Conspiracy theory versus conspiracy fact
As followers of my commentaries know, I am not into conspiracy theories. I try to deal in researched facts. That is why I am certain that President Obama was born in the United States. I do not believe he is a secret Muslim – although he implemented pro-Arab policies in the Middle East. I do believe we walked on the Moon. I do not believe that Covid-19 is an intentional weapon of the Chinese – although I hold them 100 percent responsible for its spread.
So … with that being said, allow me to bring up the case of General Michael Flynn. In this case, I also do not believe in conspiracy theories. No. No. No. I do believe that a REAL conspiracy took place – and that it is arguable – and even likely – that crimes have been committed.
Actually, we know that criminal activity was involved at one point. Whether we are expected to accept it as the normal course of business, whoever leaked the transcript of Flynn’s perfectly legal and appropriate phone call with the former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak committed a felony. That is beyond dispute.
Rather than blow it off as Democrats and the media are want to do, we should vigorously investigate and find the culprit. The identity of that person would provide critical information as to the purpose of the leak and who else might have been in the conspiratorial circle.
If we follow the left-wing east coast news media, we hear emphatic statements that there is no there there in terms of a conspiracy to take down the Trump presidency from the very onset. No matter how many times they protest innocence, there is too much evidence of coordinated efforts (a conspiracy) to damage President Trump to such a point that he would be expeditiously removed from office.
We have the lovers chit-chat between FBI agents Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page in which he alluded to an “insurance policy” that would pull the rug out from under then President-elect Trump. That reference is a transparent code for some sort of plan … some strategy … to assure Page that her anxieties over Trump’s election are unwarranted.
One of the key points that the press raises in defense of their concocted narrative of innocence is that the unmasking of Flynn was normal course of business and that they would have had no idea who that “Person Number 2” was. That is not only logically flawed, it is provably wrong. From the context of the call, itself, any half-witted intelligence agent would have known the American side of the call was Flynn.
Furthermore, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe admitted in his book that the issue of Flynn was raised in a briefing with President Obama BEFORE Flynn was unmasked. So, the investigation was actually launched in the White House with the ascent of Obama. That seems pretty clear now.
If not a politically motivated effort to “get” Flynn as one part of a larger strategy to take down a duly elected President of the United States, what was the basis for the investigation of Flynn? Especially when you consider that contrary to their public statements, the key players all testified under oath that there was no obvious crime by Flynn – nor any evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
We should recall that during the time Reince Priebus was White House Chief-of-Staff, he was advised by … no other than … McCabe that there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the campaign and the Russians. That is part of the public record.
So … if you want to prove a case, but you have no evidence, what do you do? You make up evidence. It is not different than when a dirty cop plants evidence on someone they want to “get.” Ergo the phony dossiers.
It is worthy to again note that that piece of fraudulent evidence was reported to have been purchased by a consulting firm with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign – with the bogus information obtained from Russian operatives and provided to British Intel agent Christopher Steele. In this case we clearly have campaign operatives illegally conspiring with foreign agents – and yet that should go uninvestigated according to the Democrats and media.
Of course, the first obligation of the FBI is to vet the document thoroughly. But that is not what happened. FBI Director James Comey ignored rules and procedures and brought the phony dossier to the attention of Trump privately in what appears to have been an attempt to intimidate the President.
Of course, by this time everyone in the intelligence community knew that the dossier was malicious fiction – arguably an attempt by Russians to use Clinton to undermine the Trump presidency. Regardless of its fiction and its political source – the Clinton campaign – this bogus document was used as part of the argument for obtaining authority to tap the phones of White House officials – most notably Flynn.
While all this was going on, Democrat, high-ranking bureaucrats and the anti-Trump media were concocting and spreading the bogus Russian conspiracy narrative. That led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a two-year investigation – during which time Democrats and their media friends maintained a drumbeat of accusations of guilt against Trump – including the spectacular lie by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff that he had actually SEEN (in private) hard evidence of Trump’s criminal conspiracy with the Russians.
After distracting and damaging the administration for two years, Mueller concluded that no such crime had been committed by Trump, his campaign, his associates or any American … period. And if you set aside the media’s disinformation campaign, you will see that all the indictments and convictions obtained by Mueller against Trump operatives had not involved any criminal conspiracy with Russians. Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen went to jail for personal financial crimes. Flynn and George Papadopoulos were charged with lying to investigators in a case in which there was no underlying crime.
We also must keep in mind how the Special Counsel came to be. Mueller was named after Comey had improperly and potentially illegally leaked selective FBI information to a friend – who, in turn, was to leak it to the partisan compromised New York Times. We know the purpose of that leak because Comey, himself, told us. In testifying before Congress, Comey said he leaked the information to force the appointment of a Special Counsel.
No … all this is not just conspiracy theory. It is evidence of a possible high-level criminal conspiracy. What facts we have – and the motivations we know – clearly show a coordinated strategic effort to damage and destroy the Trump presidency. Even if you believe the case is not conclusive, it is impossible to argue that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a broad investigation. More evidence of misconduct and potential crimes have already surfaced in terms of an anti-Trump conspiracy than any real evidence that justified the intense Mueller investigation of Trump. Keep in mind that this is NOT about Russian interference in the election. That is a completely separate issue even though Democrats and the media work hard to conflate those two issues.
We do not need to wonder if there was a conspiracy to “get” Trump. That is already obvious. The Democrats and the media have been conspiring for the past four years in producing a never-ending flow of political narratives to undermine and defeat Trump and the conservative Republican agenda. What we need to now find out is how broad, how deep, and how high it went. We need to know who was all in on it – and if crimes were committed. Was all this just an enormous political backlash by the left – or was it a CRIMINAL conspiracy and unprecedented abuse of powers? Special Counsel John H. Durham is currently investigating those very questions. It will be interesting to see what he finds.
So, there ‘tis.