Sara A. Carter has already reported that there were meetings between then-FBI general counsel James Baker and Michael Sussman, an attorney for Perkins Coie, the law firm that was paid millions by the DNC and Hillary’s campaign to hire Fusion GPS to dig up anything it could on Donald Trump, which they did by hiring virulently anti-Trump British ex-spy Christopher Steele to write his unsubstantiated “dossier.” According to John Solomon, the news also concerns the classification of FBI documents: a “smoking gun” that shows this was not done to protect national security but to cover up what they’d been doing.
Catherine Herridge at FOX News has reported that Sussman not only met with the FBI, but passed them documents pertaining to alleged Russian hacking. On Monday’s “Hannity” TV show, Sara Carter said that Sussman even gave Baker some version of Steele’s dossier. At this point, we’re waiting on evidence that reportedly shows someone at a “very high level” in the DOJ was seeking revenge for Trump’s firing of Comey.
All of this is consistent with what we’ve suspected for a long time and have talked about here, and it makes sense out of the FBI’s many months of stonewalling in the face of subpoenas and Freedom Of Information Act requests. After all, why should they want us to see anything that so thoroughly incriminates them? The testimony by Baker is reportedly explosive. So this may be the calm before the storm (kind of like Hurricane Michael, which is predicted to make landfall on the panhandle of Florida, somewhere in the vicinity of my house).
In the meantime, there’s a new column by Andrew C. McCarthy that’s more timely than ever in light of these new revelations-in-waiting about the FBI. It concerns the way Democrats have thrown all the norms pertaining to American justice out the window by weaponizing bureaucracies and the investigations they conduct strictly for political advantage. They’ve done this now with both Trump and Kavanaugh. And rest assured that the new rules they come up with for Republicans won’t apply to Democrats at all. To them, the way the world works is strictly “My rules for you, no rules for me.”
In the good old days (not so long ago, as I recall), we would never have allowed full-blown criminal investigations to go on without at least some solid evidence that a crime had been committed. And even then, there would be limits placed on them. But now, all the Democrats have to do is call them “counterintelligence investigations” (Trump) or “background checks” (Kavanaugh). In Kavanaugh’s case, I have no doubt that if Democrats had gotten their way, the enhanced background check (his seventh) would have taken, oh, at least two-and-a-half years, or longer if the Democrats didn’t prevail in 2020. And if nothing happens to end the Trump investigation, it will go on and continue expanding as long as they don’t have what they think they need to impeach him.
What the Left now does is come up with flimsy and uncorroborated but extremely salacious allegations: Trump “colluded” with the Russians, who are our enemies; as a student, Kavanaugh attacked young women and facilitated gang-rape at high school parties (!). Then “the seriousness of the charge,” as opposed to guilt or innocence, becomes the most important consideration. As McCarthy explains, hard evidence isn’t needed or even necessarily desired, because it can limit the investigation’s focus when they want it to be completely open-ended. “The criminalization of politics leans on counterintelligence and background investigations,” he says. “It wants no part of criminal courts, where due-process safeguards are enforced and allegations must be proved.”
After reading his explanation, one can see how everything that’s been happening with the Trump/Russia investigation, ever since its shady origins within the FBI, makes perfect sense.
It doesn’t matter whether or not Republican presidents and their appointees are technically suspects; the Democrats are going to investigate them as if they were. They claim this is to protect our institutions. (Example: in a twist worthy of Chubby Checker, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat Jerrold Nadler actually said this: “...the Senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance, to protect the rule of law and to protect the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.”) In reality, they’re tearing down our institutions, and quickly. In McCarthy’s words, “It’s an ugly process in which the new Democratic Party --- the party that prefers Bill Ayers to Joe Lieberman, ‘social justice’ to patriotism, and ‘change’ to the Constitution --- menaces decent people and their attachments to American traditions until they retreat from the public square.”
The Left has shown that it cares nothing for such principles as due process, presumption of innocence and freedom from unreasonable and unwarranted invasions of privacy, at least as applied to its political enemies. This tear-it-down attitude was once the mark of a fringe movement, but those of us who are paying attention can see it moving out of the fringe, like grass growing after a heavy rain. The Democratic Party will ignore the principles that make us free in order to defeat the enemy at hand, and then they’ll add a strong dose of humiliation –- they call it shaming –- to suppress prospective challengers down the road. As McCarthy says, “Would you put your family through what the Kavanaugh family has been put through?
The idea behind a limitless, unfocused investigation is that by leaving no stone unturned, they can find something on Trump and/or Kavanaugh --- no matter how old, ambiguous or inconsistent with their current character --- that might be used to impeach them or, at the least, to cast doubt on their legitimacy and “taint” every decision they make. (“Taint” is the word of the day.) A background check is supposed to mean gathering enough information to determine whether or not a person is a good fit for the responsibilities of his prospective office. In McCarthy’s words, “If a Democratic senator has already decided against a conservative nominee over philosophical differences about abortion and gun rights, the senator should simply vote against the nominee, not exploit a background check as an abusive fishing expedition.”
We’ve got to turn this around, so that politics can no longer be the motivation for investigations. If we continue down this road, America as we know it will be over; we’ll be no different from the many places in the world in which political enemies are dispensed with in kangaroo courts. Only the power-mad will venture into that kind of political arena. There would be no greater mistake than to give power to those who crave it that desperately. (That’s why many of us sensed we should never support Hillary, but I digress.)
Anyway, that’s why it’s hoped that all the string-pulling behind the curtain at the FBI (and DOJ, and CIA) will at last be revealed, and the sooner the better. We need the details of what –- and who –- we’ve been dealing with so we can finally hold them accountable and drain that stinking swamp.
LEAVE A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM.