(Mar. 25, 2019) — On Friday evening, Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered a report to the Justice Department completing his 22-month investigation into allegations of “collusion” between Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia as well as Russian interference in that election.
Although not yet reviewed by Attorney General William Barr, news reports then indicated Mueller had recommended no additional indictments and, as a result, that no “collusion” was found.
That conclusion was verified Sunday when Barr sent a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees summarizing the Special Counsel’s report, which by law is “confidential.”
Many in the media immediately appeared unwilling to believe Mueller’s conclusions. While one insisted that the issue would not be resolved until the 2020 presidential election, others immediately looked to investigations they alleged are taking place in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) extending to Trump and the Trump Organization.
Democrat members of Congress reacted by stating that they question Barr’s impartiality in determining, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, that Trump did not commit “obstruction of justice.” Democrats, along with many Republicans, have consistently called for a release of the entire Mueller report, although the statute prohibits the release of grand jury testimony, classified information, and documentation which could damage an innocent person’s reputation.
Given that Mueller’s investigation, which interviewed 500 witnesses, issued 2800 subpoenas, and generated a lawsuit and criminal complaint from one of those witnesses, identified no evidence of a crime, some Americans are questioning how the mainstream media could have continued to fuel the narrative that “the walls are closing in” on Donald Trump for more than two years.
However, the media has been perpetrating a similar hoax for much longer. In February 2007, a first-term U.S. senator from Illinois declared his candidacy for the presidency amidst credible reports that he was born in Kenya or Indonesia. The media quickly closed ranks and derided anyone referring to the very reports it had generated not long before.
When an image was uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011, the media, without questioning or having it examined by experts, accepted it as proof that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and was therefore eligible to hold the office of president.
The few outlets, bloggers and Americans who did question the image and Obama’s constitutional eligibility, among them Donald Trump, became objects of vicious verbal attacks, ridicule, and threats.
With rare exceptions, the media failed to ask why a Perkins Coie attorney was dispatched to the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) to obtain the alleged two certified copies of Obama’s original “long-form” birth certificate when Obama could have simply ordered them online, if the original existed, for a fee of $20, or communicated with the Health Department directly.
After the launch of a criminal investigation under the auspices of the Maricopa County Sheriff Office (MCSO) and its finding that the long-form image is a “computer-generated forgery,” the media again circled the wagons and attacked the messengers in the persons of lead investigator Mike Zullo and then-MCSO Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.
The media again did its best to bury the story when in December 2016, Zullo revealed that two forensic experts, each approaching its examination of the image from a different discipline, concluded that it cannot possibly be authentic.
While the media worked assiduously to keep the Russia “collusion” narrative alive, it worked equally hard to perpetuate the myth that what the Obama White House released was an authentic representation of a real, paper document when Zullo and Arpaio have said for more than seven years that it is not.
If the U.S. intelligence community was able to fabricate evidence implicating Donald Trump and several of his campaign associates in wrongdoing, turning their lives upside-down and bankrupting them with litigation costs, it was able to create the myth — and the “document” behind it — that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961 and that the Hawaii Department of Health holds an original, “long-form” birth certificate within its archives.
That narrative is contrary to Zullo’s August report on Carl Gallups’s “Freedom Friday” in which Zullo said that two members of the same intelligence community informed him that it is “an open secret” that Obama was not born in the United States and cannot meet that pillar of the “natural born Citizen” requirement contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
More recently, Zullo reported that a high-ranking individual within the Trump administration was briefed on the evidence Arpaio and he collected over the 5+ years of the investigation, which also found Obama’s Selective Service registration form to be fraudulent.
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes has called for legal action against media entities which constantly churned out what he said were “fake news stories” on the “hoax” surrounding the Russia collusion narrative.
Is it not time to hold the media accountable for perpetrating the colossal hoax of Obama’s eligibility?