home > archive > 2020 > this article

Obama’s fingerprints cover the coup crime scene

By Mark Alexander
web posted May 18, 2020

In my recent column, "Beyond Flynn: Indict Comey and Brennan," I wrote: "The Flynn case is a microcosm of the entire Russia-collusion setup, and it represents the most disgraceful episode of government abuse of power since J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI director. It reflects a far more dangerous chapter in American political history — a more egregious assault on our Constitution and Rule of Law — than any aspect of the Watergate break-in during Richard Nixon's administration. Any civil libertarian of any political stripe with an ounce of integrity should be denouncing this government corruption from the mountaintops."

I argued that assessment was "not hyperbole." Let's review.

In 1972, a group of black-bag spooks known as the "White House Plumbers," under the direction of Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt, were funded by the Committee to Re-Elect the President (Richard Nixon). On 17 June, they hired some inept burglars to break into the Democrat National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Office Building. Their plan was to plant some surveillance devices, but they were arrested upon being discovered by a security guard.

A week later, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman advised Nixon of the break-in, and Nixon approved (as heard on Nixon's Oval Office taping system) Haldeman's plan to call off the federal investigators. But it was too late. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, with a little help from "Deep Throat" (then-FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt), connected the burglary to Nixon's reelection fund and The Plumbers, and three months later the key conspirators were indicted by a federal grand jury.

Two months after that, on 7 November, Nixon defeated George McGovern and was reelected to a second term with the largest plurality of votes and the fourth-largest margin (23.15%) in American history. But the Watergate investigation continued, and Nixon lied about his effort to cover up the break-in once he was told about it. The evidence of this lie was the 18 and a half minutes of conversation with Haldeman that Nixon had erased from more than 3,700 hours of Oval Office conversations. On 9 August 1974, Nixon, having two days earlier been told by Republican leaders of his dwindling support in Congress, resigned rather than put the nation through an impeachment.

In this respect, Nixon demonstrated more integrity than President Bill Clinton, who in 1999 successfully dodged a conviction on articles for lying and obstruction of justice — despite clear evidence of his guilt and despite having lied to a grand jury about an illicit sexual affair with a 22-year-old White House intern. Recall that he claimed, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

And speaking of the Clinton crime syndicate, it should be noted that Nixon's erasure of 18 and a half minutes of incriminating audiotape pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton's deliberate BleachBit destruction of 33,000 subpoenaed emails in order to conceal, among other things, her role in Barack Obama's cover-up of the 2012 Benghazi embassy attack. (It's no small irony that in 1974, a young attorney named Hillary Rodham was hired by the House Judiciary Committee to work on the Nixon impeachment case, where she apparently learned a lot about how to not be caught in a cover-up.)

Notably, Republicans aggressively investigated Nixon and insisted he resign. In 1974, former Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN) was the ranking minority member of the Senate committee investigating the Watergate cover-up conspiracy. He and his then-young understudy, chief counsel and fellow Tennessean Fred Thompson, aggressively pursued the truth regarding their party's president. "I'll dig for the facts," said Baker, "and I'll follow wherever they lead." Indeed, he and Thompson did just that.

At a critical juncture in that investigation, Baker (who later served as Ronald Reagan's chief of staff) asked a now-famous question: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

That brings us back to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and their co-conspirators: What did they know and when did they know it?

To be clear, Nixon wasn't facing impeachment for having orchestrated the Watergate break-in but for having tried to cover it up after the fact.

However, it's now clear that Obama and Clinton were in charge of the conspiracy against her 2016 presidential election opponent, Donald Trump, and when that attempt failed and Clinton lost the election, they and their ilk conspired to take down President Trump by orchestrating a phony "Russia collusion" investigation.

Instead of employing an inept band of low-level operatives, as was the case with Watergate, Obama and Clinton coordinated a brazen cabal of deep-state operatives at the highest levels of the most powerful government agencies. These operatives include former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Chief of Counterespionage Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Their fingerprints are all over this crime scene — starting with the setup of former Trump National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn.

Of course, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the current House Intelligence Committee chairman, was their legislative lapdog for the Trump takedown. Despite his claims about having "ample evidence of collusion," the only actual evidence of collusion is between the aforementioned Obama operatives.

Schiff and his Leftmedia propagandists spent every waking hour of Trump's first two years in office advancing the fake Russia-collusion narrative based on the fake Russian dossier. This was ultimately determined by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to be totally fabricated. (Schiff's second coup attempt, the fake Ukraine-collusion impeachment charade, also failed.)

But Schiff's ruse is backfiring.

The beginning of the end for the Obama conspirators began in earnest last week, when Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell informed Schiff that 6,000 pages of transcripts from all 53 interviews his House Intelligence Committee conducted in its Russia probe "can be released to the public without any concerns of disclosing classified material." Schiff had refused to release those transcripts since becoming chairman of the House Intel Committee but couldn't keep that lid sealed any longer.

On the basis of those transcripts, it is clear that Schiff knew all along that there was no collusion between Russia and Trump — but he used his committee, in tandem with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to peddle that false narrative for two years.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board notes: "From the earliest days of the collusion narrative, Mr. Schiff insisted that he had evidence proving the plot. ... None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it. In July 2017, here's what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Mr. Schiff and his colleagues: 'I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.' ... The same goes for the FBI agents who started the collusion probe in 2016. ... On it went, a parade of former Obama officials who declared under oath they'd seen no evidence of collusion or conspiracy."

So, we now know that Obama was involved in the FBI's fake FISA warrants and the use of the fake dossier funded by Clinton and the DNC to launch the investigation into Trump. We also know that Obama was involved in the FBI's setup of Michael Flynn, and late last week tried desperately to get out in front of his crumbling conspiracy by suggesting, laughably, that the DoJ's dropping charges against Flynn constituted a threat to Rule of Law. Lastly, we know that Obama helped plan the events that would lead to Robert Mueller's appointment and Adam Schiff's impeachment charade.

As the walls close in, Obama is looking for a rat hole to scurry down. He knows his role in this scheme to dispose of Trump is now, finally, becoming a matter of record.

Grenell added insult to Obama's injury by declassifying the Obama operatives who "unmasked" Michael Flynn.

The evidence of illegality mounts, and U.S. Attorney John Durham is quietly convening grand juries to continue building his case. The path to Comey and Brennan starts with indictments of their primary FBI water boys, McCabe, Strzok, and Clinesmith. (Throw in a few yet-to-be outed CIA co-conspirators for good measure.)

Those indictments should then lead to Comey and Brennan indictments as co-conspirators for their roles in the illegal Trump wiretaps and the fake FISA warrants.

Of course, either open or sealed indictments against Comey and Brennan pave the path to Obama and Clinton. None of these illegal activities occurred without their knowledge and complicity.

To get there, all of Obama's co-conspirators need to be asked under oath about the Flynn setup and the Russia collusion charade. Specifically, they need to be asked, "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

Memo to the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee: What are you waiting for? Start by putting the heat to FBI lawyer Clinesmith, who altered official documents in order to paint Trump campaign official Carter Page as a Russian operative — and then to go after Trump. Somebody conspired with Clinesmith to set up Page.

I remind you that when FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer made public last December the outrageous warrant abuses described in IG Michael Horowitz's report, she stated: "FBI personnel provided information to [the Department of Justice's National Security Division] which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. ... An attorney in the FBI's Office of General Counsel (OGC) engaged in conduct that apparently was intended to mislead the FBI agent who ultimately swore to the facts in that application about whether Mr. Page had been a source of another government agency." Go after Clinesmith!

Finally, for decades, every emerging political scandal has included "gate" as a reference to Watergate. But of all the "gates" we've seen in recent years, one emerged this past weekend that is actually most akin to Watergate. President Trump penned it in a recent social-media post: "OBAMAGATE!"

In the weeks and months ahead, if justice will be served, Obama, Clinton, and their co-conspirators will prove to be, by orders of magnitude, a much greater threat to our constitutional republic than Nixon and his Watergate plumbing crew. ESR

Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.




Site Map

E-mail ESR


© 1996-2024, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.