“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” —Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) , Jan. 3, 2017

Consider the glaringly unconstitutional implication of that statement. Unelected bureaucrats accountable to no one can “get back” at the duly elected president of the United States?

Right now Russian hacking of the DNC, its interference in the 2016 election, and the collusion with Donald Trump and his officials allegedly abetting it has become the Indisputable Narrative™ among those still reeling from the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the election. The same Hillary Clinton who would have made sure any evidence of the corruption infesting the Justice Department, the FBI, and the various agencies that comprise the intelligence community ended up in the same place as the 30,000 subpoenaed emails she deleted.

Emails we now know ended up with a “foreign entity,” a revelation an equally corrupt media have willfully chosen to ignore.

A far as indisputable facts go, let’s stipulate two. One, all of the ostensible Russian hacking that might have been perpetrated occurred on a somnambulant Obama administration’s watch. Two, the leaders of Barack Obama’s intel community are documented liars.

Those liars included former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who insisted the terrorist attack in Benghazi was engendered by an anti-Muslim video and that she knew nothing about the unmasking of Trump officials; former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who lied to Congress about the extent of the NSA’s data collection; and former CIA Director John Brennan, who claimed he didn’t know who commissioned the anti-Trump dossier and insisted that “nothing could be further from the truth” when asked if the CIA illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers.

Brennan was incensed by Trump’s performance in Helsinki, declaring it was “nothing short of treasonous.”

That outburst was telling, and no one put it in better perspective than investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. “What would an intel official who speaks like this be willing to do using his official office and intel tools … to protect the nation from what he views as this sort of threat?” she tweeted.

What indeed. It is quite likely the allegations of Russian collusion and the Muller investigation it engendered is a coordinated effort to keep America from learning exactly that.

Last Friday, any pretense of even-handedness in that investigation completely evaporated. Mueller offered immunity to Democrat operative Tony Podesta, whose brother John was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in exchange for testimony against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Both Manafort and Podesta were operating as unregistered lobbyists on behalf of the Ukrainian government, yet Podesta remains free and now immune, while Manafort is facing life in prison.

How egregious is the double standard? The Obama administration’s transfer of control of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia’s state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom — even when it knew Rosatom’s American subsidiary, Tenam USA, had committed felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses — remains off limits to scrutiny.

The FBI had an informant who warned them about Tenam’s felonious efforts — in 2010, when it would have killed the deal. Yet the agency postponed prosecution until four years later. In 2015 Vadim Mikerin, the Russian official in charge of Tenam USA, was allowed to plead guilty to one count of money-laundering conspiracy — instead of being prosecuted under section 1956 of the penal codem which would have subjected him to decades in prison.

It gets worse. Canadian company Uranium One, which would ultimately gain control of the uranium, contributed more than $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and company chairman Ian Telfer donated $2.35 million on his own. Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin-linked bank that was promoting Uranium One stock.

So why doesn’t something that reeks of quid pro quo merit an investigation? Because it would require some of the principal players involved in the current investigation to investigate … themselves.

During the uranium transfer, Robert Mueller headed the FBI. The investigation was supervised by disgraced former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and ended with the plea bargain when James Comey was FBI director. It was centered in Tenam’s home base of Maryland, whose U.S. attorney was Rod Rosenstein. And Mikerin’s plea bargain was cosigned by the DOJ’s Fraud Section, then run by attorney Andrew Weissman, one of Mueller’s current investigators.

With the possible exception of Weissman, whose dubious track record of high-profile convictions includes a unanimous reversal by the Supreme Court, every one of these government officials has been presented to the public as a “paragon of integrity.”

The aforementioned Indisputable Narrative™ regarding Russian interference is based on an intel community report called the “Intelligence Community Assessment.” Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the Soviet Union and witness to its collapse, insists it’s a sham. “A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions,” he explains.

He notes that only three of the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies participated and cites a compelling piece of Senate testimony on May 8, 2017, when James Clapper stated that “two dozen or so analysts — hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies” compiled the report.

“If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions,” Matlock asserts.

He further insists dissenting opinions existed and were squelched, but he is most incredulous regarding the assertions surrounding the persona identified as “Guccifer 2.0,” who Mueller insists is a front for the 12 Russian military officers he just indicted, claiming they were behind the hack of the Democrat National Committee’s server.

Matlock notes that retired senior NSA technical experts reveal Guccifer’s data was locally downloaded and then manipulated, “leading to the conclusion that ‘Guccifer 2.0’ is a total fabrication.”

We’ll never know. Incredibly, the FBI never directly examined the DNC servers. They simply took the word of CrowdStrike, a company hired by the DNC, that the Russians did the hacking.

Yet columnist Michael Thau agrees with Matlock’s assessment, citing evidence collected by an investigative journalist using the pseudonym Adam Carter. Carter lays out a compelling case that, as Thau writes, “CrowdStrike engaged in a disinformation campaign, inventing not just a fake Russian hack but also a fake hacker called ‘Guccifer 2.0.’”

“Trump came into office with the Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush IC apparatus firmly against him,” columnist Michael Walsh asserts.

That apparatus has a lot of help. In “God Bless the Deep State,” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson advocates for its apparently extra-constitutional transcendence. “In this emergency, the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher duty,” he asserts. “It’s called patriotism.”

The use of police-state tactics to get rid of Donald Trump constitutes a “higher duty”?

The genuine emergency in America today is the ongoing “by any means necessary” effort to unseat a duly elected president, and the useful idiots who cheer it on, believing they’re forever immune from the abuses of power they champion.

As for the investigators, they are anything but patriots. They are partisan zealots who would destroy the nation — “six ways from Sunday” — in order to “save” it.