Instead of getting the whatever that is ensconced in the Epstein files, which are also subject to a ruling by a federal district judge that will not open any grand jury proceedings, another piece of information dropped that, if found to be credible, should be chilling to anyone who is a citizen in the country.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard unveiled documents that point to a concerted effort on the part of an unelected official as well as many elected officials to create batches of misinformation to disrupt the presidency of Donald Trump after his election in 2016.
While sour grapes on the part of the losing party and losing candidate are to be expected, to take such actions to disrupt the flow and work of government is heinous, and treasonous to boot, in my opinion.
Even more insidious is that the beating heart of the effort seemed to be the sitting president, Barack Obama.
According to documents released by the National Intelligence Office, the government’s intelligence apparatus was tasked to conduct a new assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election, you know, the one where Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. Apparently, no one could believe the result, but since, at least at the time, only the Republican party was supposed to recognize the legitimacy of the election results (which still is the case, by the way), and the first go-round showed that any Russian interference actually had no impact on the election.
It was widely believed that the now-notorious Steele dossier, which has now been found to be a fabrication, was at the time was deemed questionable, but that didn’t stop our elected officials and their appointed toadies. So it’s believed, and seemingly backed up by documents, that a sitting president attempted to undermine a future president’s authority with fabrication and slander.
One of the first screaming headlines that I recall seeing was “Nixon Resigns,” printed in huge type on the front of the Air Force Times. Even the suggestion that then-President Richard Nixon was remotely involved in the Watergate scandal (where underlings broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters with wiretapping equipment) led to numerous criminal convictions and the president’s resignation, since he likely would be impeached.
What’s the difference between the two incidents? Aside from some specific details, there really isn’t any, with maybe the exception that Nixon was Republican and Obama et al are Democrats, and one happened in the 70s and one just a few years ago, there still is the specter of illegal action on the part of both groups.
More to the point, and this goes for both cases, the government taking active measure against political rivals, up to and including criminal charges and defamation of character, is antithetical to our country’s values and form of government.
The brazen flouting of the Constitution against the elite can only mean one thing, and that is the common folk have no chance (something that already is happening, what with the Patriot Act and surveillance programs conducted by the NSA).
I’m confident that our Founding Fathers would cringe at the state of government today, but they couldn’t say anything about it. They would be hauled in front of investigative committees, and the national news media would paint them as terrorists bent on the destruction of “our democracy.”
Tony Farkas is editor of the San Jacinto News-Times and the Trinity County News-Standard. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
