Author: Marie3

(This is resident RidgeCook’s beat, but in his absence and not a single word here on this matter that is important in several ways, will inadequately fill the gap.)

It’s not sexy like elusive Russian bots (in an ocean of bots), Dr. Ben’s table, Hope Hicks, and a possible Wikileaks lie which explains why the media coverage has been limited and of low quality.  It only concerns a lot of people in a lowly profession in one of the lowliest states.  Teachers in West Virginia.

The WV teachers strike began last Thursday, February 22, 2018 and included other state workers.  #55 Strong is the organizing hashtag.  55 is the number of WV counties.  (Teachers and supporters adopted red neck-ware and t-shirts, giving everyone a mini-history lesson.)  Schools in all 55 counties were closed yesterday.  (Mindful of how many of their students depend on the free school lunch program, teachers packed lunches for students and brought them to the picket line.)  Reportedly a cooling off period as Governor Justice and teacher union leaders had struck a deal on Tuesday to end the strike.  Media duly reported that the strike was over.

Then a curious thing happened:

To their union leaders, the teachers said nyet.  But they used English — “We’re not going back,” was their chant.  (They also exchanged their red colored clothing for black.)

From the beginning, union leaders said the decision to go on strike was made from the ground up — by teachers themselves. When asked if union leaders would support teachers if they vote to continue the strike, Dale Lee, president of the West Virginia Education Association, said, “We will always support our members.”

The proposed deal only addressed one of the demands, a salary increase, and that one was hardly assured as there is no guarantee that the WV GOP legislature would pass it.

“We’re feeling let down,” said Lori Murray, a history and civics teacher at Spring Valley High School. “You’ve given us a bunch of promises, but you’ve not given us anything to back it up with. When our governor comes out and says one thing, and then the Senate president comes out and says something completely different, how do we trust that?”

Plus:

Teachers have said they want a long-term fix for funding of the Public Employees Insurance Agency. Until they see that in writing, teachers said they won’t return to work.

As WV teachers have noted, the increasing cost of health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs would quickly eat up a measly 5% salary increase.  And as of 2/16/18 PEIA changes unite teachers and all state employees (Gazette).  

…During the PEIA call-in hearing late last year, PEIA encouraged state workers to apply for the Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover their families because they knew employees qualified.

Ironically, this was at the same time that CHIP was being threatened by Congress. It is obvious that the PEIA board no longer has a representative for the working people of West Virginia.

(Walmart must be pleased to see a state following its lead.)

So, all WV schools remained closed today, Thursday March 1, 2018.  (There’s a Go Fund WV teachers’ strike.  And/or put on a red bandanda (je suis bandanas rouge) in solidarity with the strikers.)

 

Update: Jake Jarvis:

BREAKING: All schools in West Virginia will be closed again Friday because of an historic, statewide teacher strike. It will be the seventh day of the strike.

Update 1.2 Strike continues

West Virginia public school teachers will strike for an eighth day Monday [3/5/18] because the state legislature didn’t meet their demand for higher pay and better benefits over the weekend.

All 55 counties announced school closures for Monday. About 20,000 teachers walked out February 22, keeping almost 277,000 students out of class.

Update #2: To keep an eye on – 40,000 so far but not yet strong in Oklahoma. Conditions and compensation for OK teachers (and KS and MS) have become deplorable. Note: An Oklahoma law prohibits a teacher’s union from striking or threatening to strike “as a means of resolving differences with the board of education.” But if teachers walk out to protest the state Legislature, that would be different, said Doug Folks, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union.

Also: note: About one-fifth of all 513 Oklahoma public school districts — 91 — have a four-day school week, something that has become synonymous with education in Oklahoma. Many districts have been forced by state funding cuts to find a way to trim expenses without trimming jobs, said about a dozen superintendents who responded to a Tulsa World survey.

Update #3 West Virginia governor signs bill to give striking teachers pay raise

Except it was about more than a salary increase:

Separately, the governor agreed to set up a task force to address the state health insurance program on March 13.

As such:

though it’s unclear if teachers will go along as the raise appears to be paid for by cutting general services and Medicaid.

Latest chant from the strikers is: put it in writing. Doesn’t seem to refer to the pay increase; so, stay tuned.

The CD2-TX map sure looks like a gerrymandered district.  But no shortage of “reasons” for such cockeyed districts in Texas, NC, and many other states dominated by Republicans.

Anyhoo — the current House Rep is Ted Poe (R).  Other than running for office and voting exactly how the GOP tells him to do appears not to be a taxing job.  But at age 69 he’s ready to retire.  Nine Republicans are vying for the nomination.  

Of those nine contenders, Kathaleen Wall appear to the be the one to beat:

Wall received endorsements from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), U.S. Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas), and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R)

Her political credentials are limited to having donated and raised a lot of money for Republican candidates.  

On guns she has more cajones than most of the pistol packing Republicans — the subtext of the campaign ad she released TODAY.

Politico – Sponsor An Immigrant Yourself.  

…
The problem posed by migration is that the benefits are not evenly distributed. They flow to the migrants themselves and the corporations that hire them. …

That’s true.  But let’s not look at those corporations exploiting cheap labor through immigration policies that they wrote to benefit themselves.  Instead expand it for “ordinary people” to benefit.  Just like the early settlers did and called it what it was: indentured servitude.

That only sort of worked because the rules limited the period of servitude and payment at the end of the contract.  IOW — that labor wasn’t as cheap as the sponsors desired.  So, they went the next step and created an abomination.  A legacy that continues to negatively impact this country more than a hundred and fifty years after it was abolished.  

And two bozos seriously propose to put this country more firmly back on that slippery slope.  What we should do is get off it entirely.  

The Daily Mail gets the credit for breaking the Rob Porter domestic abuse story.  However and lagging behind to an unknown degree, The Intercept was on it  as well.

What’s unique that catapulted this story to the front page are three factors:

1) The Third Woman.

…
Both Holderness and Willoughby were contacted by a woman claiming to be Porter’s girlfriend in 2016 [February]. In Facebook and text messages reviewed by CNN, the woman, described “repeated abuse” from Porter and sought help from the ex-wives on how to leave him.

“I work in politics, and despite Rob’s repeated abuse, some of which I think many know about, he continues to rise and I’m afraid to go against him,” the woman wrote to Holderness in December 2016. “I’m sorry to bother you. I wanted to reach out and hear your story if you are willing to share — as well as how you broke out of it with him and mostly, how you recovered.”
…

2. Black-eye photo of Holderness (first wife):

3. 6/19/2010 Emergency Protective Order (Willougby v. Porter).

In general, people don’t freely talk about psychic abuses by a former partner if they believe that they are the only such victim of that former partner, particularly if that partner has some formal status.  This form of abuse knocks the hell out of mental health.  Making it difficult for most to recognize and articulate it as abuse while it’s on-going and too often after the fact as well.  That accounts for why a current partner rarely reaches out to exes and why exes only slightly more often do so.   Also why I placed the “third woman” as #1.

From a CBS timeline, it’s revealed Willoughby was interviewed in January 2017 by the FBI in performing its Security Clearance investigation of Porter.  An obvious interview starting point given that Protective Order.  (Porter likely disclosed that as it would have been too easy for the FBI to find it.)  It appears that Holderness was interviewed in February 2017, and according to Willoughby, Holderness contacted her shortly after her interview.  Did either of them disclose that they had been contacted by the “third woman?”  If so, did the FBI interview her?  Were any of them interviewed more than once?

On 4/24/2017 Willoughby that she wrote and posted Why I Stayed on her blog.  There were no comments as of three days ago.  It has now struck a nerve with many people who are sharing their own similar stories.  (I’ll add a few more below.)  While it’s a powerful piece, Willoughby appears to be less conscious than many of those that began speaking out in the past few days.  First, she views Porter as well-qualified for that WH position.  Second, her piece was written four years after her divorce and two years after creating her blog, she doesn’t identify the man, even as an ex-husband, she only mentioned the existence of an ex-husband once in her blog posts before 4/17 and none since then, and “my heart breaks for him.”

My heart doesn’t break for Porter or any person that has similarly abused a significant other or child, including my ex-husband.  Most don’t leave physical bruises or broken bones, but the injuries they’ve inflicted on others are very real.

Two years ago as Annamarie was approaching her seventieth birthday, the DMV declined to renew her driver’s license and yanked it on the spot.  As toddling around in her luxury sports car had become one of her greatest joys, this was devasting for her.  She reported the loss to her children and friends but was unable to disclose why or if she would reapply for it.  As the months went on she spoke less and less often about it and more and more often that “he’s mean.” (“He” being her husband.)  Meaningful  only to her and the very few that had recognized his frequent belittling of her over their forty-five year marriage.  As she lost more and more of her English second language, she held onto this one phrase.  She continues to retain and repeat it even as he’s been dead for four months.

Five years after a final split from Alex, Lisa still has moments of longing for him.  When she sets aside the abuse and recalls the good bits (mostly the hot sex).  Unfortunately for Lisa, it’s not possible for to avoid all contact with Alex; so, seeing him out and about prompts some of that longing.  Fortunately, family and friends are more around to remind her of the years of Alex’s abuse.  How threatening and scary his frequent out-of-control rages are.  (Alex is a Trumpster.)

It was a whirlwind romance for Barbara.  A re-connection with a long-lost (twenty-five years) high school boyfriend.  First via the internet and then he blew in from out-of-state.  Barbara’s children are grown and doing well, she’s on good terms with all of her exes, and she is professionally and politically connected.  The mayor officiated at her wedding.  Barbara could have written this:

The first time he called me a “fucking bitch” was on our honeymoon.   A month later he physically prevented me from leaving the house.

Three days later, his rage spent and it was safe for Barbara to leave the apartment, her first priority was a restraining order against him.  Next stop, an annulment.  And finally, contacting all his prior spouses (the four his mother knows of).  The stories are much the same and Barbara was the only one that had taken the step to contact any of them.  Now at least four women and a couple of children know that it’s him and not them, but that’s just one step in healing from such abuse.

Everyone loved him.

A common feature of such abusers.  They are very good at controlling their rages.  (Particularly other men that have status and/or wealth.)  That control contributes to the SO’s sense of craziness and increases the abuser’s credibility with others.  (Not surprising that John Kelly and Orrin Hatch believed Porter, but very heartening that the FBI didn’t.)    Rages they feel entitled to. Like Steve who felt free to attack his wife’s sister (any woman in a professional position is also fare game for him) who since the third attack refuses to have anything to do with him.  Steve’s wife stays.  For all the same old reasons and often reports to her sister that she and Steve are getting along much better.  Her sister is not open to reconsideration.

Update – 2/13/18

Who knew and when?

Interview with Lynn Dombek, a longtime research leader at The Associated Press and TIME and now research director of The Intercept’s parent company, First Look Media. On the Rob Porter story:

An editor reached out to our investigative researcher, Sheelagh McNeill, saying he’d gotten a tip that a Facebook post [an online journal and not Facebook] existed with allegations of spousal abuse against a named White House official. That was it. Could she help?

As “tips” go, there wasn’t much to work with on this one. (Did the “tip” suggest more about Bannon?)

Sheelagh and Margot Williams, our semi-retired research editor for investigations, then started the drill: identify, connect, verify. They went back and forth with each other on our internal Signal chat channel. They used an arsenal of tools, from open web searches to social media to public records, identifying key people, connecting them to other people, and verifying that what they found was accurate.

Running down Willoughby’s post from that “tip” wasn’t an easy task, but here’s the difference between first rate and second rate investigative journalism. The Intercept researchers didn’t run with a “she said” story but dug further for confirmation which they found with Holderness, the first ex-wife, who provided The Intercept her correspondence with the FBI.

It now appears to me, and contrary to my original impression above, that The Intercept investigation was more fully developed when it got scooped by The Daily Mail. Unfortunate because once the WH was in damage control mode, it became much more difficult to develop the WH cover-up part of the story. So, there remains blanks in who knew and when.

To Recap:

Early 2016 the “third woman” (reportedly the then current girlfriend of Rob Porter) reached out to Porter’s two ex-wives and received confirmation of his domestic abuse of both of them. At that time Porter was Senator Orrin Hatch’s Chief of Staff and had previously worked for Senators Rob Portman and Mike Lee. Did this girlfriend stay?

(Note: Hatch originally endorsed Jeb Bush and secondarily endorsed Rubio. After Trump secured the nomination, he endorsed him.)

Late 2016 the third woman again contacted one or both of the ex-wives.

January 2017 Porter appointed to a WH position. FBI interviewed Willoughby (Porter’s second ex-wife) who reportedly told the FBI of the abuse. (The protective order that she secured in 2010 was a public record.)

February 2017 FBI interviewed Holderness (first ex-wife). After her interview and reported by Willoughby, she reportedly contacted Willoughby.

April 24, 2017 – Willoughby’s Why I Stayed post.

June 2017 – FBI declined WH/Porter’s request for Security Clearance. Who at the FBI communicated that decision to whom at the WH? Had there been communication between the FBI and WH before then? Who else at the FBI and WH were informed? (WH Counsel Don McGahn knew of the allegations in January 2017 and believed Porter’s denials) Did this rise to the level of the FBI Director? Comey until May 9, 2017 and McCabe, as Acting Director until August 2, 2017. Reince Priebus as WH CoS from January 2017 until July 31, 2017. McGahn, Bannon, Stephen Miller, and the Kushners were all also there during this period along with many others.

September 2017 FBI interviews Porter a second time. In August Wray had become FBI Director and Kelly had become CoS. Now known that Kelly wanted to keep Porter in his position, but he could hardly have been alone on that by September.

November 2017 the “third woman” contacted McGahn.

Thus, for a year (from the time of Holderness’ FBI interview) more than one person in the FBI and more than one person in the WH KNEW that allegations of Porter’s spousal abuse had been verified. And Porter remained on the WH team.

Yet another example of why whistleblowers and real investigative journalists are important.

Update #2 – 2/13/18. From The Guardian – FBI head contradicts Trump White House over Rob Porter Background Check.

In Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI Director Chris Wray said that the FBI submitted its final report on Porter’s background check in July 2017 and later submitted to follow-up reports that presumably didn’t substantively alter the original report.

Bloomberg – Trump Passes Cognitive Screen…

Once again Democrats/liberals saw another perfect pass for a win or strike out pitch.  Couldn’t fathom that it would end up as interception and touchdown or grand slam homer.  One that Trump will now endlessly crow about, a perfect score.

A perfect score that wouldn’t exist if armchair Democratic shrinks hadn’t gone on their flight of fancy and kept their mouths shut.  Can’t even say that they weren’t forewarned.  As usual, the messenger was trashed.  (Yeah, I’m pissed.)

The anecdotal reports on Trump and impressions of some from viewing Trump on TV are suggestive but weak to very weak.  For example, from the NYTimes interview Charles Pierce essentially declared that Trump was fully in the grip of a form of senile dementia.  But he completely overlooked that Trump had displayed the acquisition of new names and words (government operations) over the past year and was fluid in using them.  OTOH, the NYTimes only released a limited and edited transcript.  So, is the Times covering up for Trump or misleading readers like Pierce?

In the early stages of dementia, only a trained clinician (free of bias and prejudices) and in a one-on-one session(s) with a patient can make a valid assessment.  Difficult to imagine that Trump would voluntarily subject himself to a cognitive wellness exam.  And unless or until he exhibits more florid indications of dementia, Pence isn’t going initiate or join (a requirement) an invocation of Section 4 (25th Amendment).  For good reason — imagine a temporarily removed Trump returning with a valid assessment report of no evidence of dementia.

How many here that were totally convinced that Trump is in an easily detectable stage of dementia warranting his removal from office will be a big enough person to admit that she/he was wrong?  

More importantly when will they get outside their groupthink tank and see that they are facilitating Trump’s wins?  Almost as if they are the real Russia-Putin operatives.      

 

Read It.  Read all of it and don’t stop to take notes – highlight or abstract anything – on the first read.  That’s the best way to limit one’s bias, avoid overvaluing what may be minor, and get a gestalt perspective.

A few things stand out from a first read.

Issue One – Prevezon

Simpson was far more sure-footed in addressing questions about Prevezon than anything else.  He didn’t struggle with any direct questions on it and was forthcoming and expansive.  Any “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” answers sound truthful.   My overall sense on the Prevezon questions was that counsel appropriately asked for clarification on a question but there were few, if any, objections and instructions not to answer the question.

Why this is fascinating is that Simpson/Fusion was on the opposite side from the USG, Bill Browder, and the Magnitsky Act, all of which allege that the Russian Government was the malefactor.

Natalya Veselnitskaya, Prevezon’s Russian attorney, hired the BakerHostetler law firm, and BakerHostetler in turn hired Fusion GPS to as Simpson repeatedly said, find the truth.  Simpson/Fusion’s task and how they went about it is well-detailed in Simpson’s testimony,  including the hiring of a PR firm.  The data collected and analysis of it appears solid to me even after factoring who was paying them.

Note: possible reasons why Simpson freely discussed Prevezon (facts that I don’t recall Simpson citing in his interview) are 1) BakerHostetler was bounced from the case by the 2nd Circuit in October 2016.  (“Prevezon was represented at the 2nd Circuit by Michael Mukasey of Debevoise & Plimpton,”).  2) The case was settled in May 2017.  Prevezon was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan    

Issue Two – Senator Grassley’s outrage that Senator Feinstein unilaterally released the transcript.

Grassley is right on this.  All subsequent interviews with relevant parties have been compromised or contaminated.  OTOH, as the committee was given a decent partial road-map on who and what to ask of other parties, moving at a glacial pace shouldn’t have been an option.  Four months should have been an adequate amount of time to complete that work.  However, the release probably means that too much has been lost and will never be captured.

Given the significant amount of time spent on Prevezon and the bi-partisan congressional position on it, Grassley is unlikely to have considered that Feinstein would act in this manner.

Issue Three – hard/factual data/information that Simpson added to what is already available.

As to be expected from a non-voluntary witness, Simpson declined to answer many questions.  His counsel objected to many more and Simpson rarely, if ever, over-ruled counsel and answered the question.  Recall this interview on 8/22/17 was before it became publicly known that 1) Fusion’s first client for Trump oppo research was only identified as an individual Republican 2) Perkins Coie contracted with Fusion for oppo research on Trump and 3) Perkins Coie’s client was the Hillary campaign and DNC.  Simpson declined to reveal any of that.  (A House Intelligence committee subpoena for Fusion’s bank records shook some of that loose in October.  The Hill, 1/5/18: A congressional lawyer said Friday that TD Bank “produced all remaining responsive documents” to the House Intelligence Committee under the terms of a confidential settlement, CNN reported. This was after a federal judge declined Fusion’s request to quash the subpoena.)

According to Simpson (all of which can be confirmed) and seem not to have been previously disclosed (at least not that I’ve seen):

1. Fusion/Simpson was a media source during the campaign on Trump-Russia.
2. Steele met with the FBI in Rome in September.  (He also met with the FBI early in July but i don’t recall if the  location of that meeting was defined.)  These were meetings that Simpson knew had taken place and he did allow that there may have been other Steele-FBI meetings.  Why Rome?  (Simpson did state that Fusion had not paid for Steele’s travel expenses to Rome.)  Somebodies have a some ‘splain-in to do on this.

From the above, refuting that the FBI investigation was not prompted by Steele’s dossier just got a hundred times more difficult and implausible.  It also makes the old report that it was initiated by Carter Page’s travel and the recent report that it was Papadopoulus’ shenanigans that initiated it more curious.

Four – a connect a dot:

HuffPo on Shattered

…
Soon after Clinton’s defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. “Within 24 hours of her concession speech,” the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta “assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”
…
A lavishly-funded example is the “Moscow Project,” a mega-spin effort that surfaced in midwinter as a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s led by Neera Tanden, a self-described “loyal solider” for Clinton who also runs the Center for American Progress (where she succeeded Podesta as president). The Center’s board includes several billionaires.
…

Is it plausible that Podesta didn’t receive Steele’s reports shortly after they were issued?  My one strong impression from reading the Podesta files is that he was the adult in the room.  No way would he have allowed his or the campaign’s fingerprints on Steele’s reports during the campaign.  Thus, Simpson was used to toss out hints to the media.  As it developed, the hints didn’t have enough solid substance for the Trump-Russia story to gain the traction needed to take Trump out.

Is it credible that Steele all on his own took his reports to the FBI as Simpson claimed in the interview?  Based on the current public disclosures, I’m not about to go out on a limb one way or another on that question.  What I will tackle is Simpson’s testimony on the Steele’s dossier and Russia election interference in a separate diary.

The Hill – Christie `absolutely’ believes he’d be president if Trump hadn’t run

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said in a new interview he would have definitely won the 2016 presidential election if President Trump had not decided to run.

“I absolutely believe if Trump had not gotten into the race I think we would have won,” Christie told NJ.com’s Matt Arco in an interview published Sunday.

“It’s incredibly frustrating to think to yourself, ‘Wow, if this guy were not in the race, we’d win this thing,’ ” he said, while reportedly reflecting on internal polling from last year’s campaign.

Christie has lots of company on that last point – Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Graham, etc.  

As for now being President if Trump hadn’t been in the race, Crispie had his brain fried by getting within Trump’s orbit for months.  Trump is contagious — others catch crazy and stupid from him.  It increases the previous crazy and stupid in the victim.  No evidence so far that anyone recovers from the infection.

Bill de Blasio 2014 swearing in ceremony:

—

Bill de Blasio 2018 swearing in ceremony:

—

Notice anything (other than the temperature being about fifteen degrees warmer in 2014)?

Sock It To Me??? Nixon on “Laugh-In” 1968 –

Nixon was too humorless to get the joke, but being game enough to display it (unlike HHH who declined the invitation) made him more likeable to some people.  Perhaps swing voters who didn’t get the joke either.

A fine sense of humor is an asset for presidential candidates and Presidents.  Standouts on this qualifty are Lincoln, FDR, and JFK.  Thick-skinned enough to take and make jokes.  Those in the second tier– better at making than taking — include Truman, Reagan, and Obama.

With the exception of Bernie, the 2016 presidential election was dour.  (Despite the efforts of the Clinton comedy writers.)  Even mild chiding of Clinton or Trump instantly became another verbal war with accusations of “fake news,” sexism, etc. by the candidates and/or his/her supporters.  They not only can’t take a joke, they don’t even get it.

Hillbots have completely lost their cookies over a VF humor video — mostly mild chiding and not LOL funny that any losing presidential candidate gets, particularly if she/he appears to be considering another run.  (Wasn’t there similar ha-ha jokes about Romney after the 2012 election?)

Six New Year’s Resolutions for Hillary Clinton

As I try to avoid as much filth as possible, I’ll take GG’s word for the worst of the hillbot responses to the VF video (but the ones I’ve seen are similarly unhinged):

[Frm GG] One of the reporters for the “don’t-run-again-Hillary” video has locked her account after being subjected to the most foul vitriol and abuse, endlessly, over several days.

(Hillbots also fail to comprehend that their abusive behavior is straight out of the McCarthy playbook.)

What seems to have raised the ire of hillbots and their standard, go-to charge of “sexism” is the suggestion that Clinton take up knitting.  As if that were an off-the-wall recommendation to engage in a sterotypical form of ‘women’s work.’   It was a joke — their very own symbol — and they totally failed to get it.

How To Knit: The Pussy Hat Project

How demeaning to suggest that Hillary actually engage in making one of the approved symbol of her Resistance, tm

So, I clicked a link to a Hill article and began reading.  (Yeah, I do that a lot.  Read, close, and move on about 99% of the time.)  Other than offering some stats from a new poll, it recited much of what has become public about the Mueller investigation over the past few days.  It wasn’t until I neared the end of it — as it moved slightly away from sober reporting to warning that the Mueller needs to watch his step — that I stopped and questioned which self-styled polite, centrist Republican journalist wrote the article.  Assuming Republican because rightwing pundits/bloggers have of late ramped up their attacks on Mueller and asserting that he’s a Democrat.

Scrolling back up to the top — had I even read the title before reading it?  don’t know — but there it was Mueller, FBI face crisis in public confidence by Mark Penn.  If Penn, who remains firmly in the Clinton faction, is sounding an alarm, should anyone listen?  

Penn shouldered most of the blame for Clinton’s losses early in the ’08 election (fairly or not that’s how it works in election campaigns) and despite his continued support for her wasn’t hired for her ’16 campaign.  (Although he may have contributed unofficially.)  He was written off as a hack by the Democratic hoi polloi, along with Bob Shrum and Joe Trippi (nice win in AL), but to the best of my knowledge has never been seen as a Democratic turncoat.  Will his Op-Ed lead to him being labeled as foe and another Russia-Putin stooge?

(Odd that SoS Warren Christopher could pen an Op-Ed in 1994 warning against NATO expansion and not get called a Russia-Yeltsin stooge.  But his astute warning was ignored.)

Archibald Cox and later Leon Jaworski never had to deal with an FBI investigative team teeming with active anti-Nixon pro-McGovern Democrats.  The front line FBI investigators and DOJ attorneys handled the Watergate break in by the book without regard to political party affiliation.  That’s how they won a conviction of the burglars.  (Early on they had also uncovered the links to the Nixon WH, but higher ups managed to squelched that for some time which is what ultimately led to resignations and appointment of a Special Prosecutor.  Two men that weren’t compromised in any way by their own prior acts.)  Also recall that at the time of the Watergate investigations, it was still J. Edgar’s FBI and it was a rotten institution.  

Penn frames his warning as a matter of public perception.  As if better Mueller and Rosenstein PR would correct it.  Perhaps that’s all Penn intended to say.  And no more than that should be read into it.