What a great week for truth, justice and the American way, but don’t expect the mainstream media to report why the new attorney general is reviewing how federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies came to spy on the Trump campaign and leak classified information. CNN is just not that into reports on Obama-era abuse of intelligence and law enforcement power – mostly because they were witting accomplices.
The day of reckoning is here, and Democrats need to show we the people where they draw the line on gathering intelligence and protecting classified information. It’s been a long time since President Carter (D-GA) put FISA restraints on domestic spying, and not so long since Obama-era apparatchiks surveilled allies, citizens, members of Congress, and reporters. Russiagate should separate the selfless patriots (Joe Manchin) from the self-serving partisans (Jeff Swalwell).
Intelligence gathering is supposed to be a good and necessary part of advanced democracies, where a free press, independent judiciary and elected opposition party usually hold deep state apparatchiks in check. Because of good and necessary intelligence, President Reagan knew the Soviet economy was kaput and Gorbachev would blink. Because of NSA abuse (operation Minaret), Presidents Johnson and Nixon spied on 1,600 American citizens, including Martin Luther King and prominent anti-war activists (source: History Channel).
Democrats are now defensive when they should be contrite. Consider Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) spin on the attorney general’s words. “The casual suggestion by the nation’s top law enforcement officer of spying strikes another destructive blow to our democratic institutions.” What hogwash! Senate testimony is never “casual,” and Barr did not “suggest” anything. He stated spying on a political campaign is a big deal and confirmed his belief spying had occurred – on the record. If our democratic institutions took a destructive blow, then it was the work of the DNC and Fusion-GPS.
Democrats should agree with Attorney General William Barr that “spying on a political campaign is a big deal” because they and their media allies have used “Watergate” as a non-stop talking point and ignored credible evidence of Obama-Clinton spying on the Trump campaign. A 2-year hoax at taxpayer expense is a BIG DEAL when Mueller’s “investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia” and the attorney general will be “reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of the intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign in 2016.”
Democrats should agree with the attorney general that “spying did occur” rather than knee-cap Barr with Washington mumbo-jumbo. After Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) asked “You’re not suggesting, though, that spying occurred,” Barr’s answer was unambiguous: “Yes, I think spying did occur.” And so, Nancy Pelosi said she did not “trust Barr,” and Chuck Schumer suggested the attorney general was “perpetuating conspiracy theories.” James Comey sputtered, “[when] the FBI [and] the DOJ conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance, I have never thought of that as spying.” One cannot make this stuff up!
Within the context of our constitutional republic, even if one hates Donald Trump the man, one must respect the rule of law and the results of a presidential election. That is what good citizens like Robert Mueller, William Barr and Alan Dershowitz are telling Americans loud and clear. If Obama-era leaders did use intelligence and law enforcement assets to prevent or impede the election of candidate Trump, then it was a clear abuse of power that was heretofore unthinkable.
Nancy Pelosi claims she does not trust the attorney general (cue the laugh track), but why should any independent voter or Republican trust her? Even if the inspector general’s report and Barr review embarrass her party or ensure a Republican landslide in 2020, she took an oath to uphold the constitution. The congresswoman must respect William Barr’s authority, in spite of his party affiliation, for the same reason she respected Loretta Lynch’s authority; the US constitution has vested investigative authority in the FBI and prosecutorial authority in the DOJ.
Perhaps it was a Freudian slip when James Clapper (former Director of National Intelligence) said William Barr’s senate testimony was “stunning and scary” right before telling the CNN audience about “the success [the Russians] enjoyed as a result of their meddling in the 2016 election.” Translation: I am worried about where the evidence leads William Barr and my spooks were out-meddled by Russian spooks in 2016.
Clapper, and many other Obama-era partisans, now look and sound scared. For two years, no outsider subjected them to a robust investigation, especially their allies in the press. First, Democrats neutered Jeff Sessions by forcing his recusal. Then, to avoid interfering with the Mueller probe, Republican-led congressional investigations were denied access to witnesses and evidence. In Barr’s senate confirmation, Democrats tried to get the Republican to agree to recusal – and he wisely refused.
Barr told the Senate Wednesday he wants to know why the FBI did not brief the Trump campaign about its Russian meddling concerns (the normal routine), and why the FBI did not brief Republican-controlled Congress (which has oversight), as well as why the FBI did not tell the FISA court the Clinton campaign and DNC paid for the Fusion-GPS dossier. And there you have it, Mr. Clapper. Be afraid – very afraid.