The Mueller Investigation Explained

Let me start by telling you a story:

Let's say you are driving along above the speed limit. A cop pulls you over for speeding. He walks up to your window to ask for your license and registration but notices you are not wearing your seatbelt. As he explains to you about the seatbelt, he notices a strange scent emanating from your car.

He asks you to exit your vehicle and, using his suspicion of drug use, searches your car. He finds drug paraphernalia on the passenger seat under a blanket. Now he asks you to take a drug test and it comes back positive. This prompts him to call in backup and continue the search in earnest.

Under the driver's seat, duct-taped to the chair, he finds the brick of cocaine you are trafficking. He then pops the trunk and finds the dead body of the informant you've killed.

He arrests you for:

• Speeding

• Not wearing a seat belt

• DUI

• Carrying drug paraphernalia

• Drug possession (possibly with the intent to distribute)

• Murder

But all the cop did was pull you over for speeding. How did it go so wrong? Well, because he followed the law and that initial crime allowed him to find many other crimes for which you could be prosecuted.

The Mueller investigation is the same thing. As a duly appointed officer of the law, Mueller was tasked with determining if there was collusion between Trump and the Russians (speeding). As he started searching, he found anomalies that lead him to find other possible crimes (seatbelt, drugs, murder), which he has passed off to the appropriate other agencies to investigate, charge, and detain those involved.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for some to understand. All these complaints by Trump, his cronies, and those who are still, for some reason, in his camp concerning the Mueller investigation and how wide-ranging the probe seems to be getting are stupid. He is doing what any investigator is supposed to do: follow the trail wherever it leads. And, so far, like the example above, the one crime he was tasked to investigate has quickly led to further crimes. This is both understandable and common when the FBI is tasked with investigating someone.

Trump claims there is no collusion, that the investigation is overreaching, and that he has done nothing wrong. Yet, Mueller has gotten guilty pleas and indictments against 33 people so far. He has sent a number of people to jail. And, what we're learning now, is that Trump is so fearful of the investigation that he is trying to get those who have been indicted to be "double-agents" for him by bringing back intel on what Mueller is investigating so that Trump can prepare his counterattacks. Trump is promising pardons to those who will help him. These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide; quite the opposite, it is what we would expect from someone who is guilty and knows he's guilty.

I look forward to the Mueller investigation finishing and seeing just how many people go to jail, how many are indicted, and how many crimes are laid at Trump's feet. I don't think it will kick him out of office, which is a pity. And I don't think his crimes will even sway a majority of his ardent believers, which is worse. They are the ones who are most hurt by this man being the President, yet they are so scared and angry that they will follow him to Hell.

Elementary, My Dear Watson

The CBS show "Elementary" became one of my favorites. I liked how it brought forward Sherlock Holmes to the 21st century. I enjoyed many of the updates they made to the storyline, characters, and mythos of the character. Don't get me wrong, I also enjoyed "Sherlock" on the BBC, and it did pretty much the same work of bringing the characters forward to modern times, but it didn't stretch as far as Elementary did in recasting characters.

The biggest editorial decision Elementary made was to cast Watson as a woman. This led to the second biggest decision they made: to have Watson and Holmes just be friends and colleagues, like in the books, even though the characters were now male and female. Nearly every show on TV with male and female co-leads has a 'will they, won't they' vibe that, in most cases, ruins the show. People start "'shipping" the characters, talking about when they will get together, debating about how it will affect the show (spoiler: almost always negatively), and wondering if they will get married.

What I have constantly wondered is whether a TV show can simply present a heterosexual male and female being close confidants, working together, and having mutual respect for one another. This show finally did it. Through the current episode of season 6, Holmes and Watson simply respect one another's skill sets and intelligence and use their close working relationship to help them confidently delegate tasks. Sometimes Holmes takes more of the lead on a case and sometimes it is Watson. Sometimes one does the grunt work, sometimes both, sometimes the other.

Each has been shown to have a healthy sex life, but not with each other. Sometimes Holmes, due to his quirky behaviors, oversteps a bit into Watson's personal life, but she recognizes it for what it is (he has many personality quirks, bordering on autism) and knows it comes with the territory of being Holmes' friend.

Both characters have shown a 'got your back' attitude toward the other, as well. Each has stood up to both authority and criminals for their partner without hesitation. Both know the other person well enough to know when to lie, to tell the truth, or otherwise to defend the other when accused of something. Each has successfully defended the other against accusations, frame-ups, and possible physical assaults. They have each helped the other to move on from hard and painful life lessons.

I hope that, in the final few episodes remaining before the series is canceled at the end of this season, the writers do not force Holmes and Watson together romantically. I hope that the show remains one of the few to have aired where colleagues can just work well together, regardless of gender. I really liked this show and will miss it.

Addendum

The show was originally going out on a 13 episode order in season 6. However, the network upped that to 21. I hope that the writers don't fill those remaining 8 episodes with some sort of surprise relationship between Watson and Holmes for the series finale. I will admit I've been getting a bit of a vibe from the show that they might. Even if they do, the writers have earned my trust that they could possibly do it in a way that makes sense for, and respects, the characters as they have been presented for the previous five seasons. Here's hoping!

SPOILERS BELOW

One other choice the writers made that I thought was brilliant was introducing Irene Adler ("the Woman"; the one person to have bested Holmes) as also being Moriarty. Arthur Conan Doyle, writing in the era he was, would never have made the male protagonist's main antagonist be a woman, so it was nice of the modern writers to see the similarities between the one person (who wasn't named Moriarty) who beat Holmes and the evil antagonist that Professor Moriarty became and make them one and the same person. Plus, the woman who played Irene Adler in the TV show (Natalie Dormer) was a really good choice.

What's Being Done

Destroy education because uneducated people can't fight back.
Assault wages and savings because poor people can't fight back.
Cripple healthcare (or make it costly) because sick people can't fight back.
Foment racism and division because disorganized people can't fight back.
Assail the mind and senses because tired people can't fight back.
Control the rhetoric because confused people can't fight back.
Change the laws so the people can't fight back.

This is how you change a democracy into an authoritarian regime.

Trump Supporters

Trump supporters supposedly voted for him and continue to support him because he was not a mainstream government guy. He was the "religious" and "moral" choice. He spoke to them.

Yet:
- The religious choice didn't actually go to church (except for his THREE weddings), does not know the Bible, and does not act in a Christian manner.
- The moral choice has never been a moral person, doesn't follow the moral teachings of the Bible, and has done some decidedly amoral and immoral actions both before and since taking office.
- The candidate who 'spoke to them' has since done everything in his power to take money, jobs, healthcare, and voting rights away from those same people.

When a commandment of the Christian Bible says not to commit adultery, every indication is that Trump committed adultery, and these supporters have to take a twisted, convoluted approach to find justification for Trump's actions within the Bible, you've lost. Period. You are proving you aren't a Christian, you are proving that the reasons you claim to have voted for the candidate are false, and you prove that you want to have the things taken from you that he has taken from you.

I guess that is what it comes down to for me in the end-- these people claim to be Christian, claim to support Trump as the Christian candidate, and then act in what any outside observer can only say is a decidedly unChristian way. They aren't really Christians, are they? But Hillary Clinton, who does go to church regularly, does want to help the poor and needy, does want to follow the basic tenets of the Christian faith runs for office, they boo her, ignore her, call her a criminal, and shout her down. Hunh? Obama, who has been a Christian since at least his college years, went to church regularly, and actually had a minor scandal involving the pastor at his Christian church speaking badly about Muslims, is seen as a Muslim terrorist by these people. What? How can you have a scandal where you both ARE and ARE NOT Christian happen during the same election cycle?

And how do they continue to support a guy who takes jobs from them, food off their table, money out of their bank/mattress? I mean, Trump has, so far, proven that he has no clue how the economy works, how government works, and has managed to screw up nearly everything that has been a source of comfort and positivity in these peoples' lives, yet they still continue to support him?

At this point, I have to start questioning anyone who is still a Trump supporter's education level and intelligence. I mean, fool you once, shame on him, but fool you twice, three times, a dozen times, shame on YOU. You must be an idiot.

Fear and Loathing in America

In my experience, most hate and anger stems from fear: fear of the unknown, fear of consequences, fear of loss, fear of something. Lately, Americans and much of the world have been reacting in anger to a lot of different things: homosexuals and homosexuality, dispossessed people/immigrants, change. And I simply don't get why they are so afraid.

President Trump rode to power on a message of fear. He told Americans to fear immigrants, to fear gays, to fear Democrats, to fear change. He promised to do things to stem the fear. He was going to build a big, beautiful wall. He was going to send all the immigrants away. He was going to protect your job in an out-dated and failing industry. He was going to make America look to America first and foremost.

But, as has been proven by the world and by his first year in office so far, none of those things are things to be afraid of so he cannot enact his policies. Immigrants are actually vital to America's growth and continued economic dominance. Why fear immigrants? Immigrants start more companies than any other group of people. In addition, every non-partisan report you can find shows that by embracing immigrants you actually lessen the chances of terrorism. Those immigrants are too busy creating jobs, raising families, trying to fit, and being grateful for being out of the oppressive regime, war, or whatever caused them to flee in the first place to want to commit terrorism. And increasing the vetting process? Creating "extreme vetting"? I'm not sure that is possible. America already has the most stringent process that takes years and numerous background checks and interviews to make it through as it is.

How we treat those immigrants is important, though. If we just dump them in the rural south and expect them to be okay, then we might create home-grown terrorists. If we truly embrace them, however, the sky's the limit for them and for us.

Fearing gay people, transexuals, etc.? There is literally nothing there to fear. They just want to be left alone, to marry and divorce and live their lives just like everyone else. The world won't end, religion will be fine, and people won't see any more overt acts of sexuality that they are uncomfortable with and fear than they do right now. But they get the safety of the law on their side when medical emergencies arise when their loved ones die and other circumstances. All liberties that non-LGBTQ people take for granted now extend to all people. Period. That's a good thing.

The two political parties in America didn't use to fear each other. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats were simply people who had somewhat different priorities. They could sit down and work toward some common, middle ground and reach a consensus. Repubs would put up with a few more dollars going to a social program and the Dems would put up with an easing of regulation here or some more defense spending there. But they didn't fear and hate each other. It was all civil.

Somewhere around the 1990s, that really started to change. And, before Obama took office, the Republican leadership was already saying they would block anything he and the Democrats put forward, even if it was beneficial. So, we had eight years of works projects blocked, eight years of infrastructure proposals blocked, eight years of gridlock and bitterness. Now, with Trump in office, you have someone who can't get anything passed. And, the one thing the Republicans did pass will likely harm America and the very Americans they claim to serve. Why do they fear the common man so much?

What America needs more than anything right now is someone to lead us from a position of love and acceptance. Obama tried, but was blocked by right-wing rhetoric which, even when patently proven false, too many bought into. We need someone like a Reagan or a Clinton, who both made us feel good about being American and who were both able to build bridges between the Democrats and Republicans and get a lot of really good legislation passed. Or someone like a Kennedy, who got both sides of the aisle working together toward incredible achievements. The last thing we need is someone in office who may be unfit for the job, who definitely isn't smart enough for the job, and whose only position is of fear and loathing.

In your own life, look toward your fears and really evaluate them. Why are you afraid? Is there really something there to be afraid of? Can talking it out, researching it, or confronting it help you to move past it and on to something better?

Let's all try to be better. Let's all try to ignore the bombast and rhetoric that surrounds us on a daily basis. Let's all try to talk with people who challenge our beliefs and our assumptions -- and I mean really listen to them -- and see that maybe they aren't so different from us as we previously thought. Maybe then we can realize that we're all in this together, that we can ensure that it all works out, and that there isn't really that much to be afraid of.

Except spiders. Of course I don't include spiders. :-)

#MeToo and Sexual Predatory Behavior

I am concerned about the #MeToo movement and the subsequent firings of a plethora of men in a variety of industries, but mostly in Hollywood. I am concerned that these firings are happening with little to no investigation and, so far, no actual criminal filings or legal proceedings having happened.

I am all for getting abusive, predatory men out of the workspace so that women (and men) can feel safe. I applaud that, actually. But, and this is important, we have a system based on "innocent until proven guilty." I fear that the rush to judgment may cause some good people to lose their jobs with little more than an unfounded accusation of wrongdoing.

When I was in college, I was seeing a girl. We were not officially dating, we didn't go out, and we certainly were not exclusive in any way -- we just hooked up when it was convenient. One day, another girl asked the first girl to introduce her to me, which she did. This other girl and I hit it off very well and became something of an item. The first girl was hurt. I learned later from another friend that she was hurt enough that she told some of the other girls that she was going to go to the Dean and (falsely) accuse me of rape to "get back at" me. Luckily, all the other girls present were my friends, they realized that her doing that was wrong on many levels, and they talked her out of maliciously, and falsely, accusing me.

But, what if they hadn't? Even an unfounded accusation of rape would have likely changed my life forever! When my female friends told me of this, I know I turned all sorts of pale and was scared. Even the accusation without proof or substantiation would have likely ended my college career. That may have changed my entire life's path, my circle of friends, everything from that moment on. And that is just with an accusation. What if I was judged guilty without a hearing/trial and only on one person's (false) statement? Who knows how long and how hard I would have had to fight that accusation. I was very lucky to have such good friends who would stand up for me and talk her out of making a false accusation to simply get back at me for "dumping her."

So, having been on that side of things (or very nearly), I have a unique perspective on the fragility of position and I understand how malicious, unfounded accusations can change everything in an instant. Some of the men being accused today have had long-term rumors of their predatory behavior. Some have even paid financial settlements so that these activities will not come to light. In these circumstances, I agree that firing them is the right, and only, choice. There is existing evidence to show their pattern of behavior and wrongdoing to make this determination and act on it. In my opinion, they should also be charged and go to jail for their acts.

In some cases, however, I'm reading about nothing more than a couple of accusations with little or no substantiation. In some cases, it seems like little or no investigation into the matters has occurred. (I mean, really, is 12 hours enough time to do a full, "thorough" investigation into something that starts as a "she said, he said" situation?) Yet the man is fired and blacklisted immediately. What if some of these women are just jumping on an emotional bandwagon and using it to maliciously, and fallaciously, oust someone they don't like? What if there is no pattern of behavior or corroborating evidence (multiple witnesses, physical evidence like phone calls, emails, notes, etc.)? Do we summarily dismiss a man just because a woman accuses him? If anyone answers yes, then I start to get worried. Not every woman has pure motives and is telling the truth about assault, harassment, or rape. Not every man is a sexual predator, and just like no man should be believed without proof, neither should every woman be believed without some proof/evidence.

Also, what about a person's ability to change? In a few of these cases, I'm reading about accusations that are years, sometimes decades, old. If there are no new accusations, then maybe the man has changed? Maybe he has learned from his behavior and has changed it? Should we be firing and blacklisting someone who two decades ago was a lothario who harassed people but then, through some means, learned the error of his ways and changed? Isn't that a guy whom we want to keep around and maybe hear his perspective on things? Maybe he can shine a unique light on the situation from which other predatory males can learn something? I decry that the man was once this way, but I applaud him for changing, too.

Again, let me state clearly: if there is evidence that a man has committed any sort of harassment, assault, or rape, I want him out. I want him charged with those crimes, I want him to go to jail, and I want him blacklisted. But, please, take the time to fully investigate before simply throwing the man out. While I believe most women would not make up something as serious as a harassment, assault, or rape allegation, the fact that some women would makes me press pause and want to ensure we're all fully informed before blacklisting and ruining the life of anyone. I think we owe them that much, at least.

UPDATE

More quickly than I expected, a report came out that seems to mimic much of what I say here. The Aziz Ansari issue is in that gray area of only 1 person condemning him, and the reports indicating it is much more of a bad sexual encounter where Mr. Ansari either didn't notice or ignored her dislike for where things were going. Is this sexual assault or just a bad date/bad sexual encounter?

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/17/16897440/aziz-ansari-allegations-babe-me-too