Did Joe Biden Initiate the Plot Against Michael Flynn?
The Real Insurrection Wasn’t Jan 6, 2021, But January 5, 2017: Speaking with Flynn Lawyer Jesse Binnall
June 06, 2023
post photo preview
Michael Flynn: The 30-year combat veteran is taking the fight to those who started it.

General Michael Flynn, retired, is suing key US government institutions, in particular, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for $50 million. The complaint alleging malicious persecution names, among others, former FBI director James Comey, deputy director Andrew McCabe, and two FBI officials who led the unlawful surveillance of the 2016 Donald Trump campaign, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The FBI’s investigation of Flynn and three other Trump aides led to the national security advisor’s departure from the White House in February 2017. With Robert Mueller’s special counsel office threatening to target his family, prosecutors coerced the 30-year-combat veteran into pleading that he lied to the FBI. Even after the DOJ dropped its charges against Flynn, federal judge Emmet Sullivan continued the case.

Flynn’s own case against the government is in a federal court in Florida, where he now lives, but the DOJ is petitioning to transfer it to its home turf, back to Washington, DC. Reading the media coverage of the current case, I shouldn’t have been surprised to find the grotesque cruelty still directed at a man whose reputation was smeared and whose legal bills have cost him and his family a fortune. Since Flynn left government service, his adversaries haven’t let up. And now he’s taking the fight to those who started it —Barack Obama and senior officials from his administration, including the current President of the United States, Joe Biden.

I spoke with Flynn’s attorney Jesse Binnall for a recent episode of my Epoch TV show Over the Target. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.


JB: We have filed the lawsuit, we have served it on the Department of Justice, which is currently being represented out of the US Attorney's Office in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. It's being presided over by a neutral federal judge, somebody that's respected by both sides of the aisle. And I think it's a very, very strong case.

But fairness is something that I think, unfortunately, the Department of Justice is afraid of. They know if we get a fair shot, they're going to lose. So they want to transfer this to the venue where all the attacks on General Flynn occurred, where the cabal that went against him were part of the cocktail culture of Washington, DC, which we sometimes refer to it as “the Swamp.”

They say it's for witness convenience, because some of the witnesses — not by any stretch of the imagination, all of the witness — live near the Washington, DC area. But these are all people that can come to Tampa for trial. It's a very easy flight from Washington, DC to Tampa, and witnesses, no matter where we are going to have this case, are going to have to come from all over the country and perhaps even all over the world.

Importantly, it gets the case out of the culture of Washington DC. One of the things that our lawsuit talks directly about is the misconduct of a federal judge. And I don't say that lightly. But Judge Emmett Sullivan in General Flynn's case really behaved in spectacular fashion, something that I've never seen before — a judge where he became so passionately and emotionally involved in this case, starting with calling General Flynn a traitor, and then continuing when the Department of Justice wanted to dismiss the case. He decided to pursue the case himself and appointed effectively his own prosecutor. And then when the case didn't go the way he wanted in the appellate court, he actually started litigating against General Flynn himself.

If the trial gets transferred to Washington, DC, these are judges that share chambers with Sullivan and they know him. They see him every day. They know many of these other actors that are involved in this. The simple fact is, you cannot get a fair trial in Washington, DC if you're Michael Flynn. Everyone knows that, certainly all the Americans who follow his case know that. So if no other reason, the appearance of justice, the appearance of impartiality, which is one of the most important things that our court system looks to —it's not just justice himself, but the appearance of justice — this case needs to stay in Florida. It needs to stay with a judge that's a straight shooter, who’s going to call balls and strikes and isn't favored by one side or the other.

LS: Emmett Sullivan turned the trial into a stage for himself. He basically crossed over from the judicial branch of government to the executive branch of government as a prosecutor. How is that constitutional?

JB: In order to take away somebody's freedom, through the criminal justice system, you have to have agreement among all three branches of government, you have to have the legislative branch that writes a law that says such and such conduct is very clearly unlawful. Then you have the executive branch that says, we believe that this particular conduct violated that law. And then you have to have the judicial branch that sits impartially and listens to both sides.

Not only did Emmett Sullivan effectively take off his robe, step across the aisle, and start acting as a prosecutor. One of the reasons that the Justice Department dropped the charges is because there was no violation of the law. And so in essence, he was also acting as the legislature, he saw somebody he didn't like, politics that he didn't like. And, you know, who cares — if there was no law that prohibited it, he just thought it was wrong. So really, he was acting as the legislature as well. He just completely ignored our entire separation of powers.

Justice Scalia used to talk about this. I was lucky enough to hear him talk about this, where he would say that every two-bit dictatorship has a bill of rights. He would read this beautiful prose that just sounds great from a human rights perspective. And then he’d say, that's from the bill of rights of the Soviet Union. And so everybody has a bill of rights, it means nothing unless you have separation of powers to enforce it. And that's what Mr. Sullivan completely disregarded in his handling of the Flynn case. We can't sue him because of judicial immunity. However, he is still a very, very big part of this case, and to say that it should be handled in his courtroom, where he interacts with his peers on a daily basis is wrong.

LS: When Gen Flynn's case was before Emmet Sullivan, thousands of people were listening in online to hear judges debating it. Millions of Americans were focused on it. This is the first time that many of us had really seen our justice system run amok. Now, it's almost every place we look, we see evidence that our justice system is not what we thought it was. Are we watching something new? Or are we just coming to realize that, unfortunately, there are many, many flaws with our justice system?

JB: I think there have been problems for a while with our justice system, the politicization of it. We've seen the problem expand over the years with federal government agencies having too much power and we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it really peaked with the beginning of the Flynn case. And it is continuing to just roll on with what we see now with the attacks on President Trump and other America First Americans in this country.

When it comes to General Flynn, one thing that you can look at is the counterintelligence chief at the FBI at the time, Bill Priestap. He took notes as he was trying to discourage the Strzok-Comey plan of sandbagging General Flynn, and he was pointing out that it was a strategy that would lead to the politicization of the Justice Department and of the FBI, and of the many dangers that would happen if it was an overtly political organization, which unfortunately, I believe it is today. And political not necessarily on behalf of only Democrats, I think it's largely Democrats, but in favor of the Washington, DC establishment, the Washington, DC bureaucracy, run almost entirely by civilian employees.

They want to protect that bureaucracy, and they want to protect the government because it provides them their paycheck, their retirement, but it's also the way they think things should be done. And what they've forgotten is that we have a constitution in this country, where the power is supposed to flow from the people, and the bureaucrats are servants of the people and can be replaced. And instead, in our law enforcement apparatus, they've turned that on its head, and they think that the people can never replace us. We aren't accountable to anyone. And so we will give down the law from on high without any accountability. We see that now very clearly through all levels of the Department of Justice, and especially at the top of the FBI, but unfortunately, it's permeated the entire FBI apparatus as well.

LS: The case is against the Department of Justice and FBI, also against the Executive Office of the former president, Barack Obama. Many have forgotten how central the Obama administration's role was in all this — it wasn't just the Clinton campaign. These were all Obama spy chiefs, even Robert Mueller had been one of Obama's spy chiefs. And the special counsel’s Office is also part of General Flynn’s suit.  

JB: What we've done is tell the story of the government's targeting, persecution, and attack on General Flynn. They went after him with no basis — they never had a basis to go after him, we know that from the Durham report, but we could have told you that years ago. They went after General Flynn with FBI agents that were sending scandalous text messages, because they were having an affair with each other, exchanges that we know that they thought were private, and were going to be immune from sunlight. This is really important to remember, because we know that they thought this was private. And we know that they wanted to find a way to make it so Trump would not get elected.

Going after General Flynn was a way for them to do that. And here's one of the most important things:  you talked about Obama's various spy chiefs. Michael Flynn was one of those, Michael Flynn ran the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he was fired by Obama. Because Michael Flynn called things as they were when he said the greatest threat to our country, at least back in 2014, was radical Islamic terrorism. Obama flipped out and fired him. Heaven forbid, we actually have a general that doesn't focus on transgender issues and is targeting Americans, but is actually going after our enemies overseas. I mean, that's just beyond the pale. So Obama fired him.

General Flynn knew how our bureaucracy was set up and how best to attack it. The unfortunate thing is, he would have been President Trump's greatest asset in those four years, being next to him in the White House, being able to know the bureaucracy and how to fight against it. And so part of the insurance policy I believe, that Page and Strzok talked about, was that if Trump did get elected, how they could chop him off at the knees, and taking out Flynn was one of the ways that there were going to chop him off at the knees.

Obama gave President Trump two pieces of advice, stick with your own people, but don't hire Michael Flynn. And Trump ignores that second piece of advice, and names Michael Flynn the National Security Advisor. Then you get the unmasking of General Flynn by various agents in the government. And then after the FBI admits that there's nothing there and they're going to drop the case, Peter Strzok does everything he can to keep it open and comes up with this crazy idea to go after Michael Flynn for his perfect phone call — to borrow a phrase from President Trump —with Sergey Kislyak [Russia’s then ambassador to the US — LS].

He was doing exactly what you'd want an administration official to do in an incoming administration, to make sure that we have a foreign policy that is safe and consistent. And the FBI comes up with a crazy theory that there's something wrong and then they walk into the Obama White House with that theory. They walk into the Oval Office and you've got Jim Comey there, you've got you've got Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general, and she was going to be the acting attorney general. You have Susan Rice. And you have Vice President Joe Biden, and you have Barack Obama and Barack Obama gives them the instructions. To have the right people on this case to go after General Flynn.

LS: This is right after the election, Donald Trump has been elected president United States, they're still throwing all the Russiagate garbage at him. Barack Obama’s administration is on its way out. And the meeting you're talking about is the January 5, 2017 meeting with Obama, Biden, Comey, Susan Rice, Sally Yates. And this is when Biden talks about charging General Flynn with the Logan Act.

JB: Yeah, you would never actually believe it, this was like a movie or something that the person that comes up with the crazy idea to go after General Flynn for the Logan Act is Joe Biden. And the crazy thing is, it's on January 5, barely two weeks before they leave office. That was the real attempted coup. That was the real attempt to get past the peaceful transition of power. We really need a January 5 commission to investigate what happened on January 5 of 2017.

LS: That is a good way to put it. So January 5, Biden is talking about the Logan Act. A week later, January 12, a story drops in the Washington Post, a David Ignatius column in which he talks about the Logan Act.

JB: The David Ignatius article puts out that General Flynn had this call with Sergey Kislyak. And they discussed sanctions. And in fact, sanctions on that call are never discussed, expulsions were discussed, but not sanctions. And that's very important. There's an important difference. And so that sets the stage and we still don't know at this point, know who the source for Ignatius is. I think a lot of people might have suspicions about who his source was, but we don't know for sure.

And that is really the beginning of their overt attack on General Flynn. The FBI interviews him without going through the normal protocols. And that's also very important. If you're going to have the FBI walk into the White House to interview a senior administration official, you go through certain steps, including contacting White House Counsel. But Jim Comey laughs about this, like it's some big joke about how he thought the administration was still so disorganized and so he could just send a couple guys in there who cornered General Flynn.

One of the important things is that when the FBI does an interview, they generally don't record it. Instead, the agents take notes, and they create something that's called a Form 302. And Peter Strzok wrote the 302. And he wrote several drafts of it, he continued to edit it. He had people who were not in the room edit it as well. Not exactly sure how they knew what was being said — it wasn't recorded. And then we still, to this day, do not have Strzok’s original 302, even though the FBI has a number of procedures in place to make sure that drafts are not lost. Somehow, this draft got lost.

LS: Lots of Americans will be following this case closely.

JB: People say we have a two-tier justice system in this country, but we have a three-tier justice system. We have a middle tier of justice, for average citizens that are just at the whim of the government, and the government is going to go after you, and you don't have the resources to fight them. Then you have the tier that includes people like Joe Biden and Hunter Biden who effectively are above the law, and the system will do everything that they can to protect them.

But then you have people like Michael Flynn and Donald Trump, who with our current justice system, are unfortunately below the law and are effectively in a system where they will not be treated fairly. And that is certainly so in our Washington, DC judicial system. If we are going to want to save the country that our founders fought so hard for, we have got to return real justice to this country where all people are treated equally.




community logo
Join the LeeSmith Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
What else you may like…
Joe Kent: The leaked document story just isn’t possible.
Lee Smith asks Joe Kent about the leaked documents.
Joe Kent: The big Takeaway from the leaked documents is what was in them.
September 03, 2023

Where are you Lee?

What's coming soon...

Sorry for the light posting last few days but I've been working on a few things for here that I hope you'll find interesting, including an in-depth piece on the operation behind the DOJ's Trump indictment; as well as a fresh look at Hillary Clinton's emails — did you know the FBI hid evidence they were read by Russian intelligence? Also, a live stream Friday showing why the DNC has no plans to rotate out Joe Biden for Gavin Newsom or anyone else. Plus, What's the best way to understand the pathological evil spreading its wings over all society?

All this and more, very soon — in the meantime, thanks again! Yours, Lee

Will Justice Dept Indict, and Detain, Donald Trump?

I spoke with my friend the great journalist Julie Kelly about the Biden prosecutors targeting Trump supporters, Matthew Graves, and Trump himself , Jack Smith.


October 24, 2023
post photo preview
Why is Biden Protecting Hamas?
The US has turned against Israel to preserve its partnership with Iran


Joe Biden and White House validators are counseling the Israelis not to make the same mistake US leadership did after 9/11 by lashing out angrily and without a long-term plan. But that’s not Israel’s real problem. Jerusalem’s strategic dilemma is that its longtime superpower patron has switched sides — the White House is defending Hamas in order to preserve its partnership with Israel’s chief enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

On Monday Biden’s former boss Barack Obama released a statement echoing the White House’s messaging campaign in support of its efforts to restrain Israel from a ground invasion of Gaza. In short, Israel is about to make the same mistakes we made after 9/11. “America itself has at times fallen short of our higher values when engaged in war,” Obama writes. “In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government wasn’t interested in heeding the advice of even our allies when it came to the steps we took to protect ourselves against Al Qaeda. Obama's message is this: Israel has to listen to us because we resupply the munitions without which they cannot make war. 

Obama also listed articles, “with useful perspectives and helpful background information,” by his former communications advisor Ben Rhodes and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman hitting on the 9/11 theme.  Rhodes’ piece is intended to “remind us of the risks of responding to violence with greater violence,” like the “US’s vengeful reaction to September 11.” According to Friedman, Biden “pleaded with Israeli military and political leaders to learn from America’s rush to war after Sept. 11, which took our troops deep into the dead ends and dark alleys of unfamiliar cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

America’s problem wasn’t that the George W. Bush administration responded to 9/11 with overwhelming force to make the cost of future potential attacks on the United States prohibitively high. The problem rather was that Bush changed the mission from deterrence to democracy promotion. And at that point, the boondoggle that enriched Washington, DC while impoverishing the regions that sent its children to war was on.

It seems that at least at first Bush was earnest about the freedom agenda. It was based on the thesis that terrorism was the result of despotic Middle Eastern regimes repressing their populations: With no other channels to express their political longings, the people of the region had no other choice but political violence. They terrorized the West because our governments supported the people who terrorized them. Thus, the best way to protect Americans was to topple their tormentors and liberate the Middle East.

In my 2011 book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, I showed why the freedom agenda was predestined to fail: American policymakers had risked US security on a thesis detached from reality. As Lebanese journalist Hazem Saghiyeh told me: “In Iraq, the Americans thought the problem was with Saddam’s regime. Once you get the regime out of the way, then things would be okay. But they’re not. The Arabs on the other hand have always thought the problem in the region was colonialism, Europe, the United States, but it’s not. The problem is the society.”

That is, the problem with the Middle East is not simply the regimes, but the societies from which the regimes are drawn. Or as Plato puts it in Book VIII of The Republic, “The states are as the men are. They grow out of human characters.”

Thus the freedom agenda sheds light on the question whether ordinary Palestinians support Hamas. In 2006, Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Palestinians to move to elections and as many observers had warned, Hamas defeated its ostensibly less murderous rival, Fatah. Fatah and its international backers, led by the United States, rejected the outcome, which led to an intra-Palestinian war that left Hamas in charge of Gaza while Fatah ruled the West Bank.

It’s true that much of the current population in both territories wasn’t yet old enough to vote in the 2006 elections, but the issue is not whether Palestinians today would vote for Hamas but whether they would vote for a faction that promised to end the war on Israel or one that would continue it. The historical record shows that Palestinians have overwhelmingly supported war against Israel since the 1948 founding of the Jewish state. Indeed, the only reason that Fatah doesn’t regularly wage terror attacks on Jews is because Israeli military and police protect them from superior Hamas forces.

The Biden administration forfeited the opportunity to try to split Gazans from Hamas after Israel cut off Gaza’s water and food supply as well as the electricity it supplies to the territory. There is no law, moral or even international, that requires one side to sustain enemy combatants or the population from which it draws its fighters. In effect, Gazans were given a choice as old as warfare itself: continued support of your leaders will lead to privation and eventually death; abandon your leaders and you will have life. By demanding that Israel restore water and electricity and allow aid trucks pass through Egypt, the White House lifted sanctions on an organization responsible for the largest one-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, and tied the fate of Gazans to Hamas.

To best understand the current balance of power in the region, it’s useful to see the sides in terms of a normal war scenario in which combatant one (Israel) and combatant two (Hamas) occupy two separate territories. A third party (the US) opens a corridor of aid to territory two. By doing so, the third party makes clear it is the ally of the combatant that rules territory two — that is, Hamas. At the same time, the third party constrains and sabotages the attack plan of combatant one, thereby signaling it is an enemy of combatant one, Israel.

The Biden administration is doing everything in its power to derail Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza. While Biden gives public support to Israel, White House aides leak anonymously to show that Washington has no faith in Israeli leadership’s plans and goals. Washington asks for more time to get military assets in place across the region, which only gives Hamas more time to dig in, as world opinion inevitably turns against Jerusalem.

Obama, Biden, and their validators warn that Israel may get America dragged into a wider regional war with Hamas’ patron Iran, thereby embroiling the US in a replay of our post-9/11 disaster. But first Obama and now Biden have given the Iranian regime access to hundreds of billions of dollars in an effort to legalize its nuclear weapons program. Those are not signs of enmity but rather indicate an alliance.

The simple fact is this: with Obama and Biden, the US has switched sides. The White House is deterring Israel from striking against Hamas to preserve America’s new partnership with the Islamic Republic.





Read full Article
August 11, 2023
post photo preview
Charlottesville 6 Years Later
The "Very Fine People" Hoax And Obama's "Traitor" Narrative

Tablet just published my reflections on Charlottesville and "the very fine people" espisode six years on. I discussed some of my ideas about it here last month on a live stream and wanted to say thanks to my Locals community for helping me think it through some. Feel free to leave your comments and we can discuss it more if you like. In the meantime, withing you a great weekend. LS


How Charlottesville Broke the Peace

The South already lost the Civil War. Why are Trump’s opponents so interested in restarting it?

Last month, officials at Washington & Lee University removed the headstone at the burial site of Traveller, a horse whose famous rider, General Robert E. Lee, served as president of the school after leading Confederate forces in the Civil War. After complaints from alumni and others, another headstone was substituted for it—one without Lee’s name or that of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who dedicated the memorial in 1971.

On social media, some users mocked activists for having gone so far as to target animals deemed “racist,” but the impulse to pick on Lee’s steed signals something dark. Americans are famously sentimental about animals. The easiest way for moviemakers to communicate a character’s cruelty is by showing them mistreating one. Desecrating the grave of a pet verges on pathological evil—and fixating on one associated with the Civil War is like casting a spell to stir spirits that will once again set Americans at each other’s throats...


Read full Article
August 07, 2023
post photo preview
Obama’s Jan 5 Conspiracy
Trump’s Problem, and America’s, Isn’t the Deep State — It’s His Predecessor


The day before Donald Trump was arraigned in a Washington, DC courtroom last week, the Washington Post reported on a late June meeting between Trump’s successor and his predecessor.

Former president Barack Obama, at a private lunch with President Biden earlier this summer, voiced concern about Donald Trump’s political strengths — including an intensely loyal following, a Trump-friendly conservative media ecosystem and a polarized country — underlining his worry that Trump could be a more formidable candidate than many Democrats realize.

Obama, the report continued, “promised to do all he could to help the president get reelected.” Sourced to “two people familiar with the meeting,” the story is Obama’s way of signaling that he means to finish what he started a day before congress counted the electoral college vote confirming Trump’s 2016 victory.

On January 5, 2017, Obama met in the Oval Office with top law enforcement officials, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI director James Comey, as well as Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice to discuss the FBI’s Russia investigation.

According to Rice’s notes: “President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”

Her memo continues: “From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

When Rice’s memo was first released to the public midway through Trump’s term, Republican officials wanted to know why she emailed it to herself in the Obama administration’s final hours, just before Trump’s inauguration. GOP investigators and Trump supporters speculated that she was covering for Obama, and herself, should anyone come asking questions about the White House’s role in the unlawful surveillance of the Trump circle.

Obama knew that the Bureau’s investigation was phony from the outset. CIA director John Brennan had told him days before the FBI opened its Trump probe that the story tying the Republican candidate to Russia was a Hillary Clinton campaign ploy to vilify her opponent.

And that’s the crux of the issue: Rice’s January 5 memo documented how after the election the outgoing president credentialed a dirty trick with White House authority and took control of it. Obama wasn’t trying to cover up his role. He wanted his national ssecurity advisor to get it on the record that he’d turned Russiagate into an instrument to undermine his successor.

The next day, Brennan did the same on Obama’s behalf, validating Russiagate with the outgoing president’s official imprimatur. On January 6, the CIA-led intelligence assessment that Obama ordered was released, claiming that Vladimir Putin helped Trump win the election. More than six years after Obama poisoned the public sphere with a conspiracy theory designed to divide the country, America is steadily descending into madness.

With the Post piece last week, Obama used the bureaucracy's hometown paper to announce to the Democratic Party's elite base that he’s still in charge of the anti-Trump plot — he’s got this, he’s leading from behind, just where he said he wanted to be for his third term. And his people are in place to enact his will: Attorney General Merrick Garland, the far-left enforcer Obama wanted on the Supreme Court; Special Counsel Jack Smith, married to the producer of the Michelle Obama documentary; and the Obama-appointed judge hearing the Jan 6-related case, Tanya Chutkan.

Obama needs his people to know that he’s running the show, like that day at the White House when he made sure the cameras were rolling when he ignored Biden, the presidential avatar. It’s in Obama’s nature. The man who left evidence out in the open to take credit for interfering in an election and pushing America to the edge of the abyss by accusing his successor of treason can’t help it. He’s proud of what he did. In destabilizing America, Obama arranged for the country he was twice elected to lead to mirror his own broken psyche. He’s pathological.

Last week Tablet magazine published an important David Samuels interview with historian David Garrow. His biography of Obama, Rising Star, was mostly ignored when it was published in 2017 and it’s not hard to see why — Obama supporters don’t want to hear criticism of Obama, especially when it's coming from the left. Garrow, whose biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. won the Pulitzer Prize, says Obama’s presidency was a failure and believes history’s assessment will be even harsher.

It's a great piece, with an excellent introductory essay by Samuels, a Tablet colleague and friend. He’s done more than anyone to detail the narcissism and mendacity at the heart of ObamaWorld, most notably with his May 2016 piece on Obama’s propaganda minister Ben Rhodes and the “echo chamber” built to market the Iran nuclear deal. Obama’s communications infrastructure would later become the media platform for Russiagate and is now a crucial pillar of the regime’s intelligence apparatus, detailed to censor, propagandize, and surveil Americans.

The comms architecture has been in place for decades, but it was Obama who fully activated it as a weapon to be used against political opponents, seemingly at least one half of America. In the run-up to the Iran deal, he spied on Americans opposed to it, US legislators and pro-Israel activists. After the 2016 election, dozens of Obama aides, including Biden, unmasked the identities of Trump transition officials caught on intelligence intercepts to spy on them. During his tour to promote the “disinformation” industry this spring, Obama claimed leadership of the whole-of-society effort to censor Americans. “He’s not normal,” Garrow told Samuels. “As in, not a normal politician, or a normal human being.”

Evidence of that has always been out in the open but the precedent for ignoring the obvious was set during the 2008 campaign when his opponent John McCain declined to run an ad about the preacher whose church Obama attended for decades. McCain it seems feared that calling out Jeremiah Wright as a racist, and by extension Obama, would make him look racist.

Subsequently, what motivated Obama’s abnormal ideas appeared to be shrouded in mystery. Why would he make it a priority to legalize the nuclear weapons program of a terror state that embodies antisemitism? Why did he use the intelligence services to spy on opponents? Why does he want to censor them now?

Why was he so determined to destroy Michael Flynn? Even as he warned Trump not to hire Flynn, he made the retired three-star general a special focus of attention in the January 5 meeting. According to Rice’s memo, “President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the [National Security Council] should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn.” In May 2020, Obama leaked a phone call in which he complained that because the DOJ dropped charges against Flynn the “rule of law was at risk” — in fact it was Obama himself who'd undermined the rule of law to satisfy a vendetta against Flynn .

Obama uses language like this all the time, twisting the normal meaning out of words to make them mean the opposite. His much-praised oratory is pop-culture messianism overlaying the systematic inversion of logic. He said the Iran deal was to stop the terror state from getting the bomb when the purpose was to protect its nuclear program under the umbrella of an international agreement. He says protecting democracy means censoring his opponents. He told the FBI director to continue his unlawful investigation of the incoming president “by the book.”

We ignored the evidence that Obama was not normal, evidence he made public, because it meant facing a reality unfamiliar to Americans, though known to anyone subjected to the chaos and violence that are the dark flowers of pathological regimes. It was easier to source what was happening in America to the Deep State, a sprawling assemblage of faceless bureaucrats who move as one to protect its institutional privileges and preferences. It’s a thesis that best suits cyber-futurists — actually, political power is a function of the collective authority of networks to displace hierarchy, etc — because the fact is that someone still has to flip the switch. If the administrative state has a century-long history dating back to the Woodrow Wilson-era birth of the expert class, it’s worth noting that its violent insurgency began only after Obama moved into the White House.

It wasn’t Susan Rice or John Brennan or James Comey who made the ultimate decision to turn US intelligence services on the Trump campaign and gave the order to target the incoming president. And it wasn’t the Deep State that leaked to the press that it’s determined to finish what it started January 5, 2017. It’s time we turned to face our problem.





Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals