My two week’s Commentary from South of the border. SPYGate, etc.
My recent FB commentary on John Brennan and his likely role in using an “informant” (spy) to infiltrate the Trump campaign solicited 1000s of replies particularly Jill B. of Texas reminding me of a story that came out last year in POLITICO. Since that time, of course, it has gone to the Land Where Anti-Obama Stories Go To Die, but this remarkable piece exposes in extreme detail the thwarting of the DEA’s “Project Cassandra” during the time surrounding the Iran nuclear deal. These dedicated agents had spent years unlocking the secrets of Hezbollah’s funding as it morphed from a regional paramilitary organization into a sophisticated organized-crime/terrorist power spreading its tentacles across the globe, with much of its muscle concentrated in Latin America.
Anyway, perhaps you remember the story; Hezbollah was laundering massive amounts of money through international sales of used cars. The billions of dollars generated by Hezbollah’s commerce in cocaine, IEDs, chemical weapons and other deadly commodities helped to arm jihadis who killed and mangled American soldiers, something to remember if you decide to take a little time over this Memorial Day weekend and read the whole sorry account.

Many agents who spoke for this report said they were sure negotiations for the Iran deal sabotaged their ability to bring the charges they’d labored for years to make stick. Getting that awful deal was more important to the White House than stopping what was growing into a huge international terrorist power. These agents believe –- “will believe to the death,” one source said –- that the case they built was deliberately dismantled because of an interdepartmental turf war over Iran.

Then-CIA Director John Brennan had expressed publicly –- the story quotes him from 2010, when he was Obama’s assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism –- that it was good to build up the Hezbollah “moderates.” Hezbollah moderates; now there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one. Anyone who believes in courting Hezbollah moderates is just a moron, period. But Project Cassandra participants said for this story that “the Obama administration’s willingness to envision a new role for Hezbollah in the Middle East, combined with its desire for a negotiated settlement in Iran’s nuclear program, translated into a reluctance to move aggressively against the top Hezbollah operatives.”

John Brennan refused to comment on anything related to his work at the CIA. According to one DEA agent working in the Mideast, his operations were shut down repeatedly over political sensitivities. He said that when Iranian negotiators complained about their covert operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Obama White House got the CIA to declare a moratorium. “During the operations, early on, they [the Iranians] said, ‘Listen, we need you to lay off Hezbollah, to tamp down the pressure on them,’ and the Obama administration acquiesced to that request,” he said, adding, “It was a strategic agreement to show good faith toward the Iranians in terms of reaching an agreement. The Obama team really, really, really wanted the deal.”

No wonder John Brennan despises President Trump with such a white-hot hate. Brennan and Obama were working hand-in-hand to appease both Iran and Hezbollah and get that mistake-of-a-deal done at any cost. Trump, thankfully, sees those leaders for what they are and refuses to be a chump. Still, it appears to be too late to revive Project Cassandra, which was hit by the bureaucratic equivalent of a roadside bomb.
—————————————————————————————-
My FB commentary on the argument on the unconstitutionality of Mueller’s appointment has likewise generated tons of responses from FB readers, so many that it’ll take me a while to catch up. But there’s a cynical common responses : Thanking me, for explaining this, but you realize it won’t matter, nothing will happen, the swamp is too thick to drain, the left is too entrenched, the media are in it with them, there’s nothing anybody can do. Yes, folks, I share the frustration, but the only way we can change things is to push back as hard as we can. If we back off, it’s over.

Common wisdom says that shining a light on roaches makes them run. But these infiltrators are a different species of roach, calling themselves “confidential insect sources” instead of what we know they are. Catch them in your beam, and they just lie to your face (they also get book deals) and say: “We are NOT filthy roaches…we are “we were, uh, PATROLLING your kitchen to track down the REAL pests! Yeah, that’s the ticket! We were doing you a favor. You should be GLAD we got into your house.”

So we have to fight these vermin. Some of my readers expressed skepticism that any lawyer wouldn’t already know about the Appointments Clause, saying that bureaucrat-lawyers such as those within the FBI and other departments would not necessarily have that much of an understanding. Their brains function in certain ways that pertain to the kind of work they do: warrants, indictments, trying cases, etc. They the readers says they probably don’t know other parts of the Constitution all that well.

After hearing from so many who doubt anything will come of this, I concluded my FB reply that the most likely way –- perhaps the only way –- the Appointments Clause could make a difference would be if it gets argued before the Supreme Court. And right after having that thought, I read a comment from former lawyer (who confessed he’d practiced law “before God relieved me of that burden”) James Nearen, who also happens to lives somewhere in Long Island, NY.

Mr. Nearen writes to say that he agreed with me, but he adds that such an esoteric argument, to be successful, would have to go all the way to SCOTUS. (It does appear so.) In the meantime, he cautions Rudy Giuliani — are you listening, Rudy?? — that he MUST NOT allow President Trump to answer ANY questions. If Trump answers even one, it could be seen as a “waiver of a legal defect,” which I think means he wouldn’t be able to make the Appointments Clause argument from that point on, even if it’s valid.

He also mentioned something we should all know by now: that there’s no getting around the fact that any questioning by Mueller will be a perjury trap. So there would inevitably be an allegation of perjury, even if Trump is trying his best to be truthful, followed by an attempt at impeachment. Nearen says that even if Mueller’s team is committing legal malpractice, that fact wouldn’t help the President.

Again, are you there, Rudy? DO NOT let the President testify under any circumstances. Put the Appointments Clause argument together and get it before the Supreme Court. We might have just enough Supreme Court justices who care about constitutional protections of Presidential power.

PLEASE LEAVE ME A COMMENT at my email address: angel.bulauitan@gmail.com or visit our website www.balita.ca and leave me your comment. I read , answer and publish them.