Real Constitutional Crisis in the offing in America over the Appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller

By Jared E. Peterson

Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller to investigate wholly unsupported claims of “links and/or coordination between the Russian government and … the campaign of President Donald Trump” poses the most serious threat to American constitutional government and domestic peace since the Civil War.

The only reason anyone is still talking about this subject, let alone investigating it pursuant to an order originating at the highest levels of the United States Justice Department, is that the media propaganda arm of the Democratic Party has refused to stop headlining it, despite a total lack of evidence of criminality after continuous investigation for over half a year by multiple agencies of the United States government.

Despite this massive evidentiary void, a democratically elected, thirty-state Electoral College victory president, of absolutely certain constitutional legitimacy under procedural norms now 230 years old, is to be substantially disabled in the performance of his office for an unknown length of time, while an army of lawyers and political enemies, enabled by Mr. Rosenstein’s order, swarms the capital looking for something, anything, to justify its frenzy.

For months, breathless headlines reporting unsourced leaks, insignificant interviews, and memory cavils will dominate the corporate media’s news shows, websites, and print outlets, while critical domestic and international concerns, and the President’s already substantial accomplishments, go unreported, and the agenda that brought him to the White House languishes.

Without so much as the identification of a crime, and — still worse — without a shred of evidence that the “coordination” referenced in the Rosenstein order occurred, or, if it did, that it might amount to a crime, a special counsel with effectively unlimited budget and power has been appointed.

This counsel’s roving army could wreak havoc on the ability of the constitutionally elected President to carry out the functions of his office.

How did this astounding development occur in the absence of any crime or evidence of the alleged collusion?

It’s quite simple:

During the last four months, the Democratic Party’s close allies in the corporate media (NYT, WP, CBS, CNN, ABC and NBC), though zombie-like repetition of their Party operatives’ unhinged Russian fantasy, and the overwhelmingly Democrat permanent Washington bureaucracy, through unsourced leaks, have created, a climate of fear, suspicion and chaos. They have then blamed the President for the poisonous atmosphere they themselves created, and, finally, and unsurprisingly, have frightened a Justice Department official into doing their bidding.

Those who elected President Trump have justifiably concluded from all this that what is now unfolding in Washington is an attempted coup d’état, and that America is now in a so far non-shooting civil war. As in 1860, the losing side refuses to accept the clear and unquestioned victor in our nation’s quadrennial presidential election, and is determined to be rid of him by hook or crook, the voters and the Constitution be damned

It is to be hoped that this time, unlike 1860, hostilities remain devoid of sustained violence. But it is not too soon to remind those who are promoting “resistance” to the constitutionally elected President that the vast majority of those who don’t wet their pants while in the same room with a loaded gun are on the side of constitutional governance and the legally elected President.

The President’s enemies in the corporate media and the permanent bureaucracy are so detached from reality, so unconcerned with adherence to the norms of electoral legitimacy that have produced almost uninterrupted domestic stability in the world’s leading democratic republic for over 200 years, that they risk open conflict and violence. That is how desperate they are to rid themselves of the man whom they apparently regard as a mortal threat to their agenda of permanent governance by the Left.

The corporate media’s ceaseless repetition of headlines beginning “allegations of Trump collusion with Russia,” each time utterly unsupported by hard evidence, repetitions which thereafter are parroted by local mainstream media outlets, has created the vague feeling among the inattentive that something is amiss.  Even an Assistant Attorney General appointed by the President — Washington bubble-trapped, apparently — is not immune to the paranoia and fear generated by the drumbeat of empty, unsourced and unsupported assertions.

It’s all been an object lesson in Goebbels’ first principle of propaganda — a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth — and a further lesson in ourpropaganda masters’ variant on the Goebbels’ rule: A charge, repeated often enough, however devoid of factual or evidentiary support, will leave some stain.

For nine months the corporate media has kept alive John Podesta’s desperate “Russia collusion” illusion — despite the gaping void where evidence for that illusion should be.

Given the federal bureaucracy’s hatred of President Trump, and the propaganda outlets’ willingness to print any negative rumor or unsourced allegation about the President, if there had been any real evidence for the Podesta fantasy, it long ago would have been made public.

Predictably, the new President’s diminished ability to function in the chaos created by the permanent federal bureaucracy and its MSM allies will be cited as evidence of his unfitness for office.

The corporate media and Washington’s cossetted bureaucrats have come to think of themselves as our masters. After eight years of Obama, they’ve developed an intensely felt sense of entitlement to govern. The enormity of the shock to their sense of entitlement caused by Trump’s election hasn’t even begun to wear off.

Their coping mechanism is to do all they can to sabotage and destroy President Trump, and to congratulate themselves for their malignant efforts.

A lawyer and respected former FBI head has now been loosed on the Presidency, to investigate the Democratic Party’s most ludicrous excuse for its 2016 presidential defeat, an excuse for which there is no evidence, and which, even if true, probably would not constitute a crime.

God only knows how long the circus will last, while it undermines the ability of a constitutionally legitimate President to govern.

Trump’s supporters expect — demand — a full-throated denunciation of what is occurring by congressional Republicans and senators. Those who defend the President from these transparent and groundless efforts to destroy his administration will be rewarded by voter support and loyalty. Many of the fainthearted will be looking for other work after 2018.

The nation is sailing into dangerous waters. No American vessel of state has ventured into these parts since 1860. And it is not the elected president who has brought us here, but those whose offended sense of entitlement to rule have lead them to believe they can first ignore, and then overrule, a decisive electoral outcome.

The best resolution to the Left’s present insurrection against American constitutional processes would be for Robert Mueller — a patriot, highly decorated Vietnam veteran, and, up till now, a lawyer and public official of unquestioned integrity, to very expeditiously and thoroughly exhaust the reasonable avenues of investigation and then to promptly bring this dangerous, baseless charade to a halt.

Then the Democratic Party could honorably abandon its divisive and self-destructive “resistance” to America’s legitimately elected President, and assume its proper function in our free, representative democracy as … the opposition


So the United States has been behind Julian Assange’s travails in Sweden?

Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state’s collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and “rendition”

Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.

This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden. “It’s a laughing stock,” said James Catlin, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers. “It is as if they make it up as they go along”.

A popular meme which appeared when Assange released the Podesta emails

It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.

The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.

Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.

Another popular meme

These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.

In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.

Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a “Manhunt target list”. Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden’s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”.

Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: “Can’t we just drone this guy.”

According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy.

The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America’s ” founding virtue” or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, “our currency”.

Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange’s ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.

For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a “rape investigation”, they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the “rape of two women”. The word “rape” can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world.

Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden’s imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.

On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.

At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, “Ah, but she is not a lawyer.”

On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden’s military intelligence service – which has the acronym MUST – publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled “WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]”.

Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be “cut off” if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed “rape investigation” to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq “War Logs”, based on WikiLeaks’ disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.

Finally, he was allowed him to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol “red alert” normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.

Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.

He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.

For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.

Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as “abnormal” and demanded she be replaced.

Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be “rendered” to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.

Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA “renditions” – including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.

“Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England,” wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange, “clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.”

The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the “rape” allegations.

Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn’t she question him? Catch-22.

When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would  destroy it. One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, “but the police were keen on getting a hold on him”. She was “shocked” when they arrested him because she only “wanted him to take [an HIV] test”. She “did not want to accuse JA of anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”. In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, “I have not been raped.” The women were manipulated by police – whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?”

Assange’s choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.

Supported by most of Latin America, the government of tiny Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington.

The Labor government of the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, had even threatened to take away his Australian passport – until it was pointed out to her that this would be unlawful.

The renowned human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd: “Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”

It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew “only what I read in the newspapers” about the details of the case.

In 2011, in Sydney, I spent several hours with a conservative Member of Australia’s Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull then had a reputation as a free speech advocate. He is now the Prime Minister of Australia.

I gave him Gareth Peirce’s letter about the threat to Assange’s rights and life. He said the situation was clearly appalling and promised to take it up with the Gillard government. Only his silence followed.

For almost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. There are few precedents. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, and to the principle of free speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious. I would call it anti-journalism.

Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.

The previous editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. Yet no attempt was made to protect the Guardian’s provider and source. Instead, the “scoop” became part of a marketing plan to raise the newspaper’s cover price.

With not  penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”.

Journalism students might well study this period to understand that the most ubiquitous source of “fake news” is from within a media self-ordained with a false respectability and an extension of the authority and power it claims to challenge but courts and protects.

The presumption of innocence was not a consideration in Kirsty Wark’s memorable BBC live-on-air interrogation in 2010. “Why don’t you just apologise to the women?” she demanded of Assange, followed by: “Do we have your word of honour that you won’t abscond?”

On the BBC’s Today programme, John Humphrys bellowed: “Are you a sexual predator?” Assange replied that the suggestion was ridiculous, to which Humphrys demanded to know how many women he had slept with.

“Would even Fox News have descended to that level?” wondered the American historian William Blum. “I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He then would have known precisely how to reply to such a question: ‘You mean including your mother?'”

Last week, on BBC World News, on the day Sweden announced it was dropping the case, I was interviewed by Geeta Guru-Murthy, who seemed to have little knowledge of the Assange case. She persisted in referring to the “charges” against him. She accused him of putting Trump in the White House; and she drew my attention to the “fact” that “leaders around the world” had condemned him. Among these “leaders” she included Trump’s CIA director. I asked her, “Are you a journalist?”.

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act in 2014. “His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit.” In other words, he would have won his case in the British courts and would not have been forced to take refuge.

Ecuador’s decision to protect Assange in 2012 was immensely brave. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognise the legitimacy of Ecuador’s decision.

Ecuador’s embassy in London was placed under police siege and its government abused. When William Hague’s Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down.

During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.

Since then, Assange has been confined to a small room without sunlight. He has been ill from time to time and refused safe passage to the diagnostic facilities of hospital. Yet, his resilience and dark humour remain quite remarkable in the circumstances. When asked how he put up with the confinement, he replied, “Sure beats a supermax.”

It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations – last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.

Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group – Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran – both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange’s persecution endures in the heart of London.

The Metropolitan Police say they still intend to arrest Assange for bail infringement should he leave the embassy. What then? A few months in prison while the US delivers its extradition request to the British courts?

If the British Government allows this to happen it will, in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of a war waged by rampant power against justice and freedom, and all of us.



Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich

By Liz Crokin

A manager of the Washington, D.C., bar where Democratic National Committee worker Seth Rich was last spotted hours before he was shot and killed last summer told WND that D.C. police officers never interviewed the bar’s staff or requested any evidence from the bar, including the bar’s surveillance video from that night, as part of an investigation into Rich’s murder.

The revelation backs up a claim made by a private investigator who worked on the case who said D.C. police were told to “stand down” on the investigation.

WND also can report that the investigator recently was ordered to “cease and desist” his work on the murder case.

“The police never asked for the surveillance video from that night,” a manager of Lou’s City Bar told WND.

His name is being withheld for this story.

He said the bar’s surveillance video runs in a cycle of 30 days and that, by now, any footage that may have existed of Rich the last night he was seen alive has been taped over.

Furthermore, the manager said police never asked for any other kind of evidence from the bar such as Rich’s bar receipt from that night. The manager did note he wasn’t sure if Rich paid using a credit card or cash.

The manager also said he’s not aware of the police ever interviewing any of the bar’s staff members as part of their investigation into Rich’s murder.

“The only time that I talked to police was during the memorial for Seth,” the manager said, noting that those conversations were more casual and friendly.

He did not believe the conversations were part of official police interviews regarding Rich’s murder investigation.

The statements back up a claim by private investigator Rod Wheeler – a retired D.C. police detective who was hired to independently investigate Rich’s murder – that police were told to stand down on Rich’s murder investigation.

Wheeler told FOX 5: “I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department.”

Wheeler has also suggested that Rich could have been the insider source who leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

He cites an anonymous federal investigator who has claimed to have proof Rich sent thousands of DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

Now Rich’s family has asked Wheeler to stop working on the case, according to a WND source close to the situation.

“He’s been told to cease and desist,” the source said.

Furthermore, the source said Rich’s family ordered that Wheeler not talk about any aspect of the case to anyone.

“It’s really unfortunate he’s been taken off the case, because Rod truly believes he was very close to solving this murder,” the source said. “Rod is not a political person – he genuinely just wanted to find out who murdered Seth. He doesn’t care if it’s a Republican or a Democrat – he just wants to get the truth out there.”

Rich’s family members have not spoken publicly about Rich’s death in months.

Instead, professional Democratic crisis consultant Brad Bauman, from the Pastorum Group, has been speaking on the family’s behalf.

Bauman has emphasized that he and the Rich family want police to get to the bottom of Rich’s case regardless of where it leads. However, he blasted Wheeler for suggesting publicly any suspicion of the DNC’s involvement.

The Rich family is “devastated” Wheeler has not ruled out a WikiLeaks connection, Bauman said.

“Every single time a story is reported, it is just hearsay, it is lies, it is politically driven or politically motivated hearsay,” Bauman said. “And it actually causes the opposite of what everyone wants. It causes the inability for the police and for independent investigators to figure out what actually happened.”

The source said that since Wheeler spoke to the press about some of his findings, he has received a ton of backlash.

“Rod wishes that he never got involved in this case in the first place,” the source said. “He did not know that there would be such a big political component involved with this case or that there would be such backlash directed at him for trying to do a good deed.”

The source said Wheeler was just trying to do right by the family and find justice for Rich. Even though Wheeler’s no longer allowed to investigate or discuss the case with anyone, the source said he hopes others continue to look into this case and report on it.

WND calls to Rich’s family were not answered or returned. And a relative close to Rich’s girlfriend, Kelsey Mulka, said she is not interested in talking to the media, either.

“She’s devastated,” the relative said of Mulka. “Can you imagine what she’s gone through? She just wants this to go away and to be left alone.”

Despite reports of fights at Lou’s City Bar the night that Rich died, the manager said he’s not aware of anything that happened that was out of the ordinary that night. He said he’s extremely saddened by Rich’s untimely death.

“He was the nicest guy in the world,” the manager said. “If someone gave me trouble in the bar, Seth would be standing right there defending me.”

The manager said Lou’s City Bar held a memorial for Rich.

He said Rich could not have come from a better family.

“They’re wonderful people,” he said. “I wish I could’ve done something to save him.”

WND reported earlier on Bauman’s dissatisfaction with Wheeler’s comments about the case.

Those criticisms followed Wheeler’s statement that he had just learned from Rich’s family that the DNC contacted them about the case.

“How did that DNC person know I had called the police? That is what is baffling me,” Wheeler said. “I just found out from [Rich’s] family that the DNC knew I contacted the police – they hadn’t told me that all this time.”

Bauman blasted him: “I don’t think at this point, given Detective Wheeler’s lack of credibility – that I am going to dignify any accusations that he makes with any sort of discussion, I’m sorry.”

Anyone who believes Rich may have leaked DNC emails “deserve a place in hell,” Bauman said angrily.

Detective Rod Wheeler

WND also has reported on the eerie similarities between Rich’s death and several deaths of individuals linked to former President Bill Clinton and twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Just as in the Rich case, several of the people who died mysterious deaths were shot spontaneously and in public places, sometimes from behind, sometimes by unknown assailants and often just before they were set to release incriminating evidence concerning the Clintons’ activities. In most cases, there were no signs of theft at the crime scenes. And while some of the deaths were ruled suicides, other cases remain a mystery.

As WND reported, Rich was murdered July 10, 2016, near his affluent neighborhood in Washington, D.C. He was shot in the back with a handgun at 4:18 a.m. while he walked home, and nothing was taken from him. Rich, who called several people as he later walked home, was talking on the phone with his girlfriend, Mulka, when he was accosted a block from his house. He was transported to a local hospital and was pronounced dead at 5:57 a.m.

On July 22, just 12 days after Rich’s death and days before the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from DNC officials.

The leaked emails revealed, among other things, that the DNC tried to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and prevent Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders from becoming the party’s nominee. The leaks were cited by some Democrats as one explanation for Clinton’s election loss. Many accused the Russians of “hacking” and turning the tide for Donald Trump.

In one email released by WikiLeaks, Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta said he would like to “make an example” out of the person who leaked the emails.

“I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it,” Podesta wrote on Feb. 22, 2015, according to WikiLeaks.