Legal signposts on the road to destroying democracy

It’s looking more and more as if there was, indeed, a “Deep State” plot, tightly embroiled with and controlled by the Obama administration (or, at the very least, certain individuals within it), designed to spy on the Trump campaign and, if possible, take it down.  Now that he’s President, that same plot has switched focus to removing him from office at all costs, regardless of the facts (or the lack thereof).

Four important articles that I think are worth reading and bookmarking for future reference:

  1. Sharyl Attkisson:  “Collusion against Trump” timeline“.  An exhaustive listing, from 2011 to the present, of events and incidents relevant to the situation.  Attkisson, remember, was the journalist primarily responsible for the in-depth investigation of the “Fast and Furious” scandal involving gun-running to Mexico by the ATF and (possibly) other branches of the US government under the Obama administration.  More is soon to come out about that scandal.
  2. Also by Sharyl Attkisson:  “8 signs pointing to a counterintelligence operation deployed against Trump’s campaign“.  This is important because counterintelligence operations are not subject to the same legal restrictions as law enforcement investigations.  It may be that the Obama administration deliberately used that distinction to attempt to avoid responsibility for its actions.  I don’t think that’s going to work.
  3. Kimberley Strassel:  “Was Trump’s Campaign ‘Set Up’?  At some point, the Russia investigation became political. How early was it?”  Read this in conjunction with item 1 above.  I think there’s growing evidence that it “became political” rather earlier than most people think.
  4. Mark Penn:  “Stopping Robert Mueller to protect us all“.  This is an opinion piece (with which I largely agree), but it has one very important sentence indeed, which I think is very true:

“Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again.”

As Kurt Schlichter puts it:  “The question all boils down to this – is it acceptable for the party in power to use the intelligence and law enforcement communities against its rivals?

Keep watching.  I suspect the fur is only just beginning to fly.


1 comment

  1. "is it acceptable for the party in power to use the intelligence and law enforcement communities against its rivals?"

    The agencies in question owe allegiance only to one party, so don't worry, the practice won't become "widespread".

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *