RUTHFULLY YOURS

With the decisive midterm elections just months away, Democrats are finally rolling out a long-awaited jobs program in hopes of wooing disaffected, working-class voters back to their party this November.

Their message is sure to win the hearts and minds of millions of blue-collar workers in the heartland who abandoned the party in 2016 to vote for Donald Trump. It is unflinching in its commitment to protect the most vulnerable employees—those who are at-risk of having their jobs taken away on a whim by powerful forces—and rendered unable to pay their bills or find other work.

It is “The Special Counsel Independence Protection Act.” Or, as I prefer to call it, the Robert Mueller Job Protection Act.

What, you say? You thought this effort would target steelworkers or coal miners or tradesmen who are struggling to find work? You hoped this would appeal to small business owners who are drowning under rising healthcare costs and expensive federal regulations? You expected a compelling plan from party leaders desperate to take control of Congress next year that would earn back voters in the 206 counties that flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016?

Oh, LOL! You don’t think Democrats actually give a rip about the deplorables in “backward” areas of the country where nothing ever happens and no one of value lives, do you? As Hillary Clinton just reminded us, Democrats are all about serving our betters in “optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving-forward” areas of the country. You losers in Mattoon, Illinois? Suck it.

These brave warriors are charging the Trump Tower at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to defend Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his merry band of Democrat donors, er, investigators, and make sure their jobs are protected ad infinitum. Despite the obvious vicissitude of the Mueller investigation—which has yet to find any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Putin regime before the presidential election—bold coastal liberals are staking their political fortunes on the taxpayer-funded probe they have wagered will destroy Trump’s presidency.

Although the legislation was introduced last year and has since stalled, Democrats are re-upping their plea after President Trump tweeted about Mueller over the weekend. In response, Senator Christopher Coons (D-Del.) issued this statement:

I understand that many of my colleagues don’t believe that President Trump will fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller without cause, and some have cited that as their reason for not backing the legislation I’ve introduced. Unfortunately, the statements and actions from the President and his lawyer over the weekend have led me to believe that the Special Counsel is now at real, immediate risk of being removed, and I believe the Senate needs to pass legislation to ensure that does not happen.

Sometimes the hysteria of crowds causes them to overlook the obvious. Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble anyone, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.

1) Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would we now even know of a Fusion GPS dossier? Would assorted miscreants such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, or Peter Strzok now be under a cloud of suspicion? Or would they instead have been quietly lionized by a President Clinton grateful for noble services in the shadows rendered during the campaign?

2) If Clinton had won, would we now know of any Russian-supplied smears against Donald Trump? Would a FISA judge now be complaining that he was misled in a warrant request? Would likely Attorney General Loretta Lynch be reassigning Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr for his consultations with Fusion GPS operatives? Or would Russian operatives alone be likely, at an opportune moment, to threaten to leak to the media that they had given salacious material to Clinton operatives to ensure her election, and thus they were to be owed for their supposed help in ensuring a Clinton victory? Would anyone be now listening to a losing candidate Donald Trump making wild charges that he had been smeared in the closing days of his campaign by leaks of a Clinton cabal that drew on Russian help?

3) Are any Russian related interests currently still donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation? Why is Bill Clinton not being asked to speak by various groups—including those with Russian-ties—for $500,000 and above per talk? Is he now less persuasive than he was between 2009 and 2015?

4) Why did Andrew McCabe believe that two Democratic political action funds, one controlled by Clinton “best friend” Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, donated a total of $675,288 to his wife’s campaign for a rather obscure state senate post? What percentage of Jill McCabe’s actual campaign budget did the $675,288 comprise? And why after her defeat would Andrew McCabe still not recuse himself from directing FBI inquiries into allegations of (likely next president and past generous benefactor) Hillary Clinton’s prior improper use of an email server while Secretary of State? Does quid pro quo refer really more often to simultaneous benefactions or rather sequential ones?

As President Trump deliberates on whether to be interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a look at Mueller’s record of indicting ham sandwiches ought to give him pause.

Mueller, as The Federalist points out, botches high-profile cases and can drag them out for a decade. Reporter Daniel Ashman found this case with Mueller’s name on it, the anthrax attacks case dating back to 2001. That was when some maniac or terrorist, some beast, sent anthrax powder in the mail to news agencies, injuring people who opened the packages. I worked at Forbes magazine in New York at the time and remember how the mail was quarantined, depriving us of that communication line, and I remember how terrified people were at this nasty coda to the horrific 9/11 terror attacks.

The Federalist reports:

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 Johns 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.