Mr. Luce again brings his cliche ridden cogitations to the agonizing dilemma of the ‘Trump Question’. E. g.: ‘The guns of August are cocked and ready.’ Would historian Barbara Tuchman forgive? The root of the whole affair is the wounded ego of the utterly corrupt New Democrat Hillary Clinton. Who in the face of the Wikileaks string of the revelations about her party , attempted to change to subject from the corruption of the New Democratic political machine, to the Trinity of Co-Conspirators Comey/Putin/Assange. The Great Victimizer transmogrified into a Martyr, there is nothing the courtier press won’t repeat as true, because its all about access journalism.
As for Robert Mueller filling the role in this melodrama as ‘incorruptible’ look to the record of first the FBI:
On the record of the incompetence The FBI Crime Lab., read this 1998 book review from The New York Times:
Like a lot of myths about the F.B.I., the image of its criminal laboratory as a cutting-edge forensic unit has frayed rather badly in recent years, as internal Justice Department investigations disclosed problems ranging from sloppy evidence handling to doctored reports. In ”Tainting Evidence,” John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne continue the assault, showing how the lab’s ineptitude played out in a series of high-profile cases like the bombings at the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City Federal Building and the mail bomb assassination of Robert Vance, a Federal appeals court judge.
Kelly, who was the principal investigator for ”The Bureau,” a 1995 PBS television series, and Wearne, a freelance journalist based in London and Brussels, make Frederic Whitehurst, a chemist at the F.B.I. lab, their protagonist. They portray top Federal Bureau of Investigation managers as creaky bureaucrats who turned on Whitehurst. He had been showering them for years with memos complaining about the lab and examiners who worked there. His superiors greeted his criticisms with shrugs of complacency — and then a demotion in the form of a transfer. In the end, Whitehurst’s whistle-blowing worked: it was largely responsible for forcing the Justice Department to investigate the lab. After an 18-month inquiry, however, in April 1997 the department’s inspector general issued a 517-page report dismissing Whitehurst’s charges that lab examiners fabricated testimony, but confirming important allegations of testimonial errors, substandard analytical work and poor practices at the lab’s chemistry-toxicology, explosives and material analysis units.
On the 2001 Anthrax attack, still unsolved, see this portion of the National Academy of Sciences review of that FBI investigation:
In what appears to have been a response to lingering skepticism, on September 16, 2008, the FBI asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct an independent review of the scientific evidence that led the agency to implicate U.S. Army researcher Bruce Ivins in the anthrax letter attacks of 2001. However, despite taking this action, Director Mueller said that the scientific methods applied in the investigation had already been vetted by the research community through the involvement of several dozen nonagency scientists.
The NAS review officially got underway on April 24, 2009. While the scope of the project included the consideration of facts and data surrounding the investigation of the 2001 Bacillus anthracis mailings, as well as a review of the principles and methods used by the FBI, the NAS committee was not given the task to “undertake an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence in any specific component of the investigation, prosecution, or civil litigation”, nor to offer any view on the guilt or innocence of any of the involved people.
In mid-2009, the NAS committee held public sessions, in which presentations were made by scientists, including scientists from the FBI laboratories. In September 2009, scientists, including Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University, Joseph Michael of Sandia National Laboratory and Peter Weber of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, presented their findings. In one of the presentations, scientists reported that they did not find any silica particles on the outside of the spores (i.e., there was no “weaponization”), and only that only some of the spores in the anthrax letters contained silicon inside their spore coats. One of the spores was still inside the “mother germ”, yet it already had silicon inside its spore coat.
In October 2010, the FBI submitted materials to NAS that it had not previously provided. Included in the new materials were results of analyses performed on environmental samples collected from an overseas site. Those analyses yielded evidence of the Ames strain in some samples. NAS recommended a review of those investigations.
The NAS committee released its report on February 15, 2011, concluding that it was “impossible to reach any definitive conclusion about the origins of the anthrax in the letters, based solely on the available scientific evidence”. The report also challenged the FBI and U.S. Justice Department’s conclusion that a single-spore batch of anthrax maintained by Ivins at his laboratory at Fort Detrick in Maryland was the parent material for the spores in the anthrax letters.
Placing ones faith in the competence of Robert Mueller or the FBI is a fools errand. John Kennedy once opined: ‘The three most overrated things in the world are The State of Texas , the FBI and mounted deer heads.’
And as for Trump’s attacks on Sessions: Trump is an arch manipulator, as demonstrated in his television Circus ‘The Apprentice’. He thrives on pitting himself against others, in an environment of manufactured ‘crisis’, by way of accusations of personal/political affront. In that regard he is utterly transparent. The pressing question, can the reader assume that Sessions is in league with Trump? The problem with Mr. Luce’s political prognostications, and his superficial examination of the Trump operative psychology is that it is viewed through his own self-serving myopia.
Thank you for your comment. There are many and varied reasons that a reader of The Financial Times might use a screen name. Most likely because many readers are from the professional classes, all having to do with maintaining ones status as employable and not given to stirring up controversy, in sum a ‘team player’ rather than a ‘trouble maker’. The latter status can ruin a career, to state the obvious. There is a second reason to maintain ones anonymity, as that status allows the commenter to attack either the writer, or the person who comments on a particular news story/ essay/editorial/opinion piece without personal consequence. That screen name is a license to engage in defamatory comments, like the ones you direct at me. To apply some much needed white wash to your comment, I am non compos mentis. You enjoy at least three allies as I write my reply.
Some considerations : I might be subject to that malady, but also what I wrote might just be out of you intellectual/political grasp? E.g. The reference to Barbara Tuchman, who wrote a history of pre- WWI Europe called The Guns Of August! The history of the incompetence of both the FBI and Mueller are utterly relevant to the unfolding political melodrama, that Luce seeks to explicate in his capacity as Pundit. Trump’s status as ‘Ringmaster’ of this fiasco with help from the politically wounded Mrs. Clinton, and her party apparatus, still in thrall to its mendacity and corruption are political facts, no matter your maladroit attempt at critique of my comment.
Your screen name extemporizes on the idea of ‘Alpha and Omega‘, which in the Christian Tradition has a very specific meaning :
alpha (Α) and omega (Ω) are the first and last letters, respectively, of the classical (Ionic) Greek alphabet. Thus, twice when the phrase “I am the alpha and the omega” appears it is further clarified with the additional phrase, “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 21:6, 22:13). The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet were used because the book of Revelation is in the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek.
Did you realize the actual set of meanings that attaches to your screen name? Or was it just your attempt at being clever? In closing, I sign my name to all my postings, always have. Its about integrity and honesty!