By Douglas J. Hagmann
Robert Mueller was precisely the right person for the job of Special Counsel. Just as his appointment was not by accident, neither was his selection. It was necessary and calculated, but for all of the wrong reasons. His task was not to investigate but to obfuscate. His job was to deflect and divert American’s attention away from the actual criminals and criminality of not just the last eight years, but for the previous generation.
Moreover, he had the entire resources of the federal government at his disposal and used them with ruthless efficiency as he had done throughout his career.
A stroke of his pen could upend and potentially destroy the lives of anyone in his sights. Just ask my friend Dr. Jerome Corsi, or Roger Stone, with whom I’ve been acquainted and worked or General Michael Flynn. Their lives have been forever changed by his insidious and unnecessary tactics of Deep State sanctioned terrorism under the guise of a legitimate investigation.
It was never a legitimate investigation. It was political payback and harassment in spades ordered by the upper echelon of a rogue “permanent state.” Robert Mueller was just their errand boy.
I don’t recall exactly how I became acquainted with Louisiana State Senator John Milkovich, but the more I got to know him the more I liked him, despite us never meeting face to face. I found myself agreeing with his well-researched positions on numerous Constitutional issues, from the positions of our Founding Fathers to the creation of this massive surveillance state under which we now live. The fingerprints of Robert Mueller can be found all over the unconstitutional attacks on our personal freedoms if only people will do the research as John Milkovich has done.
Even more interesting is that John Milkovich is a registered Democrat holding the 38th Congressional seat in his home state of Louisiana. Meanwhile, I’m a registered Republican with a general disdain of all politicians of all stripes. As we’ve seen for some time now, however, the Republican-Democrat designation is itself a false and misleading paradigm.
It is at this juncture that I suspect I connected with John Milkovich, as he understands that truth is not necessarily subjective to political party affiliations or designations on political forms. We’ve seen countless examples of this by members of both political parties. Despite the opposing political labels, I suspect that my idea for America is much more aligned with Senator Milkovich than Paul Ryan, for example. So too is our quest to seek the truth of a matter.
There is an epic disconnect between the Robert Mueller described by the Mass Media and Officialdom as a model of public propriety, and the Robert Mueller documented by independent researchers; a chronic Collaborator, with a career characterized by cover-ups, corruption and unconscionable conduct – an ever-willing instrument of Deep State dissimulation.” – John Milkovich, Louisiana State Senator; Robert Mueller, Errand Boy For The New World Order
Although the final report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not been made publicly available, Attorney General William Barr provided a concise four-page summary of its contents to members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on March 24, 2019. On its face, this executive summary is sufficient to conclude that neither President Trump nor any member of his staff were compromised by any foreign powers before, during or after the 2016 US Presidential election.
It should be therefore a natural reaction, particularly for those who put their full faith and confidence in Robert Mueller’s credibility, integrity and investigative abilities to breathe a sigh of relief upon learning of his findings. Instead, we are witnessing the exact opposite reaction from the Democratic Socialists. In a convoluted twist of logic, they are actually upset by the results that our President is indeed loyal to the United States and our best interests.
Regardless of the report itself, there is something much deeper and far more profound that must be addressed. It exists at the very heart of a considerably greater issue that few are discussing, which is the impetus for the creation of the Special Counsel investigation and the selection of Robert Mueller. It is here where we will find the answers to questions that need to be asked and answers that must be provided and memorialized.
Understanding the role of Robert Mueller in his position as Special Counsel must be viewed through the investigative lens of John Milkovich. Senator Milkovich provides the vital background information necessary to understand why Robert Mueller was selected for this position.
For those reasons, it was an honor to have Senator John Milkovich join The Hagmann Report on Friday, March 29, 2019.
Watch/Listen to the interview HERE.
· His book is available through his website HERE or on Amazon.
By Peter Barry Chowka
Recently, a question was raised during my appearance on The Hagmann Report. The questioner asked if I saw any parallels between the effort that resulted in President Richard Nixon’s resignation after impeachment hearings that resulted from his involvement in the Watergate scandal and other crimes and the current effort on the part of the Shadow Government, most of the mainstream media, and the left to force President Donald J. Trump from office because of alleged collusion with the Russians, or more recently, alleged obstruction of justice.
The answer is yes – and no. Notwithstanding the 45 years separating the two presidents, there are some major similarities and some differences, as well.
I was a young student journalist in the nation’s capital during the Watergate and impeachment period. Armed with an official D.C. Metropolitan Police press pass, I was able to cover and report on political events in Washington, D.C. like any other accredited journalist. Being young and with a lot of energy and an insatiable interest in politics and current events, I took full advantage of the access.
One similarity of the political climate then vs. now is that the left and much of the mainstream media – but not as much of the media as today – opposed the POTUS – both #37 and #45 – right from when he first declared his candidacy. With Nixon, that was in 1967 and with Trump, June 2015. Nixon was attacked and caricatured by leading commentators and political cartoonists alike, as he had been since he burst on the national scene in 1950. “Tricky Dick,” a label slapped on Nixon by his Democrat opponent in the 1950 race for the U.S. senate in California, was the most commonly used sobriquet. Cartoonists emphasized Nixon’s prominent nose and dark eyebrows to give him a sinister and devious look.
The left, which was extremely powerful and highly visible in the late 1960s and early ‘70s, hated Nixon and routinely attacked him especially in the large, frequent anti-Vietnam War demonstrations that persisted beyond the sixties. One of them in Washington, D.C., in October 1971, was titled “Evict Nixon.” The event’s organizers, including Chicago 7 defendant and leftist superstar agitator Rennie Davis, claimed that hundreds of thousands of demonstrators would descend on the nation’s capital and march to the White House to physically “evict Nixon.” The demonstration was a bust as only a few hundred people showed up, their numbers dwarfed by security forces.
Similarly, Donald J. Trump has been widely mocked and dismissed – not only by the left and the press, but by many members of his own Republican party – since he declared for president in June 2015. The criticism of Trump has escalated since he was elected and took office, on a scale never seen before in modern times. Although the attacks on Trump are more intense than the ones lobbed at Nixon decades ago, the similarity is that both men have been subjected to frequent and sustained attacks by their enemies.
A major difference then vs. now involves the nature of the political climate and the demographic makeup of the country in the early 1970s vs. today. While the left made a lot of noise 4 ½ decades ago, the country as a whole back then was more homogeneous and center right and far less polarized (except among the youth). It had taken a sharp, temporary left turn in 1964 with the election of Lyndon Baines Johnson to his first full term as president but that was due to a number of anomalous factors. President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated less than a year before the 1964 election, and by the time of the 1964 presidential campaign the nation was still in shock. Johnson reassured the nervous and unnerved electorate, promising stability and continuity.
The defining line from Johnson’s first address to the Congress and the nation on November 27, 1963 was “Let Us Continue.” The speech came to be known as the “Let Us Continue” address. From the outset of his accidental presidency, Johnson pretended to be a moderate Democrat when in reality he had transformed himself from a good ol’ boy of the conservative South to a big government ultra liberal statist. In his push for a War on Poverty, Medicare, and civil rights legislation, Johnson, after he was sworn in on January 20, 1965, would really start to show his true colors. Johnson thought that by championing civil rights and poverty programs, more passionately than his predecessor JFK, he would go down in history like a modern day Abraham Lincoln. But instead of finishing the job that Lincoln started but was never able to complete, Lyndon Johnson – in one of the greatest miscalculations of all time – only made it worse by advocating and institutionalizing an endless number of expensive new government programs that in reality compounded the problems facing African-Americans.
Johnson’s Republican opponent in 1964, Arizona Sen. Barry M. Goldwater, was a staunch conservative and was anathema to the Democrat and Republican mainstreams and the powerful East Coast Establishment. Goldwater was demeaned and lied about in 1964, including in MSM stories that were fake. With ongoing help from the media, Johnson won the ‘64 election in a landslide. His subsequent mishandling of the Vietnam War during the next three years, however, helped to destroy his presidency.
Having lost two previous elections – for president in 1960 and California governor in 1962 – in 1967-’68 Richard Nixon in a remarkable comeback had remade himself as the “New Nixon,” and skillfully used the television medium, which had not been kind to him against JFK in 1960, to his advantage. Nixon in 1968 was actually more telegenic than his opponent, the frumpy old school Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, who was saddled with the mistakes of the Johnson Administration that he had loyally served and defended.
After Nixon assumed power in January 1969, the Silent Majority, as his administration termed it – defined as mainstream, traditional center right Americans – notwithstanding all the noise and periodic demonstrations and street violence from the left, was the dominant political force in the country. Proof of this fact was Nixon’s landslide victory in November 1972 against his Democrat opponent, the progressive anti-war Sen. George S. McGovern. McGovern won the popular vote in only one state, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. Nixon ran as a moderate center right incumbent.
Another similarity between then and now involves the role of the media in unraveling the Nixon presidency and attempting to do the same for President Trump. After the bungled Watergate break in – the attempted bugging of Democrat party headquarters on June 17, 1972 by Republican operatives – it was a slow but inexorable drip drip drip of damaging information until the Nixon regime was taken down. Nixon handed his enemies a smoking gun: the secret tapes he had recorded of his interactions in the White House and on the telephone with his aides over a period of years. Nixon was heard suborning perjury and obstructing justice. It remains to be seen if the ever escalating myopic concentration of the MSM on Trump and his supposed crimes, with purported obstruction of justice now being run up the flagpole, will bear similar fruit.
After the failure of a year of the “Russia collusion” narrative to produce a viable Nixon-like smoking gun to implicate Trump, his enemies are now proffering several new narratives, centering around obstruction of justice involving the POTUS. The latest one as of this writing involves a tweet by Trump in which he wrote that he fired his national security advisor Gen. Michael Flynn last February after he learned that Flynn had lied to Vice President Pence and the FBI. Analysis of the tweet (which the White House said later was written by one of Trump’s attorneys) by Trump’s critics immediately had them suggesting the possibility that Trump had obstructed justice when he asked then-FBI Director James Comey, who he later fired, to go easy on Gen. Flynn.
Where this is all going remains to be seen. Where it will wind up cannot be predicted. Anyone among the commentariat who claims that she can predict the outcome is lying. It seems that we are not even to the mid-point of the relentless and growing attempt to remove President Trump from office, one way or the other. That hoped-for scenario, and the left’s dedication to its success (the left today encompasses almost every major element of American society), is similar to the one that saw Nixon go from a historic electoral victory and high approval ratings in November 1972 to his certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and an ignominious resignation from the presidency less than two years later.
Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture. Peter’s latest video interview on The Hagmann Report on Dec. 1, 2017 can be watched here. Follow Peter on Twitter @pchowka.
