Douglas Caddy

When I lived in Manhattan in the 1960's I admired Jane Jacobs who challenged Robert Moses and created a citizens movement with her book, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." What made Greenwich Village, where I attended NYU Law School, so attractive and interesting was the interplay of the streets that intersected at different angles. It was a delight to walk around the Village. https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+life+and+death+of+great+american+cities&form=PRUSEN&pc=UE07&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=b22342c652374719880500f2106c648f&sp=1&qs=AS&pq=the+life+and+death+of+great+amer&sc=3-32&cvid=b22342c652374719880500f2106c648f

Robert A. Caro on the means and ends of power. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/01/magazine/robert-caro-working-memoir.html

The Mysterious Life and Death of James W. McCord https://kennedysandking.com/obituaries/the-mysterious-life-and-death-of-james-w-mccord?fbclid=IwAR1gSouJ9yIEC5zi9SSK9ggM1Vtswqsb--Eb-LrOGDxS_0yfnlU9AT3vnQM

https://www.madcowprod.com/2018/08/29/a-prime-minister-a-drug-pilot-an-oligarch-russiagate/

MWN Episode 037 – Nixon’s Gamble https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-037-nixons-gamble/?fbclid=IwAR2mDD6P_R8pJXaZzPvIpdi2Xj9MiyGlli6_Lx-7KPfmptlmQf89ppL0lLg

Daniel Hopsicker posted this on Facebook yesterday: A CLIFF NOTE'S VERSION OF WHAT MUELLER FOUND II New York Mob affiliate Donald Trump made common cause with a Russian Mob Boss named Semion Mogilevich. On the U....S. side of the Russiagate equation were gangsters as well as Saudis led by Adnan Khashoggi. Trump’s links to Khashoggi take hours to fully detail. Both were part of Germany’s criminal Deutsche Bank’s money laundering operation for Russian Mobsters. For Deutsche Bank’s grift with Khashoggi, the bank was fined $278 million. Working in Khashoggi’s financial fraud and drug trafficking operation— he’d been named in a secret Defense Intelligence Agency report — was Sarasota grifter Jonathan Curshen (currently in prison until 2030), along with Steve Bannon’s chief lieutenant Andy Badolato. Khashoggi and his chief lieutenant Ramy El Batrawi will later be deeply implicated in the two defining drug trafficking busts of the early 21st Century. Both involved American-registered planes flying out of St. Petersburg Florida. Pavel, Curshen, Voyeurdorm In the early 1990’s Curshen had attempted a last minute save of Semion Mogilevich’s effort to worm his way into the Western financial system with a company named YBM Magnex, by offering to take the company private on the eve of the Fed’s seizure of the entire enterprise. Pavel Vrublevsky, the first Russian hacker named by the FBI, ran back-end operations for a Khashoggi-owned company called “Blue Moon Group Inc,” run by Tampa Mobster Mike Muzio, (currently in prison) that ran dozens of Mob porn sites. A Guyanese drug pilot named Michael Francis Brassington flew co-pilot in 2000-2001 on a Lear jet (N351WB) belonging to Wally Hilliard, owner of Huffman Aviation in Venice Florida, where Mohamed Atta was then taking flying lessons. When Hilliard’s Lear jet was caught with 43 lbs of heroin in Orlando in late July 2000, The Orlando Sentinel (Aug 2 2000) called it a “record-setting heroin seizure.” Evidence in Orlando Federal court indicated that before being busted the Lear jet made 39 weekly drug flights from Venezuela to Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, to Teeterboro Airport outside New York City. Oleg the Oligarch Wally Hilliard was charged in 2004 with flying “numerous unauthorized and unsupervised flights” for Saudi nationals. Discovery showed a Hilliard-owned Lear jet had also been flying regularly, without an FAA air carrier operating certificate, to Rum Cay in the Bahamas for Adnan Khashoggi, who was involved in a struggle for control of the isolated island and its recently-completed 5000-foot runway. Back home in Guyana, Brassington’s politically prominent family cut a billion dollar bauxite deal—while Brassington’s father and uncle were successive Ministers of Privatisation—with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Several years later Deripaska became Paul Manafort’s $18 mil-a-yr sugar daddy, as well as, no doubt coincidentally, Kellyanne Conway’s neighbor in Washington D.C. In April 2004 pilot Michael Brassington entered the US through Fort Lauderdale International Airport. The lone U.S. Customs Agent on duty, J. L. Sanders, a rookie, saw that Brassington’s computer profile showed the him listed as a drug trafficker. But he was carrying a letter from a top Customs official clearing him to enter the U.S. Confused, Sanders phoned his supervisor at Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE). The supervisor instructed him to treat Brassington as a “grave threat to national security.” Welcome to South Florida “He said you can just disregard the letter, and told me to ignore it. And he described Mike Brassington to me as a ‘grave threat to national security.’ He told me that I needed to check him, search him, and search all his passengers.” Brassington will later figure prominently as the personal pilot for deposed Turks & Caicos Premier Mike Misick in a British Commission report into allegations of systemic corruption in the British dependency of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Taking back sovereignty it had already ceded to the Turks and Caicos Islands in order to prosecute rampant corruption by Misick—an unprecedented move—left the British in a deeply awkward position. Among other more serious crimes Brassington and Misick were accused of stealing millions from government coffers in the suddenly-bankrupt Turks & Caicos. Later there was a bitter fight to keep details of the findings from being made public, and exposed a connection between Brassington and another 9/11-connected pilot in Florida, German national Wolfgang Bohringer, said to be a close associate of Mohamed Atta’s, who became the subject of a manhunt in the South Pacific in 2006 after the FBI issued a terror alert for him. Brassington was convicted in 2010 in Federal Court in Newark New Jersey of endangering the lives of his passengers, who included two ex-Presidents, Luciano Pavarotti, Keith Richards, Burt Reynolds and Snoop Doggie Dogg, because of a near-fatal crash of one of his charter company’s luxury jets at Teterboro Airport outside New York City. There are not “multiple truths.” The truth is not subject to long division. There are, however, multiple interpretations. But the best evidence that Donald Trump’s connections with Russian Mob Boss Semion Mogilevich point to only one conclusion is in the character of the man himself. Would he do this? Note: I don’t know that this is what Mueller found. This is what I found. But if people feel free to characterize a report no one’s seen, I’m okay taking a little license too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papadopoulos

Michael Cohen was Trump's Attorney and was known as the "Fixer." He was convicted and will begin serving a three year prison sentence soon. William Barr, the U.S. Attorney General, was appointed by Trump and is now known as Trump's new "Fixer." His actions in attempting to withhold and cover up the contents of the Mueller Report may lead his being charged with Obstruction of Justice.

Has "Cover-Up General" William Barr Struck Again? Barr's history of helping Republican presidents in legal crises may explain why Trump brought him back in to head the Justice Department https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/26/has-cover-general-william-barr-struck-again?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork&fbclid=IwAR0jQjgp3Shm4kaQ2b9KIxoJmNPTH3eOdcEpIMWfFxcJBUOa3CYxFODluAA

John Curington: H.L. Hunt & the Murders of JFK/MLK/RFK/Hoffa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVBdJtT5CH4&t=2194s John Curington, the former right-hand man to oil billionaire H.L. Hunt, discusses Hunt's possible involvement in the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, and Jimmy Hoffa. You'll hear that Hunt had both the motive and opportunity to be involved in these deaths.

From the article: On the conference’s closing day, the white-haired Mowatt-Larssen walked us through his theory on who killed JFK. He started out with a key idea — that if the CIA killed Kennedy, the plot would have necessarily involved three people: a mastermind and two others — one to handle Lee Harvey Oswald and one to deal with Jack Ruby, the Dallas nightclub owner who shot and killed Oswald before he could be interrogated. Then Mowatt-Larssen, using his access to classified CIA files, went looking for officers who would have had a motive, and access. “It takes an agent to find a mole,” he said. “Who would betray his country? We were looking for a team of rogues.” After going through the names of ranking officers during the years before the assassination, and then cross-referencing them, he settled on Jacob Esterline, the CIA’s project director on the failed Bay of Pigs assault on Cuba, as the likely mastermind, the man with the best motive, and the probable ringleader. In his role as the CIA’s director of Western Hemisphere, he would have had access to Oswald, as well. “The rogues must be expert, and they need a motive,” Mowatt-Larssen explained. “To me, JFK is the motive. He pulled the plug on the Bay of Pigs. And he was reckless. He almost got us into a thermonuclear war with the Soviets.” Esterline went on to serve as chief of the CIA’s Miami office, and as deputy director of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division. He died in 1999. Of course, there is no shortage of conspiracy theories about the death of JFK, but Mowatt-Larssen currently serves as director of the Belfer Center’s Intelligence Project — at Harvard’s Kennedy School, no less — so his speculation carries some weight. https://medium.com/s/reasonable-doubt/heres-what-happened-at-valerie-plame-s-spy-convention-cc58aab9435d

I started this topic on August 22, 2017, with this opening statement: "I am posting my legal file on this subject in the JFK Assassination Topic of the Forum because the events described within it initially came about when Roger Stone contacted me in 2012. He requested any information that I might have on LBJ, which I was pleased to provide. In 2013 Stone published his book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, which became a best-seller. In his book Stone credits me as a primary source for information, as is disclosed in the file. Thus, in a roundabout way JFK five decades after his murder is providing from the grave a nexus of how the 2016 presidential election was rigged. Don’t you think he is pleased at doing this?" Roger Stone has been indicted and his trial is set for November. Who know what will emerge at that trial? Who know what will emerge from the Mueller report when it is finally released to the public? It may well turn out that the contents of my legal file that can be found on page 1 of this thread may play a role in Stone's trial or in the Mueller Report or possibly in both. If this were to happen then the fact that this thread was created over a year and a half ago will be vindicated and the many members who contributed their postings to it will be justly entitled to take a bow. The media reports that Roger Stone's book on the JFK assassination has had a second life as a result of all the publicity that he has received in Trump/Putin. So indirectly Stone's legal problems have served to focus attention on the JFK assassination, which is a good thing. I suggest that the thread continue until the Fat Lady sings.

CAPA is pleased to announce that, this year, we will be assuming responsibility for the November in Dallas conference normally organized by Debra Conway. The name of the conference will be “CAPA November in Dallas.” The CAPA board sees this as an important opportunity to reach more people and open new doors. CAPA’s goals have always included pursuing the release of the withheld JFK records, filing Freedom of Information Act requests, instituting other legal actions to enforce the law, and to bring truth to the American public – those efforts will continue. CAPA is in the midst of planning the CAPA November in Dallas conference which will be held on November 22/23. Please save the dates. We will keep you apprised of our progress.

This was posted today on Facebook by Stand With Mueller: Special counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report on the Russia investigation, and Republicans are gloating. They claim a four-page letter from Attorney General William Barr, purporting to summarize the report, exonerates President Donald Trump. They’re wrong. The letter says the Justice Department won’t prosecute Trump, but it reaches that conclusion by tailoring legal standards to protect the president. Here’s a list of Barr’s weasel words and what they’re hiding. ▶ “The Russian government.” The letter quotes a sentence from Mueller’s report. In that sentence, Mueller says his investigation didn’t prove that members of the Trump campaign “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The sentence specifies Russia’s government. It says nothing about coordination with other Russians. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, gave campaign polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian associate who has been linked to Russian intelligence. Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner met secretly in Trump Tower with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-connected lawyer. But neither Kilimnik nor Veselnitskaya is part of the Russian government. They seem to be excluded from Barr’s analysis. ▶ “In its election interference activities.” This phrase is included in the same excerpt. It reflects the structure of the investigation. Mueller started with a counterintelligence probe of two specific Russian government operations: the production of online propaganda to influence the 2016 U.S. election, and the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. These are the two operations Mueller targeted in his indictments of Russians last year. If Barr’s letter is accurate, Mueller seems to have decided to confine his examination of American complicity to those two operations. In fact, Barr’s letter specifically cites those operations as the contexts in which Mueller didn’t find conspiracy or coordination. Other contacts between Trump associates and Russians, such as Trump’s Moscow tower project and Michael Flynn’s secret talks about easing sanctions, have been set aside. ▶ “Agreement—tacit or express.” A footnote in Barr’s letter says the special counsel defined coordination as “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.” The letter doesn’t clarify whether this definition originally came from Mueller or from the Justice Department. This, too, limits the range of prosecutable collusion. We know, for example, that in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. was told in an email that “the Crown prosecutor of Russia” had “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary … and would be very useful to your father.” The email said the offer was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. wrote back: “If it’s what you say I love it.” Apparently, by the standards asserted in the letter, this doesn’t count as even “tacit agreement … on election interference.” ▶ “Rosenstein and I have concluded.” Barr’s letter mixes two different authors. On questions of conspiracy and coordination, Barr summarizes Mueller’s findings. But on the question of whether Trump obstructed justice, Barr draws his own conclusion: “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.” That’s Barr’s opinion, not Mueller’s. As the letter concedes, Mueller “did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” That’s for the rest of us to decide. ▶ “Absence of such evidence.” One reason to be suspicious of Barr’s conclusions is that in the course of the letter, he tweaks Mueller’s opinion to look more like his own. Mueller’s report, as excerpted by Barr, says “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Barr quotes that line and then, in the same sentence, concludes that “the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.” But the excerpt from Mueller’s report doesn’t refer to an absence of evidence. It refers to a presence of evidence, and it says this evidence isn’t enough to prove a crime. Throughout the investigation, this has been a standard Republican maneuver: misrepresenting an absence of proof as an absence of evidence. Barr’s use of this maneuver in his letter is a red flag that he’s writing partisan spin. ▶ “Underlying crime.” When Barr concludes that Trump shouldn’t be charged with obstruction, he bases this on his prior decision not to charge Trump with conspiracy. Since “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” Barr argues, there was no “pending or contemplated proceeding” that Trump’s behavior could have obstructed. This argument has many problems, but let’s start with the simplest one: It bypasses examination of Trump’s obstructive acts. Barr simply defines whatever Trump did as nonobstructive, as long as an underlying conspiracy with Russia isn’t proved. If Trump asked then–FBI Director James Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, that’s fine. ▶ “Related to Russian election interference.” Barr’s requirement of “an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” as a predicate for prosecuting obstruction of justice, exempts Trump from obstruction charges even if Trump is shown to have committed crimes—as long as those crimes aren’t specifically connected to the Russian hacking and propaganda campaigns. Flynn, for example, conferred secretly with Russia’s ambassador about lifting sanctions, but not until weeks after the 2016 election. Even if this were proved to be a criminal conspiracy on Flynn’s part, Barr’s legal standard would insulate Trump from prosecution for anything he did to thwart the FBI’s investigation of Flynn. ▶ “That the President was involved in.” In narrowing the permissible premises for an obstruction charge, Barr doesn’t just specify that the crime in question has to be related to the two Russian interference operations. He specifies that the crime has to involve Trump himself. This immunizes Trump against prosecution for anything he did to obstruct investigations, not only into Flynn, but also into the established crimes of Manafort and the alleged crimes of Roger Stone. ▶ “Pending or contemplated proceeding.” Barr says none of Trump’s acts against Comey or other investigators can be prosecuted as obstruction of justice, since they lack “a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding.” For example (this is my example, not Barr’s), when Trump fired Comey, Trump wasn’t facing trial and wasn’t officially a target of the Russia investigation. By this standard, the president can bury an investigation as long as he does so before it gets to him. You can’t walk out on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, because that’s assault with a deadly weapon. But if somebody gets shot on Fifth Avenue, and your friend lies to police about it, you can order the cops to drop their investigation of your friend. ▶ “Each of which … beyond a reasonable doubt.” Barr says Mueller found “no actions that, in our judgment,” can simultaneously meet three tests: (1) “obstructive conduct,” (2) “corrupt intent,” and (3) “nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding.” The attorney general says prosecutors would have to prove “each” of these elements of the case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Even if some of Trump’s acts are both obstructive and corrupt, Barr won’t bring charges unless the “nexus to a … proceeding” can also be proved by the highest legal standard. In a case like this one, that’s an almost impossible threshold for prosecution. When we get our hands on Mueller’s report—and ultimately, Mueller’s evidence—we’ll have a fuller picture of what he found. We know from Barr’s letter that in the report, Mueller “sets out evidence on both sides” of the obstruction question—and that Mueller says his report “does not exonerate” Trump. For now, all we have is the letter. And it doesn’t show that Trump is innocent of collusion or obstruction. It shows that collusion and obstruction were defined to exclude what he did.

Posted today on Facebook. Author identified at end of article: Trump's exoneration may rest entirely on Mueller’s caution and prudence, the very qualities that kept his investigation from turning into a witch hunt. Attorney General William Barr’s summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report vindicates, without reservation, President Donald Trump's insistence that there was no collusion with the Russians regarding the 2016 campaign. Clearing the president and his campaign of a provable conspiracy is a matter of law. But as a matter of national security, Barr’s letter does not clear up very much about the relationship between the Trump inner circle and the Russians, or about the behavior of the president himself. There is unambiguous good news for the president in Barr’s letter. Most important, it means that on the central question Mueller was asked to investigate, there is no evidence to link the Trump campaign to the Russian government. This is not the same thing as saying that people in the Trump campaign were not involved in shady dealings with bad people, but it lays to rest — and for this we should all be thankful — the possibility that the president of the United States knowingly cooperated with an enemy government in seeking election. This, however, is an odd finding and one that is difficult to square with how many people are in legal trouble for lying about this very issue. If there was no canoodling with the Russians, why was there so much lying? How did Mueller manage to unravel what looks like a tangle of deceptions about Russia — and then reach a conclusion that there was no collusion with the Russians? Without seeing the actual Mueller report, it seems at this point that there are three possibilities: First, it may well be that Mueller only uncovered the usual swampy mess found under some of the slimiest rocks in Washington. It is not news that there are millions of dirty Russian dollars — billions, even — infesting an army of consultants, lobbyists and law firms in most of the world’s major capitals. ▶ Expecting to cash in on a Trump loss This would explain how a claque of grifters who were already feeding at the Russian trough latched on to Trump and then found themselves completely unprepared for life in the spotlight when Trump won. They expected Trump to lose, but they knew they could sell their proximity to a major campaign, and to senior figures in the GOP, to the Kremlin and other unsavory clients long after November 2016. (This would explain, for example, the otherwise baffling behavior of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was a walking Jenga pile of ethical conflicts that should have ruled him out for a White House job immediately.) The fatal mistake of this group, from Paul Manafort on down, is that they underestimated Trump’s chances of winning and overestimated Trump’s intelligence. They never expected that Trump would do something as stupid as firing FBI Director James Comey while — according to a document read to The New York Times — bragging to the Russian ambassador that he did it to stop any further investigations. When Mueller began his work, they panicked, lied about things they didn’t need to lie about, and then nature took its course. The second possibility is that Barr is carefully parsing Mueller here, noting — at least to the eyes of a layperson rather than a lawyer — that Mueller could not legally establish that members of the Trump campaign "or anyone associated with it" reached out and made a deal with people they knew to be representatives of the Russian government. ▶ Bread crumbs from WikiLeaks to Moscow Barr’s letter is carefully worded on these points, with terms like “knowingly,” “associate” and “government” potentially doing a lot of work. If Roger Stone, for example, communicated with Julian Assange about Hillary Clinton’s emails, does this pass the test of “campaign associates” “knowingly” working with “the Russian government”? For a lawyer, perhaps not, since Stone was not officially associated with the campaign, and Assange is not part of the Russian government. For anyone following the bread crumbs from WikiLeaks to Moscow (as Barr’s letter itself notes) and from Stone back to the Trump family, it’s an easier call. What a lawyer can prove, however, and what a counterintelligence analyst might believe with a high degree of certainty are not the same thing. The main problem with both of these theories is that they cannot explain very much about how Trump and his coterie acted right from the start of this entire matter. If there was no collusion, why did the president panic and fire Comey, and thus proliferate his own troubles beyond all measure? Why did the people around him lie at will, almost as a reflex? Why were senior Republicans, such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, determined to undermine any investigations into the Russia matter if they were so certain that a fair inquiry by a man like Mueller would clear Trump? This raises a third possibility. If senior figures in the Trump campaign knew they had done things that were unethical or illegal, they may have assumed that Mueller had more evidence, or that he was willing to prosecute them on the evidence he had. They might have then made a decision to lie pre-emptively, believing that Mueller had already bridged the gap between what the FBI suspected when it opened its investigation of the president after the Comey firing, and what could be proven in a court of law. ▶ Mueller avoided a witch hunt Until Congress sees the full report, we will not know Mueller’s reasoning. But if this is the case, and Mueller refused to pursue charges for which he did not have an ironclad case, then the president’s exoneration ironically rests entirely on Mueller’s caution and prudence — in other words, on the very qualities that prevented a swift and fruitful investigation from turning into a witch hunt. Finally, it is important to note that this summary of the Mueller report only answers a very specific question about the election of 2016. It tells us nothing about the president’s longstanding relationship with the Kremlin, including his attempts to hide a pending deal in Moscow during the election, nor about his bizarre admiration of, and deference to, Russian President Vladimir Putin. Robert Mueller has done his country a great service. He has cleared a president on an important charge against him and damaged the Russian intelligence services in the process by exposing their efforts to influence our elections. He has jailed people for serious crimes. But he cannot answer questions that he was not asked, and those questions remain. Tom Nichols is a national security professor at the Naval War College, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors and author of "The Death of Expertise." The views expressed here are solely his own. Follow him on Twitter: @RadioFreeTom

It seems to me that we don't know what Mueller said. We only know what Barr said about what Mueller said!

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today: So now we know that Trump will not be removed from office in handcuffs. It will take an overwhelming majority of American voters to evict him from the White House. And that's how it should be. Trump might not be a traitor -- at least not in the strict legal sense. But he's still a crook of global proportions. In exonerating Trump on treason charges, Robert Mueller exposed many stinking pools of swampy corruption in both Trump Inc. and Trump Campaign 2016. A rogue's nest of Tr...ump associates has already been imprisoned or indicted based on Mueller's probe -- and more evidence of criminality has been referred to state and federal prosecutors by Mueller's office. But as for Russia-gate, I always feared that Rachel Maddow and the MSNBC/CNN/Washington Post/NY Times media consortium was focused much too heavily on that story. In fact it became Maddow's overriding obsession for two years. Maybe now the liberal cable news channels will rethink outsourcing their programming to the Deep State -- i.e., the countless numbers of former CIA, NSA, DoD officials, national security think tank pundits, and Capitol Hill Intelligence Committee politicians who suck up all the cable news airtime. Trying mightily to stir up a new Cold War with Russia, these Deep State types succeeded in handing Trump a big political victory. He'll be crowing about how he beat the Deep State and its Democratic Party acolytes for the next two years. Mueller's massive investigation shows once again that FBI types and other high justice officials are not suited to investigate criminal oligarchies like Trump's -- this type of corporate corruption is too embedded in the capitalist system for establishment law officers like Mueller to recognize it as criminal. It will take crusading members of Congress to keep enlightening the American people about how a gangster like Trump amassed his fortune and power, and who colluded with him to take the White House. Trump's key conspirators were not in the Kremlin -- they are the captains of Wall Street, the energy industry, the weapons trade, the mobbed-up construction business, the casino and sex trafficking racket, etc. House Democrats -- and state law officials -- should keep turning over these rocks so we can see all the creepy-crawlers in Trump's world. But in the end, Trump will have to be forced from the Oval Office the same way he crawled in -- on Election Day. We have to build an anti-Trump movement so powerful that it will withstand all the treachery and racism and corruption that is built into our electoral system. Then Trump will not only lose -- Democracy (not the Deep State) will win.

I hope that the Mueller Report will not cause thoughtful Americans to think about the Warren Commission Report as a precedent to what we are seeing today.

William Barr's June 2018 memo ripping into Mueller's investigation that led to Trump naming him as U.S. Attorney General https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KPyQWwWfxLZ8dppih88G3yDRvJfAirrG/view

Jennifer Rubin writing just now in the Washington Post: "However, in a major respect, Barr’s action in declaring no crime of obstruction is inexplicable. Because it is the Justice Department’s position that Trump cannot be indicted as a sitting president, there is no requirement — indeed, it is inappropriate — for Barr to weigh in. The job is up to Congress, according to Barr’s own department guidelines. Suspicions about Barr’s willingness to clear the president, based on a memo he wrote to the Justice Department before being nominated as attorney general, look well-founded."

Attorney General Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html

MWN Episode 115 – Treachery in Dallas with Walt Brown https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-115-treachery-in-dallas-with-walt-brown/?fbclid=IwAR2_3JN4GrZH57FF4tcERK1z70rIIJ9_XjRHPsV_PHhsli8HJtUpluLW2-0

The 3rd release of The Garrison Files; The David Ferrie files https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOUXK7wkDek&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR10oUVLtVW9bblrZRDOrGCR9nnafrfW8HLMB1gWgI0Ko3Up5E5oBAu7ZXw

Director Oliver Stone claims JFK's death was an inside job https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/oliver-stone-who-killed-john-f-kennedy?fbclid=IwAR0nibqzWafb4sNVLScg78gmTjf3-3iedU-IGMN_ORiS3fUIWuphyWJYOus