is preoccupied with order, along with related questions of whether authorities are capable of establishing or restoring it.”[12]

Despite Carver’s bizarre performance and law enforcement authorities’ inability to settle on and relay simple facts, media management’s impulse to assure audiences and readerships of the Newtown community’s inevitable adjustment to its trauma and loss with the aid of the government’s protective oversight—however incompetent that may be—far surpasses a willingness to undermine this now almost universal news media narrative with messy questions and suggestions of intrigue. This well-worn script is one the public has been conditioned to accept. If few people relied on such media to develop their world view this would hardly be a concern. Yet this is regrettably not the case.

The Sandy Hook tragedy was on a far larger scale than the past year’s numerous slaughters, including the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting and the Batman theater shooting in Colorado. It also included glaringly illogical exercises and pronouncements by authorities alongside remarkably unusual evidentiary fissures indistinguishable by an American political imagination cultivated to believe that the corporate, government and military’s sophisticated system of organized crime is largely confined to Hollywood-style storylines while really existing malfeasance and crises are without exception returned to normalcy.

If recent history is a prelude the likelihood of citizens collectively assessing and questioning Sandy Hook is limited even given the event’s overtly superficial trappings. While the incident is ostensibly being handled by Connecticut law enforcement, early reports indicate how federal authorities were on the scene as the 911 call was received. Regardless of where one stands on the Second Amendment and gun control, it is not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration’s complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate on the very topic—and not coincidentally remains a key piece of Obama’s political platform.

The move to railroad this program through with the aid of major media and an irrefutable barrage of children’s portraits, “heartfelt” platitudes and ostensible tears neutralizes a quest for genuine evidence, reasoned observation and in the case of Newtown honest and responsible law enforcement. Moreover, to suggest that Obama is not capable of deploying such techniques to achieve political ends is to similarly place ones faith in image and interpretation above substance and established fact, the exact inclination that in sum has brought America to such an impasse.
Notes

[1] State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, ”State Police Investigate Newtown School Shooting” [Press Release] December 15, 2012.
[2] State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, “Update: Newtown School Shooting” [Press Release], December 19, 2012.
[3] CNN, “Family of 6 Year Old Victim,” December 14, 2012, “Sandy Hook School Shooting Hoax Fraud,” Youtube, December 17, 2012.
[4] Hartford Courant, “Finally ‘Enough’ For Chief Medical Examiner” [Editorial], January 30, 2012.
[5] John Christofferson and Jocelyn Noveck, “Sandy Hook School Shooting: Adam Lanza Kills 26 and Himself at Connecticut School,” Huffington Post, December 15, 2012.
[6] Edmund H. Mahoney, Dave Altmari, and Jon Lender, “Sandy Hook Shooter’s Pause May Have Aided Escape,” Hartford Courant, December 23, 2012.
[7] Jaweed Kaleem, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting: Newtown Connecticut Students, Administrators Among Victims, Reports Say,” Huffington Post, December 14, 2012.
[8] RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police / Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012. At several points in this recording audio is scrambled, particularly following apprehension of a second shooting suspect outside the school, suggesting a purposeful attempt to withhold vital information.
[9] Miranda Leitsinger, “You Feel Helpless: First Responders Rushed to School After Shooting, Only to Wait,” US News on NBC, December 20.
[10] http://thenetng.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Sandy-Hook-Elementary-School-600×400.jpg.
12/25/12 Update/Correction: Note that this photo of approximately fifteen children allegedly being evacuated from Sandy Hook Elementary was reportedly produced on December 14. See Connor Simpson, Alexander Abad-Santos et al, “Newtown School Shooting: Live Updates,” The Atlantic Wire, December 19, 2012. Still, the paltry number of children confirms the claim that little photographic evidence exists of Sandy Hook’s 600 students being moved from the facility on December 14. This photo was from a Tweet of a Sandy Hook drill published by the school’s slain principal Dawn Hochsprung titled, “Safety First.” See Julia La Rouche, “Principal Killed in Sandy Hook Tweeted Picture of Students Practicing an Evacuation Drill,” Business Insider, December 16, 2012.
[11] Rob Dew, “Evidence of 2nd and 3rd Shooter at Sandy Hook,” Infowars Nightly News, December 18, 2012,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nCFHImNeRw.
A more detailed yet less polished analysis was developed by citizen journalist Idahopicker, “Sandy Hook Elem: 3 Shooters,” December 16, 2012. See also James F. Tracy, “Analyzing the Newtown Narrative: Sandy Hook’s Disappearing Shooter Suspects,” Memoryholeblog.com, December 20, 2012.
[12] W. Lance Bennett, News: The Politics of Illusion 9th Edition, Boston: Longman, 2012, 47.
Andrew Whooley provided suggestions and research for this article.



A puzzling report from Sandy Hook coroner



By James F. Tracy
May 10, 2015

Tracy's original article
https://www.globalresearch.ca/sandy-hook-massacre-disturbing-anomalies-in-pozner-coronors-report/5448551

A closer look at Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver II’s autopsy report for one Noah Samuel Pozner suggests at least three unusual discrepancies. This is especially the case when compared to the coroner’s remarks at a press conference in the immediate wake of the 2012 Newtown school massacre. Pozner was one of the 26 [listed] murder victims in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre event.

First, according to the document, Carver pronounced Noah Pozner dead at 11 a.m. – about one hour and 20 minutes after Adam Lanza [was said to have] shot Pozner and committed suicide inside Sandy Hook school on Dec. 14, 2012.

This is according to Carver’s Jan. 29, 2013 signed coroner’s report of the Pozner boy’s body.

Carver’s testimony that Pozner survived for eighty minutes after being repeatedly shot by Lanza stands in stark contrast with his remarks at a Dec. 15, 2012, press conference. When asked if the children suffered before dying, Carver responded, “If so, not for very long.” Yet by Carver’s own admission Pozner suffered for quite some time. Who attended to Pozner in his distress? Who pronounced Pozner and his classmates dead? According to the document it was Carver. Yet he was not yet on the scene at 11 a.m., and many first responders were likewise denied access to the crime scene.

Second, in comparison to the document, Carter’s off-the-cuff public statements to journalists concerning where the autopsies of the victims’ bodies took place simply don’t add up. The official version of what took place–that is, the story promoted in the New York Times and Wikipedia–explains that “fourteen of the children were dead at the scene; one injured child was taken to a hospital for treatment, but was later declared dead.”

The coroner’s report states that Pozner’s autopsy took place at approximately 8:27 a.m. on Dec. 15 “at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.” Yet in Carver’s bizarre performance at the Dec. 15 press conference in Newtown, the medical examiner explains in no uncertain terms that an elaborate facility was brought in and assembled -- where the autopsies presumably took place. At the conclusion of the 15-minute meeting with reporters a visibly apprehensive Carver repeatedly contradicts himself. Connecticut’s top coroner first suggests that the postmortem examinations took place at an elaborate mobile facility furnished by federal authorities. Here are Carver’s exact words:
It wasn’t a tent. It was this magnificent–thing. And, uh, ah-ah-ah-and it’s sectional, and it sticks together with velcro, and they stake it to the ground, and electricity and lights and heat appear [sic].
Why else, other than to aid in the complex and likely chaotic postmortem of an unusually violent bloodletting was this sophisticated facility brought in and erected? This is undeniably what reporters and the public are led to conclude from the remarks of a public official with considerable stature.

Having established this part of the account, a confused Carver then backtracks, stating that the bodies were transported in unmarked vehicles to his office 42 miles away in Farmington, where the autopsies were to be conducted. The latter scenario would fit with his written report, yet stand in stark contrast with what he led his audience to presume.

Third, following "the most tragic school shooting in U.S. history," Connecticut’s chief medical examiner is concerned about allaying the concerns of undertakers who have nothing to do with the major criminal investigation Carver figures centrally in. “Our goal – our goal was to get the kids out and available to the funeral directors first,” the chief coroner remarks to reporters at 11:45 a.m. in the clip below. “Uh, just for, well … y’know obvious reasons.”

Nevertheless on page one of Carver’s Jan. 29, 2013, report–less than 24 hours after the event has concluded–the Pozners’ funeral director is dictating certain postmortem procedures on behalf of the grieving family. (“Internal examination is not performed in keeping with the wishes of the family as expressed to the undersigned through a representative of the funeral home.”)

Along these lines, in the news conference below Carver elsewhere states that his office routinely calls the mortuaries. Almost in the same breath he removes mortuaries from the equation entirely, stating that the funeral homes call his busy office directly. “The mortuaries have all been called. Uh, uh, and, uh … [T]he usual drill is the funeral homes call us, and as soon as the paperwork’s done we call them back.” If this hold true, Carver’s Jan. 29, 2013 report would have kept the undertakers waiting for over six weeks.

Yet Carver tells reporters below that such paperwork was completed at 1:30 p.m. on Dec. 15. Perhaps given the circumstances Carver is making reference to preliminary processing. Still, as with so many other elements related to the Sandy Hook massacre, the Pozner document’s inconsistencies raises more questions than they put to rest. This specific portion of the exchange (beginning at 1:31 p.m.) is transcribed below:

Unidentified Reporter #1 (off camera): Could you just–real quick, you said, did they set up a tent in the parking lot?

Carver: It wasn’t a tent. It was this magnificent–thing. And, uh, ah-ah-ah-and it’s sectional, and it sticks together with velcro, and they stake it to the ground, and electricity and lights and heat appear [sic]. And it’s from the Department of Emergency Management, and I think it came from the army, but I’m not sure. I think it’s these things that they use [sic], uh, in-in-in, uh, to set up field hospitals very quickly–mobile hospitals.

Unidentified Reporter #2 (off camera): And have all the children’s bodies been returned to the parents and mortuaries, or–

Carver: I don’t know. The mortuaries have all been called. Uh, uh, and, uh …

Unidentified Reporter #2 (off camera): But they’re ready to be released–these bodies?

Carver: The paperwork has been done. As of one thirty the paperwork is done. And if the–the usual drill is the funeral homes call us, and as soon as the paperwork’s done we call them back. That process was completed for the children at one thirty today.

Unidentified Reporter #3 (off camera): You [transported] the bodies where?

Carver: To Farmington–our office in Farmington.

Unidentified Reporter #3 (off camera): Your office in Farmington. And how did you transport them?

Carver: We have our transport vehicles.

Unidentified Reporter #3 (off camera): Would you say how many vehicles?

Carver: We have three vehicles, and uh, and uh, a lot of guys that drive ’em.

Unidentified Reporter #3 (off camera): Are they vans or–

Carver: Uh, they’re-they’re–actually … one of the highlights of my administration is that we make them as nondescript and unmarked as possible [laughs nervously] to foil you guys. No, we–they started out at six. [Here again Carver appears confused or is responding to an inaudible question. “They started out at six” either refers to the number of drivers or the time of morning on December 15 the bodies were transported to Farmington.]

Add these glaring contradictions between Carver’s own official documents and his strange performance to the already very lengthy list of unusual circumstances and unanswered questions surrounding the Sandy Hook school massacre–an event that continues to strongly resemble a massive contrived event or coverup.

Absent major media complicity and millions in payouts from the Obama administration to Newtown and Connecticut state officials such an incident cannot long sustain itself in the public mind. In the context of increasingly militarized police, astroturf cries for gun control, and mandatory mental health protocols purportedly to save citizens from themselves, Sandy Hook is but one substantial rationale for broader social engineering already well underway in the U.S. and other developed countries throughout the world.

Thursday, March 28, 2019

BIG HASSLE FOR 'GET-TRUMP' FEDS


Treason probes, stiff penalties
for national security tricksters?


President urges look into Lynch's tarmac meeting



The specter of a heavy-duty investigation into "treason" on the part of President Barack Obama's national security officials -- followed by severe penalties -- was raised yesterday by President Trump. "We can never allow this treasonous, these treasonous acts to happen to another President," Trump declared to a nationwide talk show audience. Image result for trump

Asked by Sean Hannity of Fox News about what looked like a high-level national security operation to deny him the presidency, Trump replied, "It was treason, it was really treason."

To underscore his point, Trump cited texts between former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, at the time the FBI's top counter-spy, and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page that discussed an "insurance policy" in the event of Trump's election.

Trump also criticized James Comey, whom he fired in 2017, as a "terrible guy" and insisted he did not fire him in order to obstruct justice.

"You had dirty cops, you had people who are bad FBI folks ... At the top, they were not clean,
to put it mildly."
Lowering the boom?


The President saw a double standard in the Trump probe. "If we had done this to President Obama, there would be 100 people in jail right now, and it would be treason; it would be considered treason."

Trump told an enthusiastic rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., today that "there has to be accountability as it's all lies, and they know it's lies" as he targeted "the Deep State" and the Democratic Party.

'Important' to probe Lynch
In response to a question from Hannity about Obama's attorney general, Loretta Lynch, Trump said that "you start taking a look at what happened on the tarmac," adding, "A lot of people say a lot of bad things happen on the tarmac between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton. I had a lot of planes for a long time. I’ve never stopped the plane on the tarmac to let somebody on the plane.

"And then they went and they talked about golf and their grandchildren for 40 minutes. It doesn't work that way. What did they talk about? And then she was exonerated. She was given one of the great free passes of all time.

"I guess Bill Clinton said he was there to play golf, but I know the area very well, Arizona. It's a little warm at that time of the year for golf, OK? People -- a lot of people -- is a great state, I love it, but you are not playing a lot of golf right there at that time.

"So, you have to find out, what happened in the back of that plane that so many things took place after that incident, that meeting between the Attorney General Lynch and Bill Clinton. A lot of bad things happened right after that. You have to find out."

Trump continued, "So, there are so many different things, and it's important for our country that those things be determined and found out."

Hannity had said to Trump that "one thing that shocked me a little bit last week" was the testimony that Strzok and Page "were both of them suggesting the fix was in on Hillary, because it was being -- every decision was being run through the A.G.'s office. That means Loretta Lynch, who also met on the tarmac with Bill Clinton, which brings us to a higher level than maybe we once thought. "

Though the President said he was leaving investigative decisions to William Barr, his attorney general, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Trump nevertheless said that "it's very important for our country to know" how the targeting of a presidential candidate came about. In future, Americans should be assured that "the penalties will be very, very great."

Barr is about to be prodded by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who plans to lodge with Barr criminal referrals of some of those involved in the surveillance operation against the Trump campaign.

Obama's CIA director, John Brennan, who as a television commentator has publicly accused Trump of treason, is likely to be a focus of an investigation of the "sedition" and "treason" cited by Trump. The top ranks of the FBI, along with James Clapper, Obama's national intelligence director, are likely to find themselves in the crosshairs of new investigations. Barr has not yet disclosed what his plans are, but Graham has said he plans a major investigation.

Brennan's 'hidden hand'
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a tweet,
BREAKING: A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report... Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP.
73.5K
3:32 PM - Mar 27, 2019

The dossier -- commissioned by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- peddled unverifiable derogatory information on Trump picked up in Russian bars and was later discredited by its author, ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who refused to endorse it during a court hearing. Yet, Republicans are saying, Brennan was part of a cabal trying to exploit the dossier both inside and outside the Obama administration as providing a basis for investigating Trump and his campaign.

Trump ducked Hannity's questioning about pardons for those convicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's inquiry, but spoke in a sympathetic manner about Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's original choice for national security adviser, who pleaded guilty to a single count of willfully making false statements to the FBI. Trump pointed out that the FBI agents who quizzed Flynn did not suspect perjury but thought he had suffered a memory lapse.

The President also went out of his way to praise the "many" members of the media who had been highly skeptical of "Russia-gate," though he rapped CNN as "so fake, so horribly fake, and MSNBC the same thing."

Trump said nothing about the New York Times and the Washington Post, both of which have been conducting crusades against him.

Wrangle over warrant 'taint'
In a related development, President Obama's FBI and Justice Department wrangled over "concerns" that a planned FBI surveillance operation against the Trump camp was tainted, according to a bombshell Fox News report.

Text messages, sent between Andrew McCabe, at the time an FBI deputy director, and Lisa Page, who has since resigned her position as an FBI lawyer, reveal "continued concerns" about "possible bias" of a source crucial to the FBI's bid for a surveillance warrant, Fox said.

The text thread "made plain" Justice Department worries that the FBI's application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to covertly monitor Trump aide Carter Page was based on a "potentially biased source," Fox reported, adding that the texts revealed "the FBI's desire to press on" despite those concerns.

Steele lost his special relationship with the FBI when it emerged that he had been in contact with media, but Fox News was unable to determine whether the McCabe-Page texts were referring to Steele or someone else.

Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing despite more than a year of federal surveillance, and he has since filed a number of defamation lawsuits, including against the Democratic National Committee, which helped fund the dossier that named Page as a suspicious character.

Lisa Page texted that the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence had been given a "robust" response, Fox News revealed. "Don't know what the holdup is now, other than Stu's continued concerns."

"Stu" was an apparent reference to Stuart Evans, then deputy assistant attorney general for intelligence in the Office of Intelligence, according to Fox.

A previous text from counter-spy Strzok to Lisa Page related that he was "Currently fighting with Stu for this FISA" -- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant -- in late 2016, Fox noted.


Samples from 'Russian collusion' media

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-03-27.html

Trump, Google chief huddle on 'fairness'

President Trump tweeted that he and Sundar Pichai, Google's chief executive, had met and discussed "political fairness."

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
· 21h
Just met with @SundarPichai, President of @Google, who is obviously doing quite well. He stated strongly that he is totally committed to the U.S. Military, not the Chinese Military....

The meeting follows a report that Google had colluded to meddle in the 2018 midterm elections by rigging search results to favor Democrats.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/03/22/research-google-search-bias-flipped-seats-for-democrats-in-midterms/

A study by Robert Epstein, a psychologist, and his team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, found that search engines Bing and Yahoo did not tilt their searches, but that Google's bias was measurable. Epstein's research must be checked by other experts before it can be viewed as more than provisional.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
....Also discussed political fairness and various things that @Google can do for our Country. Meeting ended very well!

68.2K 3:38 PM - Mar 27, 2019

Trump and top officials had accused Google of pro-Red China, un-American bias. In addition, numerous conservatives have accused Google of rigging its search results to play down, or even bar, "politically incorrect" content.

https://cyberianz.blogspot.com/2019/03/trump-blisters-google-as-un-american.html

RUSSIA-GATE IS THIS GENERATION'S WMD SCAM


That's an observation of Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone writer

Yes, and isn't it interesting that George W. Bush and GOP neocons, such as Bill Kristol, are very uptight with Trump? There's a bit of a conflict there, considering that President Trump out-neocons the neocons in his support of Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.

A wrecking ball of media credibility, Taibbi says https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/media-fake-news-russiagate-rolling-stone/2019/03/25/id/908591/

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Comey signaled Mueller's dirty bomb


Did James Comey get a heads-up on the Mueller report from someone in the Mueller group? In his N.Y. Times opinion piece published just before the public learned the report was complete, Comey said he didn't know or care whether Mueller had found collusion or obstruction of justice. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he had been told the report was about to be issued.

Aside from cautioning Congress against impeachment, Comey made a strange statement, to the effect that he hoped Mueller would neither charge nor clear the President. Why would a professional prosecutor hope Mueller would not clear the President? That's taking neutrality a bit over the edge.

Well, an amazing thing happened! Just by coincidence, the attorney general said Mueller neither found obstruction of justice nor exonerated Trump of that accusation. If I were suspicious (who me?), I would say Comey paved the way psychologically and politically for his good buddy Mueller's peculiar ambivalence.

Prosecutors know it is unfair to put the burden of proof on the defendant, as in: "I say to the jury that the defendant has not proved his innocence." Such a statement would very likely result in a mistrial. Yet that implication of "guilt by unproved innocence" was the effect of Mueller's statement, as relayed by the attorney general, William Barr.

Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervised Mueller, both agreed that there was insufficient evidence to find for obstruction. But, Mueller had tossed his dirty bomb, giving Democrats a pretext for continuing to hound Trump. Mueller, who hates to be told "no," is getting his revenge for not being permitted to have his ace interrogators give Trump "the third degree." Trump's lawyers forbade such a scenario in order to avoid a perjury trap, in which the victim is maneuvered into apparently committing perjury.

Monday, March 25, 2019

Proof of Russian hacking? Hold up...


We've heard many times that the Russians had hacked Democratic email accounts and passed the data to WikiLeaks and other sites, but no solid proof has been offered.

In his letter to Congress the attorney general recirculated the claim thus:
The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.
The problem is that we do not know what evidence Mueller is relying on, or whether he's merely taking into account "the consensus of opinion" of experts. Others beside the Russians had the motives and capabilities to lift the Democratic emails. If the Russians were the culprits, amnesia must have blocked them from making elementary slip-ups that were later used as a cyber trail allegedly leading to Russia.

Possibly Barr will release the "proof" of Russian hacking, though for some reason I expect only a shady partial release on that score that obscures the supposed evidence.

Barr's letter on Mueller report

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel's Report
...On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. $ 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

Page 1
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”1

The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

1. In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

Page 2
Obstruction of Justice.
The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

2. In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a “confidential report to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038,

See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

Page 3
37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,
William P. Barr
Attorney General

Page 4

Sunday, March 24, 2019

Trump wants probe
of the probers

'This was an illegal takedown -- that failed'



President Trump and his lawyer,

Rudolph Giuliani, are pushing the Justice Department to investigate the origins of the Russia collusion probe.

"It began illegally. and hopefully somebody's going to look at the other side," Trump said.

"This was an illegal takedown -- that failed."

Trump was likely referring to reports that the investigation was begun and continued based on deceptive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant applications -- applications that failed to fully disclose that the FBI was relying on opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Trump may have also had in mind that top FBI agents saw the inquiry as an "insurance policy" that could be used to destroy him in the event he won the election.

Image result for rudolph giuliani Related image
Rudolp Giuliani, left, and Andrew Weissmann

Giuliani urged a vigorous probe of the origins of the Trump investigation.

"I think there has to be a full complete, investigation, with at least as much enthusiasm" as the Mueller probe and its predecessor national security probe, Giuliani said on Fox News. The Justice Department could handle such an inquiry, he said. There is no question of a conflict of interest and no need for a special counsel, Giuliani said.

Giuliani said he has known since his days on the Trump

campaign that there was no collusion with Russia during the campaign and that the collusion charge was "phony."

Giuliani also said Trump's lawyers had complained to the Justice Department that a special counsel prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann, had behaved unethically in the case of Jerome Corsi, a journalist who has said he was pressured to perjure himself. Giuliani said Corsi was given a statement and told to sign it or he would be destined for prison.

Giuliani praised Corsi for having had the courage to refuse. Giuliani added that during his days as a federal prosecutor conduct like Weissmann's would have merited firing.

The former New York City mayor also complained of how Paul Manafort was pressed to make an anti-Trump confession while enduring the stress of weeks of solitary confinement.

Some Democrats are focusing on the fact

that Special Counsel Robert Mueller refused to exonerate Trump on a charge of obstruction of justice, but left the obstruction decision up to Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervised Mueller. Barr and Rosenstein determined that there were insufficient grounds to lodge obstruction charges. They did not find it necessary to take into account whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Alan Dershowitz, the civil libertarian who backs Trump's right to be president, chastised Mueller. The special counsel's failure to indict or exonerate Trump on obstruction was shameful, Dershowitz said on Fox. Mueller was in effect smearing Trump who could not contest the allegation in a court of law, the former Harvard law professor said.

The lawyer said Mueller's maneuver was no different from what James Comey did as FBI chief when he decided against prosecution of Hillary Clinton but said disparaging things about her that she was in no position to rebut.

Trump was thought by some to have obstructed justice

when he fired his FBI director, James Comey. Mueller had wanted to ask Trump about his motives for the ouster, though Trump's legal team pushed back, arguing that Trump could Strzok1.png not obstruct himself as he had a right, under the Constitution's Article 2, to manage the FBI. Yet there was suspicion that Trump wanted to end the FBI investigation into supposed Russian influence in his campaign.

Those who had been promoting the probe,  including Comey, CIA chief John Brennan, FBI spy boss Peter Strzok (pictured at left) and Sen. John McCain, all knew that the inquiry had been largely based on a piece of opposition research of the sort that is well-known in the political underground of dirty tricks. It seems more than likely that Trump "smelled a rat" as the "investigation" continued. Importantly, the "dirty dossier" compiled on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee was not mentioned in Barr's letter, implying that Mueller found it to have low credibility.

If an investigation is pushed for political reasons   and has no bona fide right to exist, how can someone who tries to balk such a probe -- if that's what happened -- obstruct justice? The probe itself was tainted, poisoned from the start by a cabal who had obstructed due process of law in their attempt to fell Trump's presidency.

The head of the House judiciary committee, Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y., complained that Barr's letter raises more questions than it answers and announced Barr would be summoned to testify before Congress. Nadler's announcement said nothing about seeking Mueller's testimony.

Write Assange at Belmarsh

Write Assange at the following address: Julian Assange DOB 3rd July 1971 HMP Belmarsh Prison Western Way London, SE28 0EB You must put ...