Obama's Fingerprints Cover the Coup Crime Scene
"What did [Obama] know and when did he know it?"
“They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” —John Adams (1775)
In my recent column, “Beyond Flynn: Indict Comey and Brennan,” I wrote: “The Flynn case is a microcosm of the entire Russia-collusion setup, and it represents the most disgraceful episode of government abuse of power since J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI director. It reflects a far more dangerous chapter in American political history — a more egregious assault on our Constitution and Rule of Law — than any aspect of the Watergate break-in during Richard Nixon’s administration. Any civil libertarian of any political stripe with an ounce of integrity should be denouncing this government corruption from the mountaintops.”
I argued that comparative assessment was “not hyperbole.” Let’s review.
In 1972, a group of black-bag spooks known as the “White House Plumbers,” under the direction of Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt, were funded by the Committee to Re-Elect the President (Richard Nixon). On 17 June, they hired some inept burglars to break into the Democrat National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Office Building. Their plan was to plant some surveillance devices, but they were arrested upon being discovered by a security guard.
A week later, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman advised Nixon of the break-in, and Nixon approved (as heard on Nixon’s Oval Office taping system) Haldeman’s plan to call off the federal investigators. But it was too late. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, with a little help from “Deep Throat” (then-FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt), connected the burglary to Nixon’s reelection fund and The Plumbers, and three months later the key conspirators were indicted by a federal grand jury.
Two months after that, on 7 November, Nixon defeated George McGovern and was reelected to a second term with the largest plurality of votes and the fourth-largest margin (23.15%) in American history. But the Watergate investigation continued, and Nixon lied about his effort to cover up the break-in once he was told about it. The evidence of this lie was the 18 and a half minutes of conversation with Haldeman that Nixon had erased from more than 3,700 hours of Oval Office conversations. On 9 August 1974, Nixon, having two days earlier been told by Republican leaders of his dwindling support in Congress, resigned rather than put the nation through an impeachment.
In this respect, Nixon demonstrated more integrity than President Bill Clinton, who in 1999 successfully dodged a conviction on articles for lying and obstruction of justice — despite clear evidence of his guilt and despite having lied to a grand jury about an illicit sexual affair with a 22-year-old White House intern. Recall that he claimed, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
And speaking of the Clinton crime syndicate, it should be noted that Nixon’s erasure of 18 and a half minutes of incriminating audiotape pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s deliberate BleachBit destruction of 33,000 subpoenaed emails in order to conceal, among other things, her role in Barack Obama’s cover-up of the 2012 Benghazi embassy attack. (It’s no small irony that in 1974, a young attorney named Hillary Rodham was hired by the House Judiciary Committee to work on the Nixon impeachment case, where she apparently learned a lot about how to not be caught in a cover-up.)
Notably, Republicans aggressively investigated Nixon and insisted he resign. In 1974, former Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN) was the ranking minority member of the Senate committee investigating the Watergate cover-up conspiracy. He and his then-young understudy, chief counsel and fellow Tennessean Fred Thompson, aggressively pursued the truth regarding their party’s president. “I’ll dig for the facts,” said Baker, “and I’ll follow wherever they lead.” Indeed, he and Thompson did just that.
At a critical juncture in that investigation, Baker (who later served as Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff) asked a now-famous question: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”
That brings us back to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and their co-conspirators: What did they know and when did they know it?
To be clear, Nixon wasn’t facing impeachment for having orchestrated the Watergate break-in but for having tried to cover it up after the fact.
However, it’s now clear that Obama and Clinton were in charge of the conspiracy against her 2016 presidential election opponent, Donald Trump, and when that attempt failed and Clinton lost the election, they and their ilk conspired to take down President Trump by orchestrating a phony “Russia collusion” investigation.
Instead of employing an inept band of low-level operatives, as was the case with Watergate, Obama and Clinton coordinated a brazen cabal of deep-state operatives at the highest levels of the most powerful government agencies. These operatives include former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Chief of Counterespionage Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Their fingerprints are all over this crime scene — starting with the setup of former Trump National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn.
Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has now declassified and released the list of Obama political operatives who “unmasked” Michael Flynn, including Comey, Brennan, Obama’s then-chief of staff, Denis McDonough, and of course, Joe Biden, who previously declared, “I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) declared: “Remember we went through…impeachment [because Democrats] said President Trump was using the government to go after a political opponent? This is Vice President Biden using the spying powers of the United States to go after a political opponent. He’s caught red-handed here.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) added: “Joe Biden claimed he ‘knew nothing’ about the investigation, but he directed the unmasking of Flynn. When? The same day an Obama official leaked classified info to smear Flynn. Biden is dishonest, senile, or both. He needs to answer for this. What national security justification could Biden have to unmask Flynn eight days before Biden left office Biden needs to get out of his basement and explain: Why he ordered the unmasking of Flynn, why he lied about it, and what was Barack Obama’s role in setting up Flynn for a bogus prosecution.”
Sidebar: Isn’t it remarkable how many “leaks” of classified information have occurred in the last three years – when those leaks benefit the Left’s narrative and agenda. Case in point would be the leak of Flynn’s conversations to WaPo, which were published on 27 January of 2017. (At least now, given the “unmasking” requests, we have a list of suspects!) ON the other hand, giving the amount of information now being legally released from the declassified House testimony, consider that there were NO leaks associated with that testimony, even though there are Obama bombshells.
For the record, requesting the identity of a U.S. citizen involved in a foreign intelligence investigation is a common practice. The National Security Agency fills thousands requests annually – and most are justified when coming from domestic agencies with investigative responsibilities. But there is nothing justifiable about requests from the highest ranking officials in the executive branch, who clearly and demonstrably had a political motive.
Of course, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the current House Intelligence Committee chairman, was their legislative lapdog for the Trump takedown. Despite his claims about having “ample evidence of collusion,” the only actual evidence of collusion is between the aforementioned Obama operatives.
Schiff and his Leftmedia propagandists spent every waking hour of Trump’s first two years in office advancing the fake Russia-collusion narrative based on the fake Russian dossier. This was ultimately determined by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to be totally fabricated. (Schiff’s second coup attempt, the fake Ukraine-collusion impeachment charade, also failed.)
But Schiff’s ruse is backfiring.
The beginning of the end for the Obama conspirators began in earnest last week, when DNI Grenell informed Schiff that 6,000 pages of transcripts from all 53 interviews his House Intelligence Committee conducted in its Russia probe “can be released to the public without any concerns of disclosing classified material.” Schiff had refused to release those transcripts since becoming chairman of the House Intel Committee but couldn’t keep that lid sealed any longer.
On the basis of those transcripts, it is clear that Schiff knew all along that there was no collusion between Russia and Trump — but he used his committee, in tandem with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to peddle that false narrative for two years.
As the Wall Street Journal editorial board notes: “From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. … None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here’s what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: ‘I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.’ … The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. … On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they’d seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy.”
Further, we also learned from Schiff’s “investigation” transcripts, that CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails, and subsequently became the critical source for the Comey and Brennan hacks going after Trump, never had any evidence that Russia actually hacked those servers. And that now raises the question, who actually hacked Clinton’s “private” email server…
To put it mildly, Adam Schiff is a pathological liar.
And, Fox News’ Ed Henry is reporting that new information in the House transcripts suggests that John Brennan “had intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity, she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin’s team thought she was more malleable, while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable.” Apparently Brennan concealed that information. Recall that in April, Trump’s former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz, said: “House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election.”
So, we now know that Obama was involved in the FBI’s fake FISA warrants and the use of the fake dossier funded by Clinton and the DNC to launch the investigation into Trump. We also know that Obama was involved in the FBI’s setup of Michael Flynn, and late last week tried desperately to get out in front of his crumbling conspiracy by asserting, laughably, that the DoJ’s dropping charges against Flynn constituted a threat to Rule of Law. Regarding that assertion, former Federal Prosecutor and congressional Rep. Trey Gowdy responded, “I am delighted to hear about President Obama’s newfound interesting and respect for the rule of law.”
Lastly, we know that Obama helped plan the events that would lead to Robert Mueller’s appointment and Adam Schiff’s impeachment charade.
The evidence of illegality mounts, and U.S. Attorney John Durham is quietly convening grand juries to continue building his case. The path to Comey and Brennan starts with indictments of their primary FBI water boys, McCabe, Strzok, and Clinesmith. (Throw in a few yet-to-be outed CIA co-conspirators for good measure.)
Of course, either open or sealed indictments against Comey and Brennan pave the path to Obama and Clinton. None of these illegal activities occurred without their knowledge and complicity.
To get there, all of Obama’s co-conspirators need to be asked under oath about the Flynn setup and the Russia collusion charade. Specifically, they need to be asked, “What did the president know and when did he know it?”
Attorney General William Barr offered this conclusion about the Durham investigation: “What happened to the president in the 2016 election and throughout the first two years of his administration was abhorrent. It was a grave injustice and it was unprecedented in American history. The law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of this country were involved in advancing a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narrative against the president. The proper investigative and prosecutive standards of the Justice Department were abused in order to reach a particular result. We saw two different standards of justice emerge. One that applied to President Trump and his associates, and the other that applied to everybody else. We can’t allow this ever to happen again. The Durham investigation is trying to get the bottom of what happened. And it will determine whether there were any federal laws broken. And if there were, those who broke the laws will be held to account.”
Still running cover for Obama and his ilk, Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer declared that all these claims are “ridiculous conspiracy theories.” According to Schumer: “This is amazing to me. What alternative universe do they live in? Spending their time on discredited conspiracy theories, against Obama, against Biden.”
However, those “theories” are now a matter of well-documented fact, and it is Schumer who clearly occupies some alternate universe devoid of reality.
As for what is next… We know the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee is waiting on the results of the Durham investigation before moving forward with its official Senate inquiry requiring testimony from Obama’s cabal. I would recommend they start by putting the heat to FBI lawyer Clinesmith, who altered official documents in order to paint Trump campaign official Carter Page as a Russian operative — in order to open the whole “investigation” into Trump. Somebody conspired with Clinesmith to set up Page….
I remind you that when FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer made public last December the outrageous warrant abuses described in IG Michael Horowitz’s report, she stated: “FBI personnel provided information to [the Department of Justice’s National Security Division] which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. … An attorney in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) engaged in conduct that apparently was intended to mislead the FBI agent who ultimately swore to the facts in that application about whether Mr. Page had been a source of another government agency.” Go after Clinesmith!
Finally, in recent years emerging political scandals have been tagged with the suffix, “gate” as a reference to Watergate. For example, “Russia-gate.” But of all the “gates” applied, one emerged this past weekend that is actually most akin to Watergate. President Trump penned it in a recent social-media post: “OBAMAGATE!”
In the weeks and months ahead, if justice will be served, Obama, Clinton, and their co-conspirators will prove to be, by orders of magnitude, a much greater threat to our constitutional republic than Nixon and his Watergate plumbing crew.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776