Obamagate and Flynn
Obamagate is bigger and more dangerous than Watergate. But if you follow the mainstream media, you may not know that. Watergate involved the misuse of the powers of government to cover up a break-in; the goal was to spy on Democrats at the DNC headquarters. This was done by members of the President’s campaign committee. Obamagate is the attempt to use the powers of government (FBI, CIA, Justice Department, etc.) to spy on, hinder, disrupt and sabotage, an incoming administration. At its core, it is the interference in the peaceful transfer of power, which is one of the crowning achievements of our government. It is vital if we are to be a country ruled by the people. The last threat to the peaceful transfer of power was 1860.
For nearly four years, there were almost daily stories on the alleged collusion between Trump and Russia. Now with the Muller report and the forced release of documents from the House a few weeks ago, we know this was a fabricated controversy for which there was no evidence. In case you missed it, all those Obama administration officials who have been on TV for years saying there was clear evidence of collusion, testified secretly under oath that they never saw any evidence. If there had been any, they would have been in a position to know. So we now know they have been lying on TV for years, that is unless they lied under oath. The bottomline, there was never any evidence. The whole thing was a sham created to damage Trump and force him from office.
Now we also know that a key part of this effort, the Flynn prosecution, was really a persecution without grounds. In light of the newly released evidence, the Justice Department has asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice. From exhibit 4 in the Justice Department filing, we learned that Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates only found out about the investigation of Flynn in a White House meeting with Obama. It is troubling that while Obama was asking her about the Flynn investigation, she did not know anything about it. Given her position, she should have been informing Obama. This raises the question of what exactly did Obama know, and when did he know it. There is also the question of who started this investigation?
Yet if you listen to the left, this is no big deal. There is nothing to see here; these are not the droid you are looking for, move along. In what is one of the strangest arguments I have heard since Flynn plead guilty if he wants to withdraw his plea now, he should be held in contempt of court for lying to the Judge!
I have long been concerned with process crimes. I do not like them for both Republicans and Democrats. So I have been troubled by the Flynn case from day one. After all, what is it he was supposed to have done? As the incoming National Security Advisor, it would be normal and expected for him to talk to the Russian ambassador. The FBI had recordings of the call, so there was no need to ask Flynn about what was on the call. As someone known as an outstanding intelligence officer, of course, he knew the call was recorded. So why lie to the FBI? It did not make sense. Besides, why only charge him with lying? Why not charge him for what he did that supposedly caused him to lie? This whole situation never made sense, except as a perjury trap.
Now we know more. The agents who interviewed him reported following his interview that he had been truthful. They were going to close the case. But then it was suddenly given new life with a Logan Act claim. Until recently, how or why this happened was unclear. The Logan Act would be a hail Mary attempt at best. No one has ever been convicted of a Logan Act violation in over 200 years, and it has been 150 years since someone was even prosecuted. Add to this that the law is widely regarded as unconstitutional. So going after Flynn with the Logan act can only be seen as a desperate attempt to keep the investigation going. This is a perfect example of an investigation seeking a justification, any justification, for its existence. And people thought Javert was obsessed.
The basis for the charge that Flynn lied is the 302, the form completed by the agents documenting their discussion. The agents filled this out the day of the interview when they though Flynn has been truthful. But then it was not finished for three weeks, implying that it had several edits. Where is this key piece of evidence now? With the case falling apart, somehow, it has gone missing.
We know that with Carter Page, the documents for the FISA court were doctored to hide that Page had worked for the CIA. This made his contacts with a Soviet agent seem suspicious and thus a justification for a warrant. What changes were made to Flynn’s 302 so that the agent’s view that he had been truthful, became a charge of perjury? Also, we now know that the Law Firm representing Flynn at the time was also working with the FBI to bring Logan Act charges. This is a clear conflict of interest, and Flynn has since fired these lawyers.
Recently we learned from newly released meeting-notes that Obama was involved in keeping the investigation alive despite a lack of evidence. Also, it was Biden who suggested using the antiquated and almost certainly unconstitutional Logan Act, as a means of keeping the investigation of Flynn alive. But, again, these facts are meaningless to those who hate Trump. Orangeman bad is the only thing that matters. Whatever anyone does to get Trump is just fine.
For some, there is still the question of why did Flynn plead guilty? What would you do? He was financially ruined, deep in debt, with little ability to continue to pay his legal fees. Most of the media and even the “impartial” Judge in the case labeled him a traitor and a Russian assets – which is still happening. Then prosecutors threatened to go after Flynn’s son and ruin his son’s life as well. The only way to stop this was to accept a plea deal. What would you do?
As if this story could not get any more bizarre, Judge Sullivan, despite the misconduct of the FBI, would not dismiss the case. In an unprecedented step, he appointed another Judge to handle the prosecution, while asking the public for comment on how he should rule.
We have separation of powers for a reason. Article One, the Congress, passes the laws; Article Two, the Executive, enforces the law, and Article Three, the Judiciary, adjudicates disputes. Article Three does not have the right to take on the role of the prosecutor; they are restricted to ruling on issues before them. They are a judge, not a participant, and thus supposed to be impartial. Just the week before, the Supreme Court had a 9-0 decision overturning a 9th circuit decision reaffirming this principle. So, Judge Sullivan’s actions are lawless, and not surprisingly, the Appeals Court overruled him. Now Judge Sullivan is appealing to the full appeals court. Franky, he should be removed as a judge as he clearly is not impartial.
But, again, for the major media, none of this matters. Using the FBI and FISA court to go after your political opponent is just fine, as long as it is going after Trump. Nothing to see here move along. Why do I believe my news sources over the mainstream media? A major reason is my sources not only mention, but cite documents, court filings, and transcripts, some of which I have read myself. Most of the anti-Trump media completely ignore these.
There is also an easy test for bias. Simply reverse the names. This particularly easy to do here as now Trump is President, and Biden is the candidate. If Trump directed the FBI to go after Biden and his people, with no evidence, would that be a problem? If these subordinates were falsifying documents to get warrants at the FISA court so they could spy on the Biden campaign, would this be okay? Is that really the new norm we want?
The Trump Mirror
A frequent complaint about President Trump is that he is divisive and constantly picking fights. He seems uncontrollable in his tweets, and even many of his supporters wish he would tweet less and focus more on his accomplishments. On the other hand, many of his supporters love his tweets, and their reason is illustrative. For this latter group, the key is that Trump’s tweets are not an aberration of the political discourse. These supporters have seen the Left saying comparable things about conservatives for decades, yet with very little reaction.
In politics, it is natural to attack your opponent, and at times this does get dirty. But there is a difference between the parties. To somewhat oversimplify, but not too much, Republicans attacked Democrats as good people with bad policies. They are caring, but with wasteful spending, weak on defense, etc.. Democrats attacked Republicans as bad people, uncaring, greed, etc..
Nowhere is this clearer than with issues of race. In many respects, the hoodwinking of the public on this issue has been astounding; it is a testament to how much the Left dominates academia, the news, and entertainment media. From its founding, the Democratic party has been the party of race, first supporting slavery, and then later Jim Crow. It played a major role in both the rise of the KKK and its renewal. The KKK was effectively the military arm of the Democratic party, enforcing its dominance in the south.
The Republican party, on the other hand, was formed to oppose slavery and ended it following the civil war. It opposed Jim Crow and suppressed the KKK in its first incarnation only to see it revied when Wilson, a Democrat, became President. The Republicans were the party of civil rights; the Democrats opposed it with filibusters in the Senate.
Then came the 1960s, and, as the myth goes, the parties somehow switched sides. Now on the face of it, this is absurd. While it is understandable how individuals who were racists could come to see the light and realize how evil racism is, the reverse is more difficult to understand. What is not understandable is how this could happen to large groups, and particularly for this to happen simultaneously and so quickly.
The explanation for this magical switch is the person of Richard Nixon, and his supposed “southern strategy.” Yet, this would at best only, explain why the south changed from Democrat to Republican. Even then, it is not supported by the timing. The major Civil Rights Acts passed before Nixon, and the actual switch in party allegiance in the South came later under Reagan. But why let facts get in the way of a good myth.
A better explanation is that the parties remained essentially the same at their core, and only modified their language and expression. Before the mid-1960s, the Republican view of civil rights that dominated was best summed up by Dr. Martin Luther King when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” This view remains the main Republican view today. It is the individual that matters, not the group.
Democrats, on the other hand, always saw race as highly significant, and they still do. The Democratic party still divides people into groups, where one is a member of a group before they are an individual. In recent years this has been formalized in the concepts of intersectionality. It is seen, for example, in Biden’s recent statement that a person is not Black if they don’t vote for him. In short, the issue of race is still at the core of the Democratic party.
To hide their legacy, Democrats have redefined racism. Racism used to be judging people based on their race. Now, not considering a person’s race when judging them is racist. Segregation used to be seen as one of the evils of racism. Now segregation is encouraged by the Left as an expression of racial pride in things like the growing movement for all-black dorms at colleges.
Every election, Democrats still play racial politics, as they always have, just with somewhat different expressions. While they claim it is the Republicans that are racists, given their history, is it any surprise that the condition of minorities has only gotten worse in those areas that have been strongly Democratic for decades? Still, every election we have statements like Biden’s in 2012 saying Republicans are going to put blacks “back in chains” or Pelosi’s recent statement that Republicans are “trying to get away with the murder of George Floyd.” Comments like this were the “civil” discourse before Trump. Similar “civil” comments occurred in a wide range of areas beyond race.
What is “divisive” about Trump is not the tone of his rhetoric, but the fact that the fights back. Trump has a very large ego, even for a politician. You treat him nicely, and he will treat you nicely. You attack him; he will attack you. In this respect, Trump is a mirror. Thus to those on the Left and the Right, Trump is something new, a Republican who can give as good as he gets.
The Left is not used to this. Democrats are used to calling Republicans racist, greed, and uncaring. They are used to saying Republicans want the poor to suffer, kids to drink dirty water, and grandmother to die. They claim voting for Republicans will cause black churches to burn, and show Paul Ryan pushing grandmother over a cliff. They do this constantly, and Republicans cower. Then Trump comes along and gives as good as he gets, and his supporters cheer. Finally, someone is fighting back. The calls for someone less divisive are just calling for someone who will surrender to the Left, someone who will not fight back.
For conservatives, it is probably good that Democrats did not figure Trump out early. While Trump is the most conservative President in history, he is not really a conservative. Again Trump is a mirror. He is nice to those who are nice to him. He supports those who support him, and he attacks those who attack him.
Had the Democrats realized this early on, they probably could have sweet-talked him onto their side. If they had played to his ego, given the negotiator in him, he would have given them something, and probably more than conservatives wanted. They have certainly been uncomfortable with some of his offers. Democratic acceptance of these concessions would have brought criticism of Trump from conservatives, and the dynamic of his Presidency could have been reversed.
Luckily for conservatives, the shock of the Trump victory led instead to the attempt to destroy his Presidency with the phony Trump-Russia narrative. Pushing Trump even further into the Republican camp and enhancing the power of the far-left in the Democratic party.
The Obamagate Puzzle
We are continuing to learn more about how scandal called Obamagate. We have known about a few of the pieces of this puzzle for some time. These pieces included what, until recently, I had believed were the actions of a few rogue members in the FBI and the Intelligence community. Other pieces I wondered about or suspected, but with the documents released recently, this broad outline was confirmed, and now Obama and Biden have been linked to the growing scandal. As with Nixon, a major question is now what did Obama and Biden know, and when then they know it?
One new piece is the list of those requesting the unmasking of General Flynn from election day to Jan 31, 2017. It is clear that with over three dozen requests, the system was abused. We are asked to believe that all these people had legitimate reasons to request the unmasking. According to the Left and the media, unmasking is common, even routine. Yet, if it is so common and routine, why do we have all the rules saying there must be a legitimate reason to unmask a name? Why even mask names at all? I believe it is likely that many of these people were encouraged to request the unmasking to muddy the water. Almost certainly on this list is the name of the person who leaked Flynn’s name to the press, which is not just an abuse; it is a crime. The problem is, with so many names on the list, determining which was the leaker is much more difficult.
Another piece was the release of the House transcripts that Schiff had tried to keep hidden. He was finally forced to release them. These transcripts proved that Schiff had been lying all along, but then that was not a surprise. More importantly, it showed that many of the people on TV for years claiming knowledge of evidence linking Trump to Russia were also lying. When under oath, said they never saw any such evidence.
There never was any evidence. The whole Trump-Russia story has been a lie from the beginning. It was created and perpetrated to damage the incoming administration, eventually forcing a special prosecutor, who also found nothing, ending with an attempt to impeach and remove the President. Oh, but it is Trump, so it is all ok. It does not matter what lies you tell, what power you abuse, what laws you break, just as long as the goal is stopping Trump.
Granted, the Republicans are not clean and pure, but they are certainly better than the Democrats. Republicans played a key role in the investigation of Nixon. When evidence indicated that Nixon had violated the law, Republicans went to the White House to demand he resign. Where are the Democrats today who are upset with this scandal? Where are the Democrats concerned about the abuse of power? Where are the Democrats concerned about the violation of the law? They are MIA. Instead, Democrats continue to circle the wagons and defend these actions. Rather than being upset about the lying, abuse of power, and crimes, they continue to claim Trump colluded with Russia despite the evidence. For Democrats and the media, Trump’s guilt is certain, but they just need some more time to find some evidence of his guilt.
When you ignore bad behavior, it just gets worse. The media have been biased to the left for decades, and over the years, it has gotten worse. Now they are effectively an arm of the Democratic party. Consider the following mild example, from an article on Politico
“Conservative critics have suggested Rice sought the identities of officials on Trump’s transition team for political purposes, something Rice flatly denied on Tuesday. ‘The allegation is that, somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,’ Rice told MSNBC’s, Andrea Mitchell. ‘That’s absolutely false.’ Her denial did nothing to slow the gathering wave of outrage in conservative media outlets.”
(https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/susan-rice-flynn-unmasking-236884)
Note the “Conservative critics,” which suggests the criticism is partisan and thus easy to dismiss. Consider that last sentence. Why should “her denial” “slow the gathering wave of outrage in conservative media outlets?” Since when did the denial by an alleged wrongdoer warrant the end of an investigation? And again, why the “conservative media” label? Are conservatives the only ones concerned about the law and abuse of power? When have you seen a sentence like a Republican “denials did nothing to slow the gathering wave of outrage in Liberal media outlets” in the supposedly non-biased media?
Then there is the issue of whether or not these unmaskings were all legitimate. Some almost certainly were, but so many of them? Just what was the legitimate reason for requesting these unmasking? The names of American citizens are masked because the US government is not supposed to be spying on its own citizens without a court order. Those who request unmasking are supposed to have valid intelligence reasons. Why were so many of the names for the Treasury department on the list? Why did the deputy Secretary of Energy request Flynn’s name be unmasked?
Despite the lack of evidence of any Trump-Russia collusion, liberals and media insist that the investigations were all okay. If that is the case, does that mean it is okay for people in the Trump administration to open up investigations on Biden without any evidence? Was the real problem with Watergate that it was Nixon’s reelection committee that attempted the bugging? If Nixon had had the FBI, CIA, or some other government agency do it, everything would have been okay? Is it ok for Trump administration officials to unmask US citizens connected to the Biden campaign? Is it ok for Trump administration officials to leak this to the press? If Biden wins, shouldn’t we just forgo the subterfuge and go straight to appointing a special prosecutor who will hire only Republican lawyers that supported Trump? If not, why was this ok when the target was Trump? Finally, if this is the new norm, it should not be. After all, if they can do this to Trump? What hope do we have if they try to do it to us? We will be like Flynn, forced into a plea deal as the only option left.
The Rule of Law or Power
To understand where our country is at the moment only requires a simple thought experiment and a simple question.
(A) does (B). As a result, the government does (C). Does the identity of A matter?
In an ideal world, the identity of A should not matter for C. Granted, this has not always been the case. In fact, throughout much of history, the opposite was true. The identity of A mattered a great deal to C.
One of the great achievements of civilization is the Rule of Law, the idea that the identity of A does not matter. There is more to the Rule of Law, but this part is essential; you cannot have the Rule of Law without it. Without the Rule of Law, you have simply the rule of power. Whoever has the power, rules, and those with power receive different treatment than those without it. The power can be wielded by a King, a governing body, or a mob. Still, the simple fact remains if the identity of A matters, you do not have the Rule of Law, you have the rule of power.
Sadly, at the present moment, the identity of A matters a great deal. In fact, the idea that not only does the identity of A matter but that it should matter is at the core of the social justice moment. If A is a member of a disadvantaged group, they should get special treatment. If A is thousands of protestors who are supporting a favored political group such as Black Lives Matter, then they will be encouraged. If riots break out, they are justified, the perpetrators released, and it will be the police that apologizes. Don’t think that at the moment, the identity of A matters? Ask yourselves what would be the reaction if a Neo-Nazi group took control of a portion of an American city?
In short, at the moment, we are not under the Rule of Law; the government is buckling to the mob. Some in government are doing so because they see this as a route to power. Others see a chance to accomplish goals they could not achieve within the rule of law. Still, others are just acting out of fear. Whatever the reasons, they are all playing a very dangerous game, as the mob cannot be controlled.
One of the big differences between the American and French Revolution was the influence of the mob, which played a much bigger role in the French Revolution. The early leaders of the French Revolution sought to used the mob to achieve their aims. They found the mob impossible to control. Before long, the revolution became a Reign of Terror as the former ruling class went to the guillotine before the cheering mob. But it did not end there as the mob marched its earlier leaders to the guillotine and then their successors and then their successors. The mob is very difficult to satisfy. In the end, the revolution collapsed into the dictatorship of Napoleon.
In the present day, what does the mob want? Justice for George Floyd? Who doesn’t? The polices officers involved have been charged with murder and are awaiting trial. The major claim now is to defund the police. How is that going to end? They are beginning to get their way with the predictable results of huge increases in crime, including murder.
While defunding the police is irrational, it should not be surprising. The mob does not rule by reasons and debate, but by power and fear. Law and order stand in the way of the mob. To resist the mob directly is to risk your life; many people were killed during the riots. If you object to the mob, you can lose your job, as many others have found out. It does not matter how rational or reasonable you are. It does not matter whether or not you are right. The only thing that matters is are you in the way of the mob. You are completely free to disagree all you want, as long as you keep it to yourself. What is important is that you cower and kneel when the mob demands. In short, keep quiet, stay out of their way, and give them what they want.
I will not stay quiet. Too many have died to establish the Rule of Law. To many have died to preserve it. So I will stand for Rule of Law. I will stand for the truth. I will stand for liberty and justice for all. I will gladly say black lives matter, but only because all lives matter, equally. To say otherwise is racist by definition.
History, the Confederacy, and Monuments
Recently on EDN, Robert Cornwall had an excellent article on the need to study history. On that point, I completely agree. That said, I thought the view of history in the article he recommended was a bit binary and one-sided. To be sure, there is a lot of truth in the description of Confederate monuments being linked to the “the Lost Cause.” When I was younger (i.e., the 1960s and 70s), it was still not all that uncommon to hear at least some of the older southerners refer to “the war of northern aggression.”
While there have been some attempts to remove the issue of slavery from the Civil War, instead, trying to find some sort of economic justification, ultimately those attempts have failed. Whatever other factors may have been involved, they were clearly secondary. If one could somehow erase the issue of slavery from the early history of the United States, there would have been no Civil War.
Granted, in the early part of the war, many in the North were focused mainly on preserving the Union. Any such pretext was removed with the Emancipation Proclamation. In the latter half of the war, both sides fought over slavery, the South to preserve it and the North to end it.
Slavery, the original sin of the country, ran deep, dividing it from its earliest days. It stained the Constitution, dragging it away from the goals of the Declaration of Independence, where “all men are created equal” into a 3/5 compromise. It repeatedly plagued the early years of the country like a cancer eating away at its victim. Periodically, it would bubble to the surface, resulting in yet more compromises.
While the Democratic Party was mostly pro-slavery, the Whig party was split between those who wanted to restrict or even end slavery and those who were willing to accommodate it or did not care. As the abolitionist movement grew, this split among the Whigs eventually destroyed the party, and out of its destruction emerged the clearly anti-slavery Republican Party. With the election of the first Republican President, Lincoln, the South, fearing what the anti-slavery Republicans would do, started the Civil War.
The war ended, but the stain remained. While Republicans moved more towards the idea of the Declaration, Democrats continued to view issues through the lens of race. As Republicans began to lose political control of the South, the Democrats began to impose another form of racism: Segregation, which sadly would last until the 100th anniversary of the Civil war. While there are some notable Democratic exceptions, as there were for Republicans as well, for the most part, the Democrats were the party of race, first supporting slavery, then of segregation. The KKK was the base of many Democratic politicians who were often members themselves.
I was recently asked by a young software developer how is it that this was turned on its head? I answered that in many respects, it hasn’t. Democrats still tend to see everything through the eyes of race. Republicans are still the party where the color of one’s skin just is not that important; what matters is what one does and believes.
For many Democrats, the focus on races and dividing people into groups is so strong that they have a hard time accepting that Republicans really do not care about skin pigmentation. Instead, they take the resistance to dividing people into groups as itself a form of racism. They then create myths such as the southern strategy to project their past evils unto their political opponents.
Yet a Republican can, as many did, oppose Obama and yet enthusiastically support Ben Carson because of their policies and positions, not their skin color. For Democrats, Republican opposition to Obama is frequently portrayed as racism. The explanations for Carson, when offered, range from the incoherent to the disgusting (i.e., portraying Carson as an Uncle Tom).
So, where do I come down on Confederate monuments? While my mother was from North Carolina, my Dad was from Wyoming. I grew up as an Air Force brat, an Air Force that had been desegregated by Harry Truman, a Democrat, seven years before I was born. Most of my memories as a child come from Pennsylvania and California. I now live in Wisconsin. So I am basically a northern Republican and do not view the Civil War as a lost cause or a war of Northern aggression. After all, the South started it by firing on Fort Sumter. I view the Civil War as two things: A Victory, and Over.
Something common among the military, but not always understood by civilians, is the way that true warriors can fight so hard during a war, but then see those on “the other side” as fellow warriors after the war is over, even getting together to commemorate those fallen in battle. Thus, I can read a book like Rod Gragg’s “Covered with Glory: the 26th North Carolina Infantry at the Battle of Gettysburg” and not be rooting for my side to win or the South to lose. Instead, I seek an understanding of what they went through and suffered.
Towards the end of the first day of fighting, a federal soldier, Corporal Charles H McConnell of the 24th Michigan was falling back. He took his last bullet, and aiming at a large man in gray 30 yards away, pulled the trigger. The large man was Colonel John R Lane, of the 26th North Carolina. The bullet hit Lane in the back of the neck, exiting out through his teeth. It was a horrendous wound that nearly killed him. Yet 40 years later, at the anniversary of the battle, Lane and McConnell met again and became friends. How is this possible?
Ultimately, it is because warriors realize, better than most, that in war, those on both sides are caught up in something larger than themselves. Once settled, it is time to move on and turn swords into plowshares. I can admire as tragic figures “those on the other side” like Lee and Stonewall Jackson. I can get a glimpse of the internal struggle that some faced as they came up against good friends in battle like Armistead and Harrison at Gettysburg. In short, I see them as people who suffered and not part of an issue to be fought over.
In this light, when it comes to monuments in cemeteries or places like Gettysburg, I would be very strongly opposed to their removal. As for the others, I see them as much more problematic. I do believe that some of these celebrate the military tradition of the South, something that is much stronger than it is in the North. It is a part of who they are or at least were. Note that what is often called the Confederate flag was not actually the flag of the Confederacy but a battle flag. Like it or not, it is their history. But I can also understand the difficulty in separating this from the reason for which the war was fought, the preservation of the evil of slavery.
The love of history in me would hate to see their blanket removal as something akin to how Islamic radicals seek to purge the areas they conquer of any vestige of the things they oppose. Ultimately, I wish those involved would learn to be more like Lane and McConnell. I wish we could look back on the Civil War as a tragedy that engulfed the nation, caused by our compromise with the evil of slavery.
Frankly, it should be much easier for us than it was for Lane and McConnell, after all, no one alive today actually fought in the Civil War. Maybe a solution is that, rather than remove the Civil War monuments, we should focus on the positive endeavor of building more monuments to those who fought so hard to end the legacy of segregation in the Civil Rights movement.
