Principal questions about Comey’s firing and the alleged Trump-Russia Connection

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections, Foreign Policy and tagged , , , , , , , , .

Remarkably, without even a shred of established evidence, rumors and innuendo about an inappropriate Trump-Russia relationship, exacerbated by the firing of FBI director James Comey, have now persisted for months, even though all major media companies, from the New York Times, over the Washington Post and all major television networks, have with unprecedented intensity searched for even the most minute evidence, and come up short. Like these media outlets, and you the reader of these pages, we, here at The Canary, therefore have currently absolutely no idea whether President Trump and/or his organization did or did not have an inappropriate relationship with agents of the Russian government.

While unable to offer the public even minimal evidence of such an inappropriate relationship, above referenced media organizations, nevertheless present evolving news to the public as if there could be no doubt about such a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Therefore the New York Times’s page-one headline on May 10 read not Trump fires Comey (Director of the FBI) but Trump fires Comey amid Russia inquiry.

Presenting factually true but otherwise unrelated (at least so far) associations to the public as fact, of course, is “fake-news,” and is meant to subconsciously reemphasize to the public, without need of proof it, that something very stinky must be going on in the Trump White House.  

We here at The Canary wish to again point out that we have no inside knowledge as to whether the Trump campaign had contacts with agents of the Russian government and, if so, what the nature of these contacts was. Since the possibility of inappropriate contacts has been raised in such a public fashion, we support that these rumors be properly investigated. Like every other U.S. citizen, the U.S. President (and his staff) are, however, presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Based on behavior, a large majority of the national media, however, feels differently!

The principal allegation made against the Trump organization is that Trump’s campaign conspired in secret with agents of the Russian government in defeating Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election. We previously in these pages made the point that, even assuming this accusation to be correct, putting moral considerations aside, such coordinated efforts involving the Trump organization and the Russian government would not necessarily be criminal. It is well known that the U.S. government through a variety of agencies is constantly trying to influence elections in other countries.

President Obama, as has become known recently, supported in the last election cycle opposition parties to Israel’s prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, with staff and federal funds in a failed attempt to defeat him. President Putin’s strong dislike for Hillary Clinton, as has been widely reported in the media, is, likely, the consequence of Clinton actively supporting Putin’s opposition with U.S. federal funds as Secretary of State in the Obama administration during Putin’s most recent election.

In other words, accepting “help” from overseas sources, even from the Russian government, is in itself not necessarily a federal offense, – unless, of course, federal campaign laws were broken, the collaboration involves criminal activities (i.e., the hacking of computers and distribution of content obtained through illegal hacking), government secrets were revealed and/or quid pro quo arrangements were reached, obliging a future elected government.

Also, a campaign organization cannot necessarily be held responsible for potentially illegal acts of individuals committed out of self-interest. General Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s short-term first Security Advisor, may be a good example. Should he, indeed, as has been suggested, have received illegal payments from Russian and Turkish sources. One, of course, would still have to wonder how such an individual survived an allegedly serious vetting process, especially since he also does not appear to be particularly bright: How else could the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency not understand that every word he exchanges on an open phone line with the Russian ambassador would be picked up by U.S. intelligence?

That after months of investigations by FBI and committees of House and Senate, still, nothing concrete has been leaked to support increasingly bizarre daily rumors, spun by the media, therefore, to us suggests that, likely, nothing is there to be discovered. We may be wrong, and Trump’s Russia connections may morph into Watergate II. Proving that something does not exist is, however, almost impossible. Considering the current political atmosphere of absolute confrontation and “resistance” in Washington, it, therefore, appears increasingly likely that this affair will stay with us at least until the mid-term elections. Then, it will be again up to the nation’s voters to decide who is right and who is wrong.

Trump, in the meantime, has, however, to recognize that he, in the end, will not be judged based on what Democrats and the media are trying to concoct but on his performance as President. If he continues to allow relatively unimportant things to rule the news, and take up his valuable time, he will be a failed president. If he can concentrate on what is important, he will succeed.  

The Canary

Remaining Democratic government underground must also be drained from the swamp

Posted on by in Blog, Elections, Foreign Policy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , .

Draining the swamp means cleaning out the remaining Democratic government underground too. President Donald John Trump is reported to be furious with his communications staff for steadily being outsmarted by well-timed and –placed leaks from Democratic operatives, suggesting collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government agents in preventing Hillary Clinton’s election, even surmising that this may have involved treasonous activities by Trump operatives.

With so far not an iota of evidence in support of such collusion, and completely ignoring that not only Hillary Clinton lost the election but the Democrats all over the country by failing to achieve expected gains in Congress and local state elections, he has reason to be upset that his government is unable to control the message. Less than 24 hours after giving before a joint session of House and Senate one of the best presidential speeches in U.S. history, he found himself once again on the defense under relentless leaks from former members of the Obama administration and government bureaucrats in various agencies who very obviously oppose the Trump agenda.

The Canary predicted in several prior blogs that Obama and his “army” of organized supporters would be a dangerous and divisive political force in strident attempts at delegitimizing the Trump presidency. Increasing evidence now has become public that during the last two weeks in office, the Obama administration carefully planned and executed a strategy of not only delegitimizing President Donald J. Trump but by claiming he won the presidency illegitimately by colluding with the Russian government in treasonous fashion.

These largely Obama-driven attacks on Trump and his administration, therefore, go far beyond just attempts at political deligitimization; they are meant to introduce the concept of treasonous behavior by a sitting president and, therefore, are attempts at criminalizing the arguments against his presidency with the potential goal of impeachment.

The deviousness of this campaign is unprecedented because it was initiated while, publicly, President Obama was extending a helping hand to the incoming Trump administration since, as he himself stated, despite political differences, he had been at the receiving end of such a helping hand from President Bush when he moved into the Oval Office.

18 U.S. Code §2381 defines treason as: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall …..”

This definition is of importance when considering the allegations swirling around. While it is important to reemphasize that, as of this writing, there is not an iota of evidence to support any collusion, indeed, not even that discussions regarding the subject took place between Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials, let us for a moment assume that there, indeed, have been discussion between these two parties, in which Trump operatives were made aware that the Russian government was in possession of e-mails generated by Hillary Clinton’s and the Democratic National Committee. Let us further assume that the Trump team even encouraged their publication. Would that have constituted treason?

Since President Putin’s Russia is, rightly, widely considered a hostile nation to the U.S., this is basically the argument made by Trump bashers. Moreover, opponents of Trump further argued during the election campaign (and still do) that the involved e-mails not only came from a hostile power but, in addition, were “stolen.” Their use in the campaign, therefore, would establish complicity with the thieves (i.e., hackers).

On both issues the Canary disagrees with the underlying logic of the anti-Trump crowd , and here is why: Though Russia under its current government has, indeed, to be considered a political and military adversary, promises of favorable treatments, disclosures of national secrets or any other potentially harmful acts to the security and interests of the U.S. in return for publication of these e-mails by the Russian government (or a potential third party agent, like WikiLeaks) could, in fact, potentially be considered treasonous. But in absence of any quid pro quo, disclosures of political fraud, undermining the democratic election process (like the interventions in the Democratic primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton and to the disadvantage of Bernie Sanders by Democratic National Leadership) are, especially before a crucially important presidential election, in the best interest of the electorate. Opposition research, routinely pursued by both major parties, frequently involves “stolen” data. To offer just one example, the Clinton campaign, for example, had no hesitation to use Trump’s stolen tax returns in the campaign.

Even repeated contacts with the Russian government, if it did not involve any quid pro quos, therefore, would appear not only perfectly permissible but are routinely taking place before elections all over the world because all countries are proactively assessing who may be the next government leader they would have to face.

The Russian government, of course, is also perfectly entitled to favor candidates in U.S. elections and, indeed, even to support them. It is the responsibility of U.S. politicians to make sure that any such “help” does not contradict U.S. law. The U.S, rather routinely, intervenes in national elections by supporting favorite candidates politically and even financially. A principal motivation why President Putin apparently opposed Hillary Clinton’s election has been her active support as Secretary of State for opposition groups to Putin during the last presidential election. The Obama administration also quite openly intervened in Israeli elections when sending financial support (using U.S. tax dollars) as well as expert staff help from Obama’s own election campaign to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s opposition in a blatant attempt to subvert Bibi’s reelection. The effort failed and, indeed, misfired once it became public but, if this is what the U.S. does to friends, imagine how much we, likely, meddle in elections of less friendly countries.

The furor expressed by Democrats and the media about Russian meddling in the recent U.S. presidential election, therefore, appears hypocritical and highly exaggerated.

Which returns the analysis to the recognition that there are significant differences between a presidential candidate, who may or may not assume the presidency in the future, and a sitting president, who already assumed all presidential powers. A candidate for the presidency, in principle, still only speaks for himself. Moreover, candidates are widely known to switch campaign positions on the journey from candidate to elected president. Representations and deeds of a sitting president, therefore, are, of much greater significance.

Exploring this thought further, it, therefore, would appear that the risk of treasonous acts is much higher for sitting presidents than for candidates for president, who still lack access to confidential government information and have no decision-making powers yet. In other words, candidate Trump had very little opportunity for being involved in treasonous situations with the Russians; Obama, however, as has been well documented, in highest government levels communication with Russia, meeting then Russian (temporary) President Dmitry Medvedev, in an open microphone gaffe on March 26, 2012, just before his reelection, revealed the message to Putin, “tell Vladimir that I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”

What Obama in those very few words communicated to the President of a hostile country could be, indeed, considered treasonous because he, basically, told him that, once the elections were over, he could give Russia concessions the American people, likely, would not approve of (because why would he, otherwise, wait with those concessions till after the election).

The irony is that, in contrast to current collusion rumors spread by the Obama propaganda machine, this event in 2012 really took place. It received minor media attention as a “gaffe,”- a more humorous than serious political occurrence; but, when closely examined, this event represented a truly astonishing statement from an American president in a one-on-one meeting with the president of a hostile country, and clearly evidence of collusions, – not only to the benefit of an election outcome but, in addition, behind the back of the American people.

For the Trump administration, it is high time to recognize that the Democratic Party establishment and many other well-financed interest groups are determined to prevent President Trump from completing his term and running again. In other words, the swamp Trump promised to drain is fighting back and, interestingly, is doing so with what psychologists call psychological projections, by accusing Trump of exactly the transgressions the Democrats have been guilty of over the last eight years. It is time for the Justice Department to take the gloves off, and open the public’s eyes to the corruption and abuse of state powers that pervaded the Obama administration for almost a decade. It, indeed, is a very deep swamp that needs to be drained!

 

  

 

Why all we hear about Russia is really about “drain the swamp”

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged , , , , , , , , .

Josh Earnest, President Obama’s Press Secretary was anything but earnest, when in official function and from the podium of a press briefing in the White House he, for all practical purposes, accused President Elect Trump of willfully ignoring the Russian interference in the presidential elections and, indeed, encouraging it. Doubling down on his comments the next day, he not only claimed that Trump “knew of the Russian interference” but also was fully aware that these Russian activities “hurt Secretary Clinton’s campaign” and by implication, therefore, helped his own election “by encouraging Russia to hack his opponent.”

Describing his statement as an “indisputable fact,” while referring to a very obvious joke Trump made on the campaign trail when commenting on the 35,000 e-mails Hillary Clinton had made disappear by ordering their professionally erasing, a last line of decency was crossed in the rapidly deteriorating political relationship between the country’s two main political parties.

Though in this election cycle almost nothing surprises any longer, the evolving hypocrisy in how the Democrat party establishment, now apparently including President Obama’s White House, is handling the November election losses (and not only in the presidential race), is disturbing. Instead of analyzing what lead to the disastrous performance of the Clinton campaign, the party, as we outlined just a few days ago, with increasing vengeance has been propagating a typical “Dolchstoßlegende,” which can have only one purpose, – the delegitimization of Donald J Trump as the incoming 45th President of the United States.

One, therefore, has to ask what, likely, motivates such behavior, especially since Trump, after an obviously aggressively fought presidential election campaign, has been surprisingly accommodating. He, after all, was willing to forgive excesses of his opponents, including those of Hillary Clinton, practically, offering her legal amnesty. Superficially, President Obama and President Elect Trump also appeared to have found political detent, – at least until Josh Earnest’s comments suggested otherwise. And that President Obama allowed their reaffirmation, sends the very clear message that Trump better get ready for more proactive opposition to the promised smooth transition from the current White House and, possibly, outright warfare.

Here at The Canary we are not surprised by these developments. We, indeed, were caught somewhat off guard by Obama’s initially very accommodating comments following his first face-to-face meeting with Trump. While such behavior is what one would expect from any sitting president, it did not match our psychological profile of President Obama. As our very detailed series of biographical articles on Obama documented, we from the very beginning saw him as a highly partisan, Afro-centric third-world Marxist ideolog, more in line with the highly malignant personal attacks (for a sitting president) he unleashed against Trump during the later stages of the Clinton campaign, when serving as her principal surrogate. History proved us correct, we believe, and there is really no reason to assume that his personality has or would change in his last few weeks in office.

We, indeed, predict that in these last few weeks in power, President Obama will do everything possible, overtly and covertly, to subvert Trump’s successful ascendance to the presidency, and not only for political and/or ideological reasons. Much more is at stake, as we also noted a number of months ago in these pages, in trying to understand why the Obamas, suddenly, so vehemently embraced Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, even though many reliable sources had let it be known that there was no love lost between Obamas and Clintons.

We suspect that a principal reason why Obama and the Democrat Party are striving to delegitimize President Elect Trump as much as possible, is the still existing threat to the Obama administration from Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp.” As we also previously noted in these pages, considering the extreme partisanship of Obama’s Justice Department under two Attorney Generals, the swamp two Obama administrations are leaving behind is deeper, smellier and more contaminated by fraud and other crimes than anything seen in recent memory (including the notorious second Nixon administration). We, therefore, would not be surprised if Obama “in the national interest” proactively pardoned Hillary Clinton and a whole coattails of other members of his administration under the offered rational “that they, otherwise, would be subject to unfair prosecution by an illegitimate President.”

The more delegitimized Trump can be made to appear prior to assuming his presidency, the more credible will these pardons appear, especially if presented by public unions and the overwhelmingly liberal media as the rescue of well-meaning public servants from the venomous ire of a vicious and illegitimate president.

President Obama cannot permit such prosecutions even to be initiated since, not only would they negatively affect his legacy, but, once a first dam brakes, the waters threaten to wash away much more than that downstream. It would become quickly apparent how politicized the Justice Department had become under Obama, how much under direct White House orders FBI and CIA civilian and military analyses were dictated by political expedience, and how much obstruction of justice took place at the FBI and at Justice, itself, at the IRS and at other government agencies, like the Veterans Administration and the State Department (remember, we still don’t know where President Obama was during the hours of the Benghazi crisis when Hillary was “in charge”). And since nobody knows more about all of these hidden skeletons than Hillary Clinton, nobody’s legal protection is of more importance for President Obama than Hillary’s. Unless she (and the Clinton Foundation) feel protected, everybody in the Obama administration will be at legal risk, and everybody in the Obama administration knows that.

On the other side of the equation, this makes really “drain the swamp” absolutely essential for the upcoming Trump administration. Not doing so, would not only lose significant credibility for the Trump agenda but would remove the fear factor from dealing with Trump. Successful political leaders are not only loved but also feared by many, – not different from what happens in foreign policy!

The Canary