The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Moral of the Mueller Inquisition, Part 2
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One among many, former CIA head honcho John Brennan had famously asserted that President Trump was “treasonous” and “in the pocket of Putin.”

It was “beyond a shadow of a doubt [that Trump] sought to…collude with the Russian government…to undermine and influence our elections,” seconded wonder boy Beto O’Rourke.

And that’s just a humdrum smattering of the folly force-fed to Americans for the two years of the Mueller Inquisition, from “respectable” TV megaphones, including legions of Never Trump Republicans.

The same characters, in their many interchangeable iterations, will remind you that the omniscient Mueller had equivocated over the matter of obstruction of justice. Over this, the second part of his eponymous report, Mueller declined to prosecute Trump.

The first part of Robert Mueller’s report “cleared Donald Trump of having conspired with Russia.”

Let us unpack the obstruction-of-justice aspect of the ongoing farce: In the course of defending his reputation against silly, but gravely serious, smears—that he was a “Russian asset,” in the words of former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe—the president forcefully and publicly berated the Mueller proceedings and his turncoat attorney, Michael Cohen (who, though a hostile witness, testified that there was no collusion).

To Mueller, that paragon of virtue, the dilemma revolved around whether to indict Trump for the fighting words he spoke in defense of his now-proven innocence. Free speech, some might call it. (Remember that quaint thing?)

For in the legal penumbra in which the U.S. Office of Special Counsel operates, aggressively professing your innocence can amount to obstructing “justice.”

Fight an unjust conviction with everything you’ve got—and you risk being convicted of a crime.

This is the Kafkaesque, circular reasoning that animates the workings of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC): It can criminalize conduct—worse, it can criminalize speech—that is perfectly licit in natural law, such as verbally defending oneself against spurious accusations.

Or, as Attorney-General William Barr put it, “Mr. Trump could not have obstructed justice because HE DID NOT COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA.”

As a scrupulously honest broadcaster, Tucker Carlson recently confessed to “looking back in shame” for having originally supported Kenneth Starr’s independent counsel investigation of President Clinton. (Good libertarians have always opposed the very existence of the OSC. This writer certainly has.)

Another honest man, Democrat Mark Penn, former chief strategist to Hillary Clinton and a frequent guest of the Tucker Carlson show, had “spent a year working with President Clinton” to fend off Special Counsel Ken Starr’s extrajudicial onslaught. Penn had recently remarked candidly that the Starr investigation “was child’s play” compared to the infractions of the Mueller investigation.

Yet, few have been willing to concede that the Mueller inquisition was the Kenneth Starr Chamber by any other name.

The origin of the Star[r] Chamber sobriquet is in 15th-century England.

Meant to remedy injustice in the times of Henry VIII, the “Court of Star Chamber,” as it was known, was soon co-opted and corrupted, becoming “a symbol of oppression” during the times of Charles I.

For reasons obvious, the “Starr Chamber” designation stuck to the outfit run by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, in1998.

Likewise, there was, seemingly, no limit to the broad remit of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Other than some accused Russians, nobody stateside dared challenge—from the vantage point of first principles—this draconian medieval inquisition.

The Fake News herd failed to report this, but the accused Russian spooks had actually called uber-bureaucrat Mueller’s bluff. Lo and behold, some of them had surprised the special counsel by showing up in court and demanding due process of law, American style.

The Russian company indicted by Mueller (“along with 13 individuals”) for election meddling asked the judge “to throw out the charges – claiming that Mueller’s office fabricated a crime.” At the time, Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Washington federal judge, seemed inclined to agree.

At the height of the “collusion delusion,” Evgeny Prigozhin, a Russian businessman, remarked wistfully:

“Americans are very emotional people; they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them … If they want to see the devil [in me], let them.”

Who can deny that, periodically, we Americans are convulsed by mass hysteria? “Hysterical contagion,” as explained by sociologists, is the spread of symptoms of illness among a group, absent any physiological disease. It’s a coping-mechanism-a way to cope with a situation that cannot be handled with the usual psychological coping mechanisms.

The frenzied behavior known as mass hysteria or hysterical contagion is well documented. The Trump-Russia collusion-and-obstruction-of-justice probe qualifies, with an exception: This particular form of mass madness involves not a physical malady, but a meme, a story-line.

What gripped and inflamed irrational, febrile minds—still does—was the emotional pitch with which the Russia collusion groupthink was delivered, day in and day out.

Rumors for which no evidence could possibly be adduced were recounted incessantly as facts. Positive, productive conduct—say diplomacy with Russia—was targeted as criminality, by agents of a Federal Government that has enough laws on the books to indict each one of us, if it so desired.

The Russian businessman just mentioned was being charitable. If past is prologue; the frenzy of inflamed imaginations could very well spill over into all-out war.

If this is to be averted, Deep State operatives must be punished for pulling a Jussie Smollett on the country. For inciting the “Russia monomania” in the teeth of no evidence or evidence to the contrary, the inciters must pay.

The sharks involved in the “collusion delusion” must not be allowed to slip through the netting.

As to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Whether headed by Kenneth Starr or Robert Mueller, the OSC with its police powers and “storm-trooper tactics” is not an office one associates with a free society. It ought to be abolished!

READ PART 1: “Mueller & Mohamad Atta: Fake Intel Runs Through Prague.”


Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s been suspended from Twitter, but is on Facebook, Gab & YouTube

Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. G. Poulin says:

    What ought to be abolished is this sorry-ass excuse for a democratic republic we live in. We need it like we need a hole in the head.

  2. Corvinus says:

    Would you not agree that the Mueller Report ought to be made available in full to Congress? Yes-no. Why?

    “For in the legal penumbra in which the U.S. Office of Special Counsel operates, aggressively professing your innocence can amount to obstructing “justice.””

    LOL, thanks for the huffing and puffing. You can now sit down, We can take it from here. According to un-redacted parts of the Mueller report, there are several important things to consider.

    The Special Counsel’s Office exercised its judgment regarding what to investigate and did not, for instance, investigate every public report of a contact between the Trump Campaign and Russian-affiliated individuals and entities.

    In August 2017, Rosenstein *explicitly* authorized Mueller to investigate criminal charges on the subject of whether Page, Manafort, or Papadopoulos were “colluding” (the exact term used!) with the Russians.

    Mueller’s summary of the Report’s content does NOT say he looked at conspiracy with anyone BUT Russian government officials. That means that Barr probably has misrepresented the Report in saying that it looked at conspiracy with *all* Russian nationals.

    The report also explicitly says that “did not establish” does NOT mean “there was no evidence”. So pundits will quite rightly distinguish between “did not establish [beyond a reasonable doubt]” and “no evidence” of conspiracy (or “coordination,” which Mueller apparently defined identically as “conspiracy”).

    Moreover, Barr’s use of “collusion” AT MOST referred to “Scenario 1 [of 4]”—collusion by criminal conspiracy. His *political trick* was to pretend he was referring to all four types, which the report clearly outlines.

    (1) Collusion by conspiracy (a crime)*
    (2) Collusion by other crimes (a crime)*
    (3) Noncriminal collusion (a national security threat)*
    (4) Noncriminal collusion (an ethical offense)

    So it appears that Mueller anticipated the Trump-Barr line of political rhetoric and fully defuses it in the first two pages of his Report.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  3. In Clinton’s case, the OSC wasn’t directed at finding any criminal charges to bring against Clinton. The whole thrust of the investigation was to cover up the murder of Foster and to divert the House impeachment process from looking at Clinton’s actual crimes including conspiracy to commit murder.

    Starr’s sham investigation supported the shifting the focus of the impeachment proceedings to a charge of mere to marital infidelity, rather than the numerous felonies that the Clintons had been committing from the time they first gained power in Arkansas and continuing into their co-presidency, so-called because of Hillary’s statement, “We are the president”.

    The coroner’s ruling of suicide in Foster’s death was a direct result of Brett Kavanaugh’s work under the direction of Ken Starr.

  4. Obviously it was nonsense from the start and I had no interest in it, and paid no attention to it.

    The nose is behind it. The nose wants open borders/white genocide. Trump said he was going to do something about immigration. So, the nose had to wreck his presidency. Now that Trump shit on his base and went back on his promise to do something about immigration, the probe is shut down and he’s in the clear.

    Face it, the nose wins again.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  5. @Robert Dolan

    Don’t get tunnel vision. There are plenty of deluded gentile Boomers in the Swamp who think we’re still debating marginal tax rates and the Commerce Clause who are plotting against Trump to return us to the days of impotent Republican principled principletarianism.

  6. Boomer blame is high level jewing.

    Boomers have nothing to do with Trump breaking his promises.

  7. Anon[934] • Disclaimer says:

    An article by Mercer is often a chance to both read mostly agreeable thoughts and run across new words.
    I think she wouldn’t mind the nickname “Ilana Thesaurus”.

  8. Rich says:

    All this nonsense, all this money and time wasted with this ridiculous “probe”, makes me wonder of the Deep State wasn’t actually scared of Trump for a few minutes there. He’s bent over backwards for them, shown he’s one of the boys, so they’ve given him a pass, for now. And he’s still better than any dem anywhere. The dems are now the “reparations” party. Any White, Hispanic or Asian who votes for them, is suicidal. We’ll see what happens.

  9. Carlson is right about the misuse of public funds to investigate public officials about things that don’t relate to the public business. It is invasive to economic elites and power brokers, the unnecessary and distracting probes of things unrelated to the issues that we elect them to solve, like reducing wage-undercutting mass immigration to reasonable levels, which Trump has not done.

    But I am pretty sure that most voters are much more worried about Fourth Amendment privacy rights as it pertains to average citizens, barely scraping a living out of this Surveillance Economy, this Peeping Tom Economy, this Scam Churn-Gig Economy if they’re making it at all. Many aren’t. Ninety-five million US citizens are out of the labor force, and the average employee in the USA works part time. It is a lose / lose situation for most Americans, this low-energy job creation in a Fourth Amendment-free economy. It is more damaging to the serfs, facing rent that has inflated by 72% since 1995, than to these economic elites who have a lot to lose and a lot to gain: millions upon millions of insulating dollars for any invasive losses of their rights due to an over-reaching government.

    This is a Sham Economy, with a lot of corporations making it mostly because of borrowing money from the Federal Reserve Bank to buyback their own stock.

    Under the guise of competing with China in one more G-number mobile-tech marketing blitz, they’re trying to create a Fourth Amendment Free economy, hooking us all up to biometric devices that read every expression on our faces and gauge our heart rate, fishing for even more invasive data to sell, acting like that is a real economy, not just a Peeping Tom Economy, even though US tech companies only employ a handful of US citizens and a lot of foreign nationals.

    The surveillance tech is appropriate for some uses, but not for extending into the private space of citizens in a so-called republic. The privacy-invading facial-recognition tech could have prevented a lot of heinous school shootings. The parents, the kids and any approved grandparent babysitters who pick them up from school would get through the door, with any others—including possible shooters—prevented from entering all doors by the facial-recognition tech.

    That’s a proper use of it in a public space, but that is not what they are planning. They are planning a data-mining economy that is super-privacy-invading, even in our homes, and we are just supposed to trust them despite all of the scammy, aggressive, destructive and even dangerous uses of personal data that are out there. Despite all sorts of non-reputable companies, seeking to make a buck off of the wholesale destruction of the Fourth Amendment, we are supposed to be happy since a handful of US programmers and a bunch of foreign nationals get some high-paying gig jobs out of it.

    What is the Republican plan?

    It appears to be just bragging about an economic status quo that only serves the interests of the top 20% and their welfare-eligible, noncitizen, cheap servants, with a lot of complaining about the burdens of elites, like heavy-handed investigations of unimportant issues.

  10. “the inciters must pay”. Umm hmmm…:

    now comes the Trump-Barr crackback against the


    and it’ll be as phony as Mueller’s “investigation”. Both

    intended to keep Drumpf’s White voters from noticing that

    he has betrayed them on every single issue. Drumpf has, however,

    done real good by Israhell. Which is why a certain

    Wandering Zionist living in Seattle

    continues to defend him.

  11. @Corvinus

    Would you not agree that the Mueller Report ought to be made available in full to Congress? Yes-no. Why?

    No. Because the law forbids it.

    The report also explicitly says that “did not establish” does NOT mean “there was no evidence”. So pundits will quite rightly distinguish between “did not establish [beyond a reasonable doubt]” and “no evidence” of conspiracy (or “coordination,” which Mueller apparently defined identically as “conspiracy”).

    Oh yea, then where is the evidence? It’s nothing more than Mueller and his crew playing word games to let this drag on. Admit it. The whole thing was dreamed up by the DNC to take the heat off the information in the upcoming Wikileaks dump on Clinton, and that is exactly what has happened. No one remembers the damning evidence against her in that dump, because all anyone has heard since that time has been Russian collusion.

    By the way, Papadopoulos has aleady disputed “evidence” in Mueller’s report:

    What you seem to be missing, is that Part II is not a report at all. It is a political narrative filled with hearsay and conjecture. It contains zero evidence.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV