top of page
  • Writer's pictureBob Stone


Kent Jones: Today’s Ask Dr. Maddow question comes via email from Earl and his lazy Rhodesian Ridgeback ‘Lucas’.

Dear Dr. Maddow,

Do you ever long for the days of your 5am show on Air America?Remember? You, Kent Jones, and the monkey? Hard to believe there was a time I used to get up at 4:45am just to tune my Real Player 8 to your show and record it while I got the rest of my REM sleep, so I’d have it before the podcast was posted. Do you ever wish you could travel back to those innocent days when the idea of helping current and former FBI/DOJ & CIA officials treasonably conspire to oust the legally elected president was something you’d expect from “the right-wing scheme machine?” And what do you hear from Glenn Greenwald these days; or can’t you hear him anymore?

Rachel Maddow: Well Earl, I don’t know about the Rachel in your universe, but in this universe, Glenn and I are working on a mini-documentary about his foundation called HOPE—a shelter where homeless dogs are taken care of by homeless people – providing them with decent, stable work. Check out their web page; make a donation; it’s a great cause.

Okay, time now for Underbelly. Now, every day here at The Rachel Maddow Show, parallel universe edition, we poke a sharp stick at the soft, white underbelly of the Leftist kaleidoscope of fraud; giving you a little peek at the Leftist playbook for “fundamentally transforming” the United States into a technocratic totalitarian satellite of Communist China.

WE BEGIN with the Leftist’s prime directive, as posted to Facebook by Democrat Operative and Ukrainian Intelligence asset Alexandra Chalupa, in the wee hours just after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.

Rachel Maddow: And that’s exactly what Joe Biden did when he said:

JOE BIDEN: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election.
We’ve seen election officials, poll workers — many of them volunteers of both parties — subjected to intimidation and death threats.
And — can you believe it? — FBI agents just doing their job as directed, facing threats to their own lives from their own fellow citizens.

Rachel Maddow: Today’s Underbelly comes courtesy of our special guest: Vincent Bugliosi. Some of you may be too young to remember Bush v. Gore, but a couple of months after that abomination, Mr. Bugliosi published a beautiful essay titled None Dare Call It Treason, expressing the betrayal felt by many, especially in the legal profession. Mr. Bugliosi has extensive experience prosecuting psychopaths on the Left—such as Charles Manson; and psychopaths on the Right—such as the Supreme Court Justices responsible for installing an evil organ grinder and his monkeyto the office of President of the United States.

Mr. Bugliosi has adapted his essay to the facts leading up to and following the 2016 election. And unlike his original essay, this time he’s actually got the cards he’s representing—a solid case for treason.

Today’s underbelly story also happens to be the Bury the lead segment of the show; where we discuss the real stories of the day that were drowned out by less important ones by the Leftist Democrat information warfare apparatus in Ukraine, doing business as the “Trusted News Initiative.”

So now, without any further ado, coming to you live dead from RAYMOND ARROYO’s HOUSE OF VOODOO in the French Quarter of New Orleans to deliver the MAGA Republicans’ reply to our Manchurian President’s Maidan Coup II against the United States, here he is, Mr. Helter Skelter himself, Vincent Bugliosi.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Leftist Democrats, the very ones who tacitly endorse falsely accusing police of being racist killers, while feigning surprise when loyal cops like Ramos and Liu are gunned down execution-style as a result, now argue that one shouldn't question the integrity of the FBI/DOJ because it can only harm their image, which we have to respect as the national repository for, and protector of, the rule of law. What a load of Schiff.

Prior to and following the 2016 presidential election, top officials in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Department, Obama Whitehouse, and Fourth Branch of Govt. et al. engaged in the treasonable design of being knowing surrogates for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party instead of impartial officers of the law.[1]

If you doubt this, try imagining Clinton and Trump’s roles being reversed and ask yourself if you can conceive of them being treated equally.

If you can, then I suppose you can also imagine seeing a man jumping away from his own shadow; Frenchmen no longer drinking wine.

In a nation that prides itself on truth and justice, instead of the FBI/DOJ doing everything within their power to perform their constitutional duty of enforcing the law in a neutral and detached manner, they did the precise opposite by grasping, stretching and searching mightily for a way, any way at all, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of disqualifying felonies—while spying on and sabotaging her opponent, Donald Trump.

Granted, congress cannot unilaterally amend the Article II qualifications for president through the U.S. Code.[10] However, absent the inane assumption that a political party would ever nominate a candidate under felony indictment, the FBI/DOJ effectively forced upon the people a candidate that rule of law and common sense would have rejected out of hand.

To be clear, they diverted their powers under color of law to “subdue the people to their arbitrary and irregular commands”[11] by wrongfully exonerating one presidential candidate of federal crimes while attempting to frame the opposing candidate with the very crimes they themselves committed. This not only elevates audacity to symphonic and operatic levels, but forms the modus operandi of the treasonous bureaucrats who attempted to affect the outcome of a presidential election; and thereafter sought to overturn it through subsequent mutinous measures calculated to remove a legally elected president.

Sometimes the body politic is lulled into thinking along unreasoned lines. The conventional wisdom seems to be that, at worst, certain officials merely tainted the credibility of the FBI/DOJ and other Executive agencies. What these critics fail to realize is the inappropriateness of their tepid position vis-à-vis what these people actually did. You mean you can use the national defense powers to run a domestic surveillance program targeting your political opposition? And you can give your party’s opposition research firms access to raw FISA to create and stockpile blackmail dossiers on members of the opposing party to silently coerce them into early retirement whenever politically expedient? And you can weaponize the FBI/DOJ to ensure your party’s presidential candidate is exonerated for her felonious conduct and cover up her quid pro quo collusion with a variety of foreign and domestic influence peddlers and buyers? And you can have the FBI and CIA subvert a presidential candidate’s campaign by implanting informants (read: spies) into his campaign staff? And you can defraud the FISA court [12] into granting you God-like omniscience over every individual in and around that candidate’s campaign? And you can weaponize the National Security Council by unmasking the names of incidentally surveilled Americans associated with a president-elect you don’t like; and then disseminate those names to top administration officials who strategically leak them to the press to foster an illusion of illicit activity within the incoming administration? You mean you can divert the powers of the Executive branch into a treasonable design to effectuate a certain outcome in a presidential election? And failing that, you can use those same powers to create a fraudulent investigation for the purposes of covering up your crimes whilst illegally removing, or at least obstructing the administration of, a duly elected president? You can do whatever the hell you want under color of law, even increase the risk of nuclear war in furtherance of satiating your personal and political desires, and not be prosecuted simply because you couldn’t be bothered to prosecute yourself? You can commit tyranny and the only penalty you face is that some people won't have as much respect for you or as much confidence in you? That's all?

Au contraire.

If, indeed, these officials executed the law in a politically motivated manner, (which they unquestionably did), this is tantamount to saying, and can only mean, that they did not exercise their power in accordance with law. And if this is so (which again, it unquestionably is), then they deliberately and knowingly committed tyranny. And by committing tyranny, they committed the most grievous form of treason possible against the United States.

Since the notion of high-ranking members of the FBI/DOJ and other Executive branch officials being criminals is so alien to our sensibilities and beliefs, and since people tend to see and hear, as Thoreau said, what they expect to see and hear, most will find these characterizations intellectually incongruous. Make no mistake about it, these people are traitors to this nation in the truest sense of the word.

“The goal was to tell the truth and demonstrate what higher loyalty—to the institutions of justice—looks like.” James Comey

The Declaration of Tyranny

On July 4, 1776, the United States declared its independence from England by vowing to the Supreme Judge of the world our dedication to the principle of contradicting tyranny.

On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey publicly declared the deep state’s dedication to contradicting our founding principle through the exercise of tyrannical power over the people of the United States. With the haste of a criminal on the run, Comey laid out his shameless reasoning for exonerating Hillary Clinton, securing her eligibility as successor to Barack Obama as president.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. … In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

On the subject of disloyalty to the United States,” every claim following the first comma in the selection above was a lie. Usurping the role of Attorney General, Comey predicated “his decision” against indicting Hillary Clinton on laws existing solely within his imagination.[13] Not only did Comey usurp the power of the Attorney General’s office,[14] but he effectively crowned himself King of the United States and “refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good” by fraudulently representing that a criminal negligence statute[15] requires an element of intent.

Furthermore, Comey intentionally ignored that Clinton’s “willful setting up of a private, non-secure server system for all official business as Secretary of State” constituted not only prima facie evidence of intent under his imaginary statute, but the bevy of real laws she actually violated.[16]

If a first-year law student ever analyzed the law like Comey did, any thoughtful professor would encourage him not to waste two more years trying to become a lawyer. Comey’s embarrassing analysis reveals he knew he had no legal basis for what he was doing.[17] He knew he was substituting his will for the rule of law. He knew he was committing tyranny. He knew he was betraying his country; which is undoubtedly why the consummate fraud titled his book A Higher Loyalty;[18] filling it with shameless self-aggrandizing excuses for his treachery—just as Benedict Arnold did in his letter To the Inhabitants of America.

In yet another piece of incriminating circumstantial evidence, Comey began drafting his exoneration letter of Clinton months before interviewing her or other key witnesses—meticulously revising its wording to replace all instances of “grossly negligent" with the legally benign"extremely careless."But James, how could you arrive at such a conclusion if you hadn’t even interviewed her or her closest aides yet?It wouldn't be because you already made up your mind on what you were determined to do, come hell or high water, would it? James, take it from an experienced prosecutor–you're as guilty as sin. In my prosecutorial days, I've had some worthy opponents. You wouldn't be one of them. Your guilt is so obvious that if I thought more of you I'd feel constrained to blush for you.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: “And — can you believe it? — FBI agents just doing their job as directed.” What a load of Schiff.

Rachel Maddow: I couldn’t agree more. And God bless you, Vincent Bugliosi. And that’ll do it for us here at the Rachel Maddow show, parallel universe edition. Kent and I will be flying up to Alaska for the Iditarod next week; and if he wins it again, Amtrak will send us a case of their hot dogs. So, we’ll see you after the race.

[1] “The incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic party, and the progressive Beltway establishment.This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded…. Plan A was to get Mrs. Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations that were both felonious and politically disqualifying.Plan B was the insurance policy: An investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he were elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton campaign–generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump un-re-electable under the guise of building an impeachment case.”Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency, by Andrew C. McCarthy

[2] “Mr. Brennan … took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump—which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative.”Brennan and the 2016 Spy Scandal: Obama’s CIA director acknowledges egging on the FBI’s probe of Trump and Russia.By Kimberley A. Strassel, July 19, 2018

[3] Red Thread -- A Search for Ideological Drivers, Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy, By Diana West, Ch. 2

[10] E.g. 18 USC §2071(b) [11] "Whenever power is put into some hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties, and is then diverted from that purpose and used to impoverish, harass, or subdue the people to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have the power, then that immediately becomes tyranny, whether the power-holders are one or many.” John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Sec. 201

[12] See Just How Far Will the Left Go? By Victor Davis Hanson, July 23rd, 2018.

[13] “This statutory analysis is gibberish. Notwithstanding that Mrs. Clinton’s actions were intentional and willful, the Espionage Act does not require proof of that mental state. Despite considerable evidence that she obstructed investigations, it’s not necessary to prove that either. Nor to establish disloyalty or any intent to harm the United States. To avoid indicting Mrs. Clinton, the FBI and Justice Department ignored the statute that has been on the books for a century and substituted an impossible-to-prove statute of their imagination.” In Politicized Justice, Desperate Times Call for Disparate Measures, By Andrew C. McCarthy May 19, 2018

[14]“In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime, and the [Attorneys General] who prosecute the offenders.” Unless, of course, you’re Cardinal Jim Comey….

[16] 18 USC §1924 and 18 USC §2071. [17] Cf. “Comey's characterization of the Memos as personal records finds no support in the law and is wholly incompatible with the plain language of the statutes, regulations, and policies defining Federal records, and the terms of Comey's FBI Employment Agreement.” IG Report of Investigation of Former FBI Director James Comey's Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda, pg. 52

[18]“I have ever acted from a principle of love to my country.” So wrote Benedict Arnold, from the deck of the Vulture, to George Washington. True to character, Arnold had already convinced himself he’d been in the right, even acted nobly. “The same principle of love to my country actuates my present conduct,” he wrote, “however it may appear inconsistent to the world, who very seldom judge right any man’s actions.” Guess how well that went over with Washington.” --The Notorious Benedict Arnold, By Steve Sheinkin C.f. James Comey: “To be great is to be misunderstood.”

106 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Senate Journal --TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1821.

(I couldn't link directly to the page in the archives) Page 187 | Page image [...] On motion, by Mr. Barbour, Ordered, That the said bill lie on the table. Mr. Barbour, from the joint committee appoin

The Parliamentarian Was Wrong

On January 6th, 2021, the Parliamentarian of the United States Senate advised Vice President Pence that each of the certificates submitted by New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Californ


bottom of page