# Dirty Cop Mueller's History of Cover Ups !!!!



## nononono (Jan 21, 2019)

*Former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups*

By Kevin Ryan https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/kevin-ryan

Global Research, August 01, 2018

_Former FBI *Director Robert Mueller* has been in the news lately due to his inquiry into Russian alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. _

_After a 12-year stint leading the Bureau, the longest ever since J. Edgar Hoover, Mueller is now seen by many as an honest man serving the interest of the American public. However, that perception cannot be defended once one knows about Mueller’s past._

What some people don’t know about Mueller is that he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups. These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI investigations into the crimes of September 11th, 2001. Today the public is beginning to realize that Mueller’s investigation into Russian alleged collusion with the Trump campaign is a similar diversion.

*Mueller’s talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S. Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they didn’t commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant—mobster James “Whitey” Bulger.” According to the Boston Globe,*

“Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.”

Mueller was then appointed as chief investigator of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 in Scotland. The account Mueller produced was a flimsy story that accused a Libyan named Megrahi of coordinating placement of a suitcase bomb that allegedly traveled unaccompanied through several airports to find its way to the doomed flight. Despite Mueller’s persistent defense of this unbelievable tale, Megrahi was released from prison in 2009 and died three years later in Libya.

With the Pan Am 103 case, Mueller was covering up facts related to some of the of victims of the bombing—a group of U.S. intelligence specialists led by Major Charles McKee of the Defense Intelligence Agency. McKee had gone to Beirut to find and rescue hostages and, while there, learned about CIA involvement in a drug smuggling operation run through an agency project called COREA. As _TIME magazine reported_, the likely explanation for the bombing, supported by independent intelligence experts, was that U.S. operatives “targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage-rescue team.” This would prevent disclosure of what McKee’s team had learned. That theory was also supported by the fact that the CIA showed up immediately at the scene of the crash, took McKee’s briefcase, and returned it empty.

Mueller’s diversions led to his leadership of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, putting him in charge of investigations regarding BCCI. When Mueller started in that role, members of Congress and the media were already critical of the government’s approach to the BCCI affair. Mueller came into the picture telling the _Washington Post _that there was an “appearance of, one, foot-dragging; two, perhaps a cover-up.” Later he denied the cover-up claim and the suggestion that the CIA may have collaborated with BCCI operatives.

13 Shocking Facts About Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller

But again, Mueller was simply brought in to accomplish the cover-up. The facts were that BCCI was used by the CIA to operate outside of the rule of law through funding of terrorists and other criminal operatives. The bank network was at the root of some of the greatest crimes against the public in the last 50 years, including the Savings & Loan scandal, the Iran-Contra affair, and the creation of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Mueller was instrumental in obstructing the BCCI investigation led by Manhattan District *Attorney Robert Morgenthau*. During this time, Justice Department prosecutors were instructed not to cooperate with Morgenthau. Describing Mueller’s obstruction of Morgenthau, the _Wall Street Journal reported _that,

“documents were withheld, and attempts were made to block other federal agencies from cooperating.”


----------



## nononono (Jan 21, 2019)

Describing Mueller’s role in the BCCI cover-up more clearly, reporter *Chris Floyd* wrote:


“When a few prosecutors finally began targeting BCCI’s operations in the late Eighties, *President George Herbert Walker Bush* boldly moved in with a federal probe directed by Justice Department investigator Robert Mueller. The U.S. Senate later found that the probe had been unaccountably ‘botched’–witnesses went missing, CIA records got ‘lost,’… Lower-ranking prosecutors told of heavy pressure from on high to ‘lay off.’ Most of the big BCCI players went unpunished or, like [Khalib bin] Mahfouz, got off with wrist-slap fines and sanctions. Mueller, of course, wound up as head of the FBI, appointed to the post in July 2001–by George W. Bush.”

Yes, in the summer of 2001, when the new Bush Administration suspected it would soon need a cover-up, Mueller was brought in for the job. Although suspect* Louis Freeh* was FBI Director in the lead-up to the crimes, Mueller knew enough to keep things under wraps. He also had some interesting ties to other 9/11 suspects like *Rudy Giuliani*, whose career paralleled Mueller’s closely during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

Under Mueller, the FBI began the whitewash of 9/11 immediately. Mueller himself lied repeatedly in the direct aftermath with respect to FBI knowledge of the accused hijackers. He claimed that the alleged hijackers left no paper trail, and suggested that they exercised “extraordinary secrecy” and “discipline never broke down.” In fact, “ring leader” *Mohamed Atta* went to great lengths to draw attention to himself prior to the attacks. Moreover, the evidence the accused men supposedly left behind was obvious and implausibly convenient for the FBI.

Meanwhile, Mueller’s FBI immediately seized control of the investigations at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA where United Flight 93 was destroyed. Under Mueller, leaders of the Bureau went on to arrest and intimidate witnesses, destroy or withhold evidence, and prevent any independent investigation. With Mueller in the lead, the FBI failed to cooperate with the government investigations into 9/11 and failed miserably to perform basic investigatory tasks. Instead, Mueller celebrated some of the most egregious pre-9/11 failures of the FBI by giving those involved promotions, awards, and cash bonuses.

As FBI whistleblower *Coleen Rowley* later wrote with regard to 9/11,

“Robert Mueller (and *James Comey* as deputy attorney general) presided over a cover-up.”

*Kristen Breitweiser*, one of the four 9/11 widows known as the “Jersey Girls,” stated something similar:

“Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry’s investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry’s investigation.”

Supporting Breitweiser’s claims, public watchdog agency Judicial Watch emphasized Mueller’s role in the cover-up.

“Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears that the lies were approved by Mueller.”

Mueller’s FBI went on to “botch” the investigation into the October 2001 anthrax attacks. As expected, the result was a long series of inexplicable diversions that led nowhere. The anthrax attacks occurred at a time when Mueller himself was warning Americans that another 9/11 could occur at any time (despite his lack of interest in the first one). They also provided the emotional impetus for Americans and Congress to accept the Patriot Act, which had been written prior to 9/11. Exactly why Mueller’s expertise was needed is not yet known but examining the evidence suggests that the anthrax attackers were the same people who planned 9/11.

With knowledge of Mueller’s past, people can see that he is not in the news today to reveal important information about Russia and the Trump Administration. To the contrary, Mueller is in the news to divert attention away from important information and, most likely, to prevent the Trump Administration from being scrutinized in any real way.


----------



## Booter (Jan 25, 2019)




----------



## nononono (Jan 25, 2019)

QUOTE="Booter, post: 243725, member: 2211"




/QUOTE


*And they are ALL from the Swamp......*
*Trump is getting on the job training and learning fast.*
*He still holds the cards dipshit...less than 3 weeks ( 20 days ) *
*and they're right back where they were this am !*

*Unlike you Boot Butt who can only regurgitate *
*Democratic Talking points and post meme's....*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 25, 2019)

Booter said:


>


Look, the Veteran hating coward who doesn’t know that GI bill benefits are earned.  Sometimes posthumously.  You and Nathan are cowards.


----------



## nononono (Jan 25, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Look, the Veteran hating coward who doesn’t know that GI bill benefits are earned.  Sometimes posthumously.  You and Nathan are cowards.



*BI ....Look up Joseph Pientka !*

*You will be SHOCKED !*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 25, 2019)

nononono said:


> *BI ....Look up Joseph Pientka !*
> 
> *You will be SHOCKED !*


I’m not shocked.  This is a total CYA operation. Mueller was incompetent during his time as director given that the 38 russians he  indicted, set up their anti-hillary shops in the U.S. on his watch.


----------



## Booter (Jan 28, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Look, the Veteran hating coward who doesn’t know that GI bill benefits are earned.  Sometimes posthumously.  You and Nathan are cowards.


I understand the GI Bill is earned which is why I edited my related post - dumbass.  But if that gives you a reason to cry about it then please continue as that's pretty much what you do here.   You complain all the time about government spending while government spending and all that government does (GI Bill, Schools, Infrastructure, Courts...etc.) has greatly contributed to where you are at today - so that does make you a hypocrite.  I see it all the time Conservatives believe all government spending is bad except when it benefits them directly.    You back a president who shuts down the government because he is unskilled and has imposed tariffs both of which have damaged our economy.  You are perfectly fine with Russia interfering with our free elections.  Is any of that patriotic?


----------



## nononono (Jan 28, 2019)

Booter said:


> I understand the GI Bill is earned which is why I edited my related post - dumbass.  But if that gives you a reason to cry about it then please continue as that's pretty much what you do here.   You complain all the time about government spending while government spending and all that government does (GI Bill, Schools, Infrastructure, Courts...etc.) has greatly contributed to where you are at today - so that does make you a hypocrite.  I see it all the time Conservatives believe all government spending is bad except when it benefits them directly.    You back a president who shuts down the government because he is unskilled and has imposed tariffs both of which have damaged our economy.  You are perfectly fine with Russia interfering with our free elections.  Is any of that patriotic?



*You are in dire need of continuing education......*


----------



## messy (Jan 28, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Look, the Veteran hating coward who doesn’t know that GI bill benefits are earned.  Sometimes posthumously.  You and Nathan are cowards.


Hey aren't you the guy that doesn't think anyone should pay taxes? No capital gains taxes and no income taxes. You said it. So how would GI bill benefits be funded?


----------



## messy (Jan 28, 2019)

nononono said:


> *BI ....Look up Joseph Pientka !*
> 
> *You will be SHOCKED !*


"I think Mueller should be locked up in the same call as Hillary and Comey. Maybe they should have a threesome. They're all crooks." --- said the drug-addled idiot.


----------



## Hüsker Dü (Jan 28, 2019)

messy said:


> Hey aren't you the guy that doesn't think anyone should pay taxes? No capital gains taxes and no income taxes. You said it. So how would GI bill benefits be funded?


diz-idiot contradicts his own personal circumstances constantly without batting an eye or having a clue.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 28, 2019)

messy said:


> Hey aren't you the guy that doesn't think anyone should pay taxes? No capital gains taxes and no income taxes. You said it. So how would GI bill benefits be funded?


Consumption taxes.  22%.


----------



## messy (Jan 28, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Consumption taxes.  22%.


Is that a sales tax?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 28, 2019)

Hüsker Dü said:


> diz-idiot contradicts his own personal circumstances constantly without batting an eye or having a clue.


Actually, what you and Bootsie the coward don't know is that service members actually contribute cash directly to their Montgomery GI Bill.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 28, 2019)

messy said:


> Is that a sales tax?


Yes.


----------



## messy (Jan 28, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Yes.


So people who buy more shit pay more taxes, which I would think does not make it “regressive,” as so many say it does. 
How about when a company buys another company?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 28, 2019)

Booter said:


> I understand the GI Bill is earned which is why I edited my related post - dumbass.  But if that gives you a reason to cry about it then please continue as that's pretty much what you do here.   You complain all the time about government spending while government spending and all that government does (GI Bill, Schools, Infrastructure, Courts...etc.) has greatly contributed to where you are at today - so that does make you a hypocrite.  I see it all the time Conservatives believe all government spending is bad except when it benefits them directly.    You back a president who shuts down the government because he is unskilled and has imposed tariffs both of which have damaged our economy.  You are perfectly fine with Russia interfering with our free elections.  Is any of that patriotic?


I should be grateful for 6 straight years of QE spending?  Really?  Fries U grads never cease to amaze.  Government doesn't do anything but collect taxes and spend most of it wastefully.  Not to mention not funding things that they promised to fund or not de-fund like Social Security.  The government was not shutdown.  Furloughing non-essential employees is not a shutdown.  Especially when the tax payer is on the hook for paying non-essential employees that didn't work in many cases.  Nothing has damaged our economy more than 6 years of QE which would have easily paid for 3 to 4 walls a month.  And I'll tell you who was perfectly fine with russian interference:






Coward


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 28, 2019)

messy said:


> So people who buy more shit pay more taxes, which I would think does not make it “regressive,” as so many say it does.
> How about when a company buys another company?


Are they consuming that company?  BTW....uhhhhh yes people who buy more shit pay more taxes.  Just sayin'.


----------



## messy (Jan 28, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Are they consuming that company?


Yup.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 28, 2019)

messy said:


> Yup.


Okay.


----------



## messy (Jan 28, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Okay.


So the buyer has to pay an additional 22% to the feds when it gobbles up another company? I like it.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 28, 2019)

messy said:


> So the buyer has to pay an additional 22% to the feds when it gobbles up another company? I like it.


Both you and the gobblers.


----------



## messy (Jan 28, 2019)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Both you and the gobblers.


Huh?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jan 28, 2019)

messy said:


> Huh?


Sorry.  You and the buyers "like it"


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jan 29, 2019)

CA College Board Of Trustees Eliminates Pledge Of Allegiance: Its History ‘Steeped in Nativism And White Nationalism’
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42760/ca-college-board-trustees-eliminates-pledge-hank-berrien


----------



## nononono (Jan 29, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> CA College Board Of Trustees Eliminates Pledge Of Allegiance: Its History ‘Steeped in Nativism And White Nationalism’
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/42760/ca-college-board-trustees-eliminates-pledge-hank-berrien



*The President of the California Community College Board of Trustees below.......


Tom Epstein
President
Appointment: 2014-2020
Residence: Orinda





 Tom Epstein recently retired after 15 years as vice president of public affairs of Blue Shield of California, where he led government relations, corporate communications, philanthropy and corporate social responsibility. Prior to joining Blue Shield, Epstein was vice president of communications for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and served in the Clinton White House as a special assistant to the president for political affairs. Previously, he was deputy commissioner of the California Department of Insurance. Mr. Epstein earned a J.D. from UCLA School of Law and a B.S. in Economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He serves on the board of the Coalition for Clean Air and is a Senior Fellow at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.
https://extranet.cccco.edu/SystemOperations/BoardofGovernors/Members.aspx#top


Water only runs down hill......

California is being set up to become an independent Country.....Don't laugh
you Lemming Liberals, just look up the facts and you'll see the alignment
that has been put in motion .....then you can cry....
Especially when the top taxpayers in California who constitute less than 
2.5 - 3 % and pay damn near 3/4 of the taxes have stated that they will move 
if the rates go any higher...
If they move it makes California damn near one of the poorest states....


*


----------



## messy (Feb 1, 2019)

nononono said:


> *The President of the California Community College Board of Trustees below.......*
> 
> 
> *Tom Epstein*
> ...


Man, you always know shit so far in advance, it really is impressive. You're like Iz, you know so much. 
So what date are we going to secede from the union? You must know it.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Feb 1, 2019)

messy said:


> Man, you always know shit so far in advance, it really is impressive. You're like Iz, you know so much.
> So what date are we going to secede from the union? You must know it.


Didn't they already try it?


----------



## Hüsker Dü (Feb 1, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> Didn't they already try it?


https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131


----------



## messy (Feb 1, 2019)

Hüsker Dü said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131


Looks like Joe tried it. But nono knows about the next effort.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Feb 1, 2019)

Hüsker Dü said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131


Those Russians are some busy little bees, or you just have Russia stuck in that empty head of yours.


----------



## messy (Feb 1, 2019)

Sheriff Joe said:


> Those Russians are some busy little bees, or you just have Russia stuck in that empty head of yours.


Good point. Very busy.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Feb 2, 2019)

Hüsker Dü said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131


Fake News


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Feb 2, 2019)

messy said:


> Looks like Joe tried it. But nono knows about the next effort.


Really Fake News.


----------



## nononono (Feb 2, 2019)

messy said:


> Man, you always know shit so far in advance, it really is impressive. You're like Iz, you know so much.
> So what date are we going to secede from the union? You must know it.


*I know you are baffled by Bullshit...*
*I know you wash your feet in Urine...*
*I know you have Donkey Dung under your Nails....*

*I know for sure that you DO NOT PAY ATTENTION !*


----------



## nononono (Feb 2, 2019)

Hüsker Dü said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131



*Yur such a dipshit.....you need to call Adam Schiff for Brains and get new *
*talking points....That one is out of style like the Don Jr phone call....*


----------



## nononono (Feb 2, 2019)

Hüsker Dü said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131



*Oh and furthermore Rodent " Dipshit "....your Fake News above is contradicted by
Real News from the same year about Democrats who are quietly BEHIND the secession 
movement....
The CNP is a quiet arm of the Democrats......
*

*Trump critics turn to obstruction, secession *
*as Democrats & rsquo; power fades*

by Stephen Loiaconi

Thursday, February 2nd 2017

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) — Hoping to capitalize on the state’s overwhelming rejection of President Donald Trump in November, activists in California have taken the first step toward accomplishing what many experts say will be impossible: seceding from the United States.

Last week, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla granted the “Cal-exit” movement approval to seek signatures to get an amendment to the state Constitution on the ballot in 2018. That alone will be a difficult task: finding 585,407 people to sign off on a measure that a majority of Californians oppose by July 25.

California Nationhood. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute by Stephen Loiaconi on Scribd

Once the Constitution is amended to remove references to the state being “an inseparable part of the United States,” a referendum on independence would be voted on in 2019. However, that could only pass if at least 50 percent of registered voters participate in the election and 55 percent of them vote for it.

If the effort cleared that hurdle, the country would be left to navigate the largely uncharted territory of secession, according to Robert Hawes, author of “One Nation Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution.”

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that references it,” he said.

According to Hawes, a few states were accepted into the Union with the provision that they could leave if they wanted, but those policies were never legally tested. The only Supreme Court case he is aware of that directly addressed secession was Texas v. White, an 1869 case that concluded a state cannot secede unilaterally.

Hawes expects that if any serious secession effort garnered enough support for passage to be plausible, it would be opposed vigorously by the White House and Department of Justice and would eventually reach the Supreme Court. If the justices follow the precedent set by White, a national referendum winning the approval of other states or even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution could be required.

If Californians were somehow able to overcome all of those obstacles, declaring independence would have drastic ramifications for both the Golden State and the other 49.

The new California government would need to develop alternatives to social service programs like Medicaid and Social Security that are currently funded with federal dollars, and it would require its own military. As Patrick Gleason argued in Forbes, the state would also lose the option of seeking federal aid to alleviate an underfunded pension system and struggling infrastructure projects.

“Some conservatives, once they get used to the idea, will probably like it,” Hawes said.

Democrats in the U.S. would lose 55 electoral votes in presidential elections, two senators, and 53 members of the House. The millions of votes that gave Hillary Clinton her popular vote victory, for whatever that is worth, would be gone. Winning national elections, regaining control of Congress, and advancing progressive policies would become far more difficult.

“That will be a huge block of dependably left votes going away,” Hawes observed.

Other states have fielded similar calls for independence in the past. 125,000 people signed a petition to the Obama White House in 2013 to allow Texas to secede. A faction in California has advocated it for a while, but Trump’s victory in November energized the movement.

“Being a U.S. state is no longer serving California’s best interests. On issues ranging from peace and security to natural resources and the environment, it has become increasingly true that California would be better off as an independent country,” the group behind the latest initiative, Yes California, states in a 36-page promotional brochure.

Calexit Blue Book by Stephen Loiaconi on Scribd

Critics have questioned Yes California’s links to Russia, * and a more established group that supports independence, the California National Party, is not backing the current effort. *Nor are most Californians; a Reuters poll in December found support for secession at a relative high of 32 percent, but a SurveyUSA poll earlier this week only showed 18 percent favoring withdrawal.

Pointing to President Trump’s threat to withhold federal funding from the University of California, Berkeley because of violent protests that derailed an appearance by a Breitbart editor on Wednesday night, New Hampshire progressive radio host Arnie Arnesen said it makes sense that some in the state want to break free.

“I think that’s a really interesting threat,” she said. “I don’t want them to leave, but I don’t blame them.”

*In many ways, the state is operating like its own country with liberal policies, high taxes, an embrace of sanctuary cities, and an economy that would be the sixth largest in the world if separated from the rest of the U.S. *
*Democrats control all branches of government there now, ensuring that it will continue drifting left as Trump’s federal government veers right.*


----------



## nononono (Feb 2, 2019)

The secession effort is just one of many extreme reactions to Trump’s presidency that have emerged among liberals and Democrats in the last three months that risk generating a pro-Trump backlash.

Citing Russian hacking that benefited his campaign, prominent Democrats like Rep. John Lewis have declared Trump’s victory illegitimate. Celebrities and activists spent weeks on a longshot bid to flip votes in the Electoral College against him.

Hundreds of thousands turned out across the country to march for women’s rights the day after Trump’s inauguration. Last weekend, thousands more protested at airports against his immigration executive orders.

More protests are planned in the days ahead and pressure is growing on Democrats in Congress to stand up to Trump on behalf of their base. Lawmakers who spoke of working with Trump on some issues a couple of weeks ago are now boycotting Cabinet confirmation hearings and threatening to filibuster his Supreme Court nominee.

Liberal activists held a “What the f*ck, Chuck?!” march to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s house in Brooklyn Tuesday to “deliver protein bars and weights to Schumer, so he can regain his strength.”

“No appeasement, no dealmaking, no collaboration: we need powerful resistance and leadership of all the Senate Democrats to fight the administration!” organizers wrote on a Facebook page for the event.

Conservatives warn that Democrats risk overplaying their hand by indulging the frothing anger of their base, no matter how unpopular Trump now seems.

“My prediction is that Dems are digging their own grave and their revolt against his legitimacy will, in the short term at least, boost Trump’s popularity,” wrote Michael Goodwin in the New York Post. “Most Americans will conclude he is honestly trying to fulfill the mandate he won and that the fevered rush to destroy him is neither principled nor patriotic.”

"Democrats are at risk of missing the point of what was an almost revolutionary election," Republican strategist Christian Ferry told the Washington Examiner. "People looking at what goes on in Washington and saying, 'Enough is enough.'"

While some liberals are threatening to run primary challenges against Democrats who vote for Trump nominees, Arnesen recognize the futility of nonstop attempts at obstruction.

“Democrats can’t be obstructionist,” she said. “They’re not in the majority.”

Republicans could “essentially flip the bird” at Obama for the last six years because they had a majority in Congress and the power to destroy his agenda.

“The difference is the Democrats have no power,” she said. “All the can do is expose and oppose.”

Arnesen said Democrats need to make their opposition to Trump’s policies known and make Republicans own the negative consequences, but they can do little to prevent them from being implemented.

“Oppose, expose and remember,” she said. “That’s their job to the public, to remind them.”

Where critics see overreaction, others see opportunity. There is already talk of mobilizing the anti-Trump anger in a Tea Party-like movement, but some Democratic leaders are hesitant to give in to the rage that the new president inspires.

“The radical nature of this government is radicalizing Democrats, and that’s going to pose a real challenge to the Democratic Party, which is to draw on the energy and the activism and the passion that is out there, but not let it turn us into what we despised about the Tea Party,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Cal., said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times Tuesday.

Experts see similarities to where Republicans were in 2009, but there are crucial differences.

According to Daniel Chirot, a professor at the University of Washington and author of “How Societies Change,” the Tea Party brought together libertarians, frustrated middle class workers, and white racists who all opposed Obama for different reasons, but it took advantage of an existing conservative political infrastructure that the left lacks.

“The reason it worked so well was that the Republican Party had been building up local strength and organization that could then mobilize votes with the help of ample financing from some big moneyed interests,” he said. “They were therefore able to take advantage of these diverse sources of anger and keep them together despite obvious ideological differences. Now the anger against Trump is probably even bigger, but it is also disparate.”

*There are many constituencies among liberals and Democrats that are opposed to Trump for various reasons, but that anger is not enough if it cannot be harnessed into productive action.*

“The money is there, the energy is there, but where is the organization?” Chirot said. “The Democrats fell woefully behind in that respect. Obama, whatever you may think of him, was not good at helping his party and neglected supporting local organization.”

To keep the movement from splintering, they must keep that anger alive without alienating moderate voters and independents who could be swayed by the Republican agenda.

“In Congress, they have to be prepared to be a bare-fisted, hostile opposition,” Chirot said. “If one side fights a war and the other does not, warriors will win.”


----------

