You were very open to answering my earlier questions and so I am here again to ask. First, isn’t it premature to tightly associate the FISA warrant to investigate Carter Page with the ‘Steele dossier’? I think there was other evidence of Mr. Carter Page’s Russian contacts.
Second, isn’t the whole idea that the ‘Russia Investigation was a coup attempt’ by Democrats likely false, since it would have required impeachment to be supported by a Republican majority in the Senate?
Third, can’t people in the government be given the benefit of the doubt regarding their ability to execute their jobs evenly though they may support the party that is not in power or a candidate that may or may not be elected? I look forward to your thoughts.
From Mike Huckabee:
Welcome back, William. Let’s start with Carter Page; I’ll tell you what I know. Yes, he did business in Russia as an energy consultant and had Russian contacts, as do many Americans, and this is not illegal. He even lived in Moscow between 2004 and 2007. There is documentation that suggests an alleged Russian operative in New York tried to recruit Page as an intelligence source in 2013.
But before being named in the Washington Post, in March of 2016, as one of then-candidate Trump’s new foreign policy advisers, Page was already known to the FBI and had even cooperated with them to provide information (not sure what about, but I’m guessing it was concerning this attempt to recruit him). For them to turn around and say in the “verified” FISA application that he was suspected of being a RUSSIAN AGENT (which is flat-out TREASON) when the only “evidence” of collaboration with Russia seems to have been the unverified Steele “dossier” is stunning. (I believe it was Andrew McCabe who said that without the dossier, the investigation wouldn’t exist.) And to this day, there has never been any evidence found of such activity on Page’s part, and he has never been charged with anything.
One shadowy character who made contact with Page –- and with other Trump campaign associates such as Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos –- was Stefan Halper. Halper worked in intelligence, all right, but he wasn’t Russian. He was American. He had worked for the CIA and reportedly for the British intelligence service MI6 , and he seemed bent on infiltrating the Trump campaign through these associates. (Halper is the guy whom Papadopoulos thought was trying to record him while asking him whether the Trump campaign was being helped by Russia hacking emails.) So, was Halper legitimately investigating Carter Page, or was he spying on the campaign, using Page to get close to others as part of a “sting”? Given the big picture, it sure looks like the latter to me.
Moving on, to the idea that Democrats wouldn’t be bothering with impeaching Trump since they know the Republican Senate would never convict. Oh, I suppose that’s why congressional Republicans chose not to impeach Bill Clinton in the ‘90s since they knew the Democratic Senate would never convict. What? They DID impeach him? Never mind.
There are many reasons why Democrats would want to go ahead and impeach Trump as one element of their “soft coup.” Here are ten: 1) To delegitimize him, putting an “asterisk” next to his name and the names of all his judicial appointments as well as signed legislation and executive orders. 2) To distract him from things he’d like to get done as President. 3) To weaken him in the eyes of the world. 4) To show their ruthlessness and discourage future “non-establishment” Republican presidential candidates. 5) To get their mugs on TV during endless impeachment hearings, news conferences and guest appearances, preferably as the election of 2020 nears. 6) To hurt Trump’s chances of being re-elected. (Of course, that one could backfire big-time.) 7) To help hasten his political demise as part of their overall strategy of “death by a thousand cuts.” 8) Because they HATE HIM and can’t deny themselves the delicious joy and rapture of impeaching him. 9) Because some idiots actually believe that Trump was put in office by Vladimir Putin and that impeachment would be “the right thing.”
10) It’s also seen as payback for what happened to Bill Clinton. Evening the score, so to speak.
I could probably think of more but will move on to your third question, on giving government employees the benefit of the doubt as to whether they can do their jobs objectively when their own party is out of power. I think it’s important to acknowledge that many employees are able to do that. They do their jobs as administrations come and go. To cite perhaps the ultimate example, we have Secret Service agents who would do their duty and take a bullet even for a President they hadn’t voted for and maybe didn’t even like, simply because it’s in the job description and they understand the vital importance of their job to national security.
But we've seen much evidence of biased employees clearly overstepping their bounds. And when we find signs of corruption, especially when it involves abusing the rights of Americans or manipulating the democratic process, it has to be rooted out. It was uncovered in J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, and we have once again encountered it. Through the years, it has seemed to follow Hillary Clinton wherever she goes.
What AG William Barr is doing right now really is like peeling away the layers of an onion, and we have to try not to cry at what we see. Paul Sperry at the New York Post has a good piece on the questions Barr will be asking and the evidence he’ll be examining.
So, there you go, William. I hope this has broadened your perspective and helped you understand why a lot of people (including me) think we are in the midst of uncovering a huge conspiracy, but not the one Mueller investigated.