“Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI. Nothing happened to her. Flynn lied and they destroyed his life.” – President Donald Trump, Dec. 4, 2017
Last Friday, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty in federal court to making false statements to the FBI during the course of an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 general election.
On Monday, President Donald Trump called the case against Flynn “very unfair” considering that former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI on numerous occasions in relation to the same investigation, yet is not facing charges.
As I pointed out many times in this space during the presidency of Barack Obama, the president, Clinton and other Cabinet members committed a plethora of high crimes and misdemeanors from 2009 to 2016, and I believe that any truly objective special counsel could have had the lot of them in orange jumpsuits by lunchtime.
It should also be noted that Flynn’s offense constituted a process crime, one that is committed during the course of an investigation into another alleged crime. Neither his actions nor his plea revealed any criminality on the part of the Trump 2016 campaign.
In considering all this, one needs to ask oneself how honestly they might respond to an FBI interrogation if they knew that those conducting same were acting unlawfully.
Last week, I cited the downside of prosecutorial discretion in that this can be used unethically, or to advance a political agenda. Capitol Hill lawmakers and the establishment press chose to conspicuously ignore each and every instance of misfeasance and criminality on the part of the previous administration, yet they appear to be wholly dedicated to toppling Trump.
Thus, it is not surprising that the frenzy of legal activity attendant to the Russia probe is yielding only paltry results, despite leftists at large approaching a state similar to sexual arousal upon receiving news such as that of Flynn’s plea.
It is now apparent that appointing former FBI Director Robert Mueller to pursue the “Russian collusion” issue was the political equivalent of hiring Daffy Duck to do one’s taxes; the cartoon waterfowl was notoriously avaricious and probably clinically insane and could almost certainly be counted on to cheat.
Report: “ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE” Now it all starts to make sense!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017
One of the big stories this week was, of course, the dismissal of FBI investigator Peter Strzok from the Russia investigation by Mueller after it was revealed that Strzok exchanged text messages mocking President Trump and engaged in manifestly unethical practices during the investigation – texts that evidenced strong pro-Clinton and anti-Trump biases. Mueller’s action was accurately called a “Deep State Pawn Sacrifice” by Breitbart News, sort of like when President Obama fired his Green Jobs Czar Van Jones in 2010 for being a little too forthcoming in public with the Obama administration’s communistic agenda – and for calling Republicans “a–holes” on camera.
Strzok’s “sacrifice” was merely a public relations face-saving ploy, an effort to salvage the legitimacy of the investigation and the public perception of objectivity therein.
The sad fact is that we can no longer trust those in the FBI and other federal agencies to take an apolitical stance in the execution of their duties.
Men and women working in the “alphabet agencies” and other federal bureaus who once regarded their political anonymity on the job as a badge of honor have become de facto political operatives dedicated to the post-constitutional, progressive agenda.
Although suggesting a good old-fashioned political purge (firing squads, bonfires, etc.) wouldn’t get past my editor, Trump’s firing of hundreds of questionable agency hires and appointees en masse would not only eliminate an element of the Deep State threat on a practical level, but it would enlighten those not yet sufficiently apprised of the Deep State menace.
Such action would certainly give rise to cries of tyranny on the left, but it would be an effective “in kind” defensive measure in response to the subterfuge of entrenched ideologues in the federal government.
Across the board, progressives have abandoned any sense of ethics or morality for an “ends justify the means” ethos, and the Mueller investigation is about nullifying Trump’s election, nothing more.
Those within the Deep State, terrified and rightly perceiving themselves threatened, simply do not care if they find themselves at odds with the electorate.
Donald Trump’s election did not represent America’s ongoing love affair with a flamboyant real estate developer and TV star from New York.
It represented the disgust of the American people with the increasing lawlessness of those in government.
Mueller’s spaghetti-against-the-wall methodology as regards the Russia investigation reveals the former FBI director as a Deep State apparatchik, a soldier committed to cementing the power of the ascendant socialist oligarchy.
This being the case, I seriously doubt that there are many actions Trump could take in response to the antics of the Deep State cabal that would diminish the commitment and enthusiasm of his supporters.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush