Barnes, a veteran journalist, is not alone in offering such undeserved praise of Mueller. Commentators on the right and left have been repeating this garbage ever since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Interestingly, Rosenstein also received high praise from various commentators. He, too, was seen as a straight shooter. With former FBI Director James Comey, they constitute an unholy alliance that is determined to take down President Donald Trump. With good reason, Trump calls it a witch hunt.
But since Rosenstein appointed Comey’s buddy Mueller as special counsel, people are beginning to see the whole process as a setup. Or as Barnes puts it, the deck is “stacked” against President Trump. Hence, “the sword of impeachment will be hanging over him,” says Barnes.
This didn’t have to happen, if journalists and commentators had been open and honest about Mueller’s real record. Simply put, Mueller can’t be trusted to arrive at the truth. The anthrax letters case proves it. He should never have received the appointment as special counsel. Barnes’ assertion that the deck has been stacked ignores the fact that he and his associates in the Never-Trump movement helped stack the deck. Why didn’t they blow the whistle on Mueller when he was appointed? Why do they ignore his real record now?
The trap has been set by those conservatives in the media, echoing their liberal colleagues, who wanted to pretend that Mueller is overflowing with honor and integrity. By showering him with praise, they have joined hands with the liberal media in setting the stage for Trump’s impeachment and forced resignation from office.
Call me a cynic, but I can’t help thinking that the Never-Trumpers in the media, such as Barnes, know precisely what is happening. They know Mueller is determined to take down Trump, but that he can only do so if he is given a clean bill of health as a first-rate investigator. Hence, they must whitewash Mueller’s corrupt record in advance of him filing charges against Trump and/or his associates.
The anthrax attack is a puzzle. The FBI has presented the first theory, which says Ivins did it, but most of Ivin’s colleagues say no way. Most seem to agree what was sent to the Senate had to come from a government lab, and doing it on the sly without other scientists in the lab being curious what he was up to and poking around, would have been near impossible.
The second theory, and one which I subscribed to for a while was that some shadowy government agency intended to run a test of how weaponized gram-positive bacillus spores similar to anthrax would spread if sent through the mail. But somehow when someone was supposed to grab a dropper of broth from a flask of a harmless bacillus sentinel species, they accidently grabbed a flask of the Ames strain. Then they synthesized weaponized Ames by accident, and sent it through the mail themselves as part of a post 9/11 test. When the mistake was realized, they just covered their tracks, and hoped it couldn’t be tracked back to them.
But as I reflect on it there is one piece of data which would point against this being a minor accident.
Hatfill, it said, had graduated in 1984 from a medical school in Harare, Zimbabwe, the former Rhodesia. Which had no particular significance to Bedlington, until he did a bit more research and learned the campus bordered a suburb called Greendale. A fairly ordinary name, except for one jaw-dropping coincidence: The fictional return address on two of the anthrax letters read “Greendale School…”
The most curious thing was the letter’s postmark. It had been mailed in mid-November from London. The FBI knew that Hatfill had been in Swindon, England — about 70 miles from London — at that time for specialized training to become a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Agents determined through rental car receipts that he was the only trainee to hire a car, telling others that he planned to visit old friends. The FBI asked British police to help retrace his every move.
It also sought help from police in Kuala Lumpur after a hoax package arrived at a Nevada Microsoft office bearing a Malaysian postmark. For several years, Hatfill had been involved with a Malaysian-born woman who had come to the United States from Kuala Lumpur and worked at a financial consulting firm. Now the FBI began to ponder whether this widowed mother of two had had a role, witting or not, in the anthrax mailings.
If those are too many coincidences (and I think they are, especially the London connection), then you are left with two possibilities. Either in a third theory, the evidence fits, because Hatfill did it.
Or in a forth theory, the entity that did it had access to both government-grade weaponized anthrax, as well as the intel and resources to frame Hatfill, in a preemptive attempt to cover their own tracks. Personally, I am not addressing a WMD mass murder attempt with personal information from my past, or mailing things from unique areas where I can be tracked to through passport data. Plus Hatfill could show he was in one area of the country when some of the packages were mailed from another.
If he was framed that thoroughly, that level of resources and intelligence sophistication would seem to rule out Ivins acting alone also, and only leaves the fourth and fifth theories.
In the fourth theory, one entity somehow purchased the powder and launched the attack, but some state or state-like actor with extensive intelligence capabilities was tracking them, identified the attack, and felt identification of the perpetrators might have adverse effects on their interests. So they laid breadcrumbs, including stolen copies of letters the perpetrators intended to use, pointing to Hatfill. They did so in the hopes they could avoid the consequences of the attack on their interests, without blowing the penetration of their intelligence operations, such as would happen by more directly interfering with the plan. That could be Saudi intel trying to avoid intense investigations of Al Qaida funding sources due to Bin Ladin funding the attack, or some other Middle Eastern interest trying to avoid a war due to some ME/Muslim actor complicity.
That leaves the fifth possibility, which is the entire attack was done by a state or state-like actor, able to identify a suitable patsy within the secretive Bioweapons/Intel community, track him over national borders, and then execute the attack while leaving sufficient evidence to make it appear it had to be him. That could have been Iraq, or even a US governmental agency or private intelligence company which wanted to benefit from increased intelligence contracts and reduced legal oversight. As would definitely occur after a major bioweapons attack on the nation.
Ten years ago I would never have believed it, but today, anything is possible.
Whether Mueller was read in on the unlikely nature of the conclusion of the FBI investigation or not, he has presided over at least one high-profile-investigation which seemed designed to simply close a case at the expense of an individual, rather than find the truth.
Now he’s got the same job again, probably by design of the Establishment, with the hope of achieving the same outcome.