LeeSmith
Writing
Obama’s Jan 5 Conspiracy
Trump’s Problem, and America’s, Isn’t the Deep State — It’s His Predecessor
August 07, 2023
post photo preview
Barack Obama: Proud of destabilizing America to mirror his broken psyche

 

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.

 

 

 

 

community logo
Join the LeeSmith Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
10
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Joe Kent: The leaked document story just isn’t possible.
00:04:09
Lee Smith asks Joe Kent about the leaked documents.
00:02:51
Joe Kent: The big Takeaway from the leaked documents is what was in them.
00:03:08
September 11, 2024
Disappearing the President: Trump, Truth Social, and the Fight for the Republic

I wanted to apologize for the spotty posting last few months as I was rushing to finish DISAPPEARING THE PRESIDENT. It's coming out October 15, but you can pre-order if you like. I look forward to discussing it with you in posts and live streams tackling specific issues the book covers and also the bigger topics, like who's behind the ongoing anti-Trump plot. In the meantime, thanks to all for your great support. Yours, Lee

https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/disappearing-the-president/https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/disappearing-the-president/

How to Handle Arab Hostage-Takers

Here's a really terrific piece from Lafayette Lee's corner about how our founding fathers dealt with Middle East terrorists — yes, the problem goes back that far. Jefferson came up with the solution, one that the current administration has all but buried, preferring to treat with America's enemies. Enjoy!

https://www.lafayettelee.com/p/dispatch-the-marquis-de-lafayette

POLL: Will Joe Biden Be Replaced?

In July, I asked whether you thought incumbent Joe Biden would be replaced as the Democratic Party's 2024 Presidential candidate. Two-thirds of the respondents answered that he would be replaced. Nearly a year later and with more information — and more evidence that Biden is faltering physically and mentally — what do you think? If you read my recent article here, "Will Biden Be Replaced," you can probably guess what I think. Feel free to elaborate on how you came to your conclusion in the comments!

post photo preview
The Madame Tussauds Presidency
It Doesn't Matter to Dem Voters Biden Isn't All There — So Long As Barack Is

 

If you believe the media build-up, Joe Biden’s political future, and the country’s fate, depends on the President’s interview with George Stephanopoulos tonight. Historic times, right? America’s very survival hinges on whether the Democratic Party’s candidate can pass his big test — which will be administered by the Party’s most famous fixer. Remember that it was Stephanopoulos who did a documentary on Christopher Steele to whitewash the Hillary Clinton operative years after the Trump-Russia narrative he was paid to sell was exposed as a hoax. So, sitting with Stephanopoulos isn’t exactly running the gauntlet. What’s really at stake if Biden doesn’t ace the interview is less the President’s political future than the interviewer’s. Stephanopoulos is toast if he can’t do the one thing he’s paid to do — service Party interests.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Dancing with Dr. Ruth
In Memoriam, 1928-2024

 

I was saddened to hear the news today that Dr. Ruth Westheimer has passed away at the age of 96. I danced with her once.

In the mid-1990s, I edited the Voice Literary Supplement, the monthly literary review of the Village Voice, America’s first alternative weekly newspaper. We hosted regular events in New York to publicize our contributors, which often turned into contentious, albeit rewarding affairs, like the night my friend Joe Wood argued with Stanley Crouch about the legacy of the great Albert Murray. Crouch had famously beat up another Voice writer, Harry Allen, to conclude their debate about music, but that night Joe and Stanley simply moved to the bar to continue their argument.

The VLS’ publisher wanted to have a party in Chicago to coincide with the American Book Association’s annual book fair. So, we arranged to co-host it with Verso Books, a leftwing publisher then headed up by Colin Robinson, a Brit with a gravelly baritone voice made for BBC radio theatre. The other co-host was The Baffler, a great small magazine based in Chicago and hooked into the city’s lively indy scene so they arranged for the music.

I tried to get David Foster Wallace to come. He was in the area staying at his parents’ home in Illinois. I think it was the year Infinite Jest came out and he’d done lots of publicity, so he opted out. But I’d gotten him to agree to review Joseph Frank’s biography of Dostoevsky. He grumbled when he realized it was a five-volume work, but David’s essay is great — it’s here.  

I guess Dr. Ruth had a new book out that year. Her bibliography shows that the ‘90s were perhaps her most prolific decade. She was so famous that Saturday Night Live impersonated her. Dr. Ruth was everywhere — radio, TV, movies. She was also at our party.

I can’t remember who invited her but there she was, the world’s most famous sex counselor standing on the sidelines like a high-school girl at her first dance. She smiled at me. Maybe it was just because I was the host. The music was very loud, so I leaned in closely and then led her to the dance floor. It was only for one song, but she was smiling the whole time, and so was I.

It was only later that I learned about her life. She grew up in an orthodox Jewish family in Frankfurt and at the age of ten her mother sent her to Switzerland to keep her safe. The Gestapo had already taken her father away to Dachau. He was murdered at Auschwitz. Her mother and all her relatives were murdered in the Holocaust. After the war, she moved to pre-state Israel, trained as a sniper with the Haganah, and was wounded during Israel’s war of independence. At the age of 90, she showed she could still reassemble a gun with her eyes closed. She studied in Paris and New York, where she worked as a maid to put herself through school. She spoke German, Hebrew, French, and English. She was married three times and leaves behind her two children. She was a serious woman who knew how to laugh at herself. She made a career out of encouraging people to enjoy their physical intimacy with others. She had an unforgettable smile.

May her memory be a blessing.

 

 

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
How Trump V US Helps Jeffrey Clark
Former DOJ Official Optimistic and Grateful

 

Monday’s 6-3 Supreme Court decision, Trump v US, acknowledging the President of the United States enjoys absolute immunity while conducting official affairs came as good news not only for Donald Trump but also aides who served in his administration, including Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey Clark.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2021 election, progressive legal activist and longtime Barack Obama ally Norm Eisen teamed up with federal law enforcement authorities, the media, and Senate Democrats to zero in on the Trump appointee. A January 2021 New York Times article laid the groundwork for the attack by categorizing Clark’s efforts to give the President he served legal counsel to challenge 2020 vote results as a Justice Department coup.

In October 2021, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin called for the Washington, DC Bar to investigate Clark. This April, a disciplinary hearing committee judged (albeit on a preliminary, non-binding basis) that Clark violated a rule of legal ethics, without specifying which one, for drafting an unsent letter to Georgia officials regarding the election. The Bar’s Disciplinary Counsel said Clark should be disbarred.

In August 2023, Clark was also one of 19 people, including Trump, charged by Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis for interfering in the 2020 election. That case has been stalled and no date has yet been set for the trial. One of the motions pending before the judge was filed by Trump’s attorney arguing that the case be dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity.

I spoke with Clark’s lawyer, Harry MacDougald, who explained how the Supreme Court decision should help both his client’s cases.

“The Court’s ruling extended absolute immunity to ‘core constitutional powers,’” says MacDougald. “This was specifically applied to Trump’s discussions with Department of Justice officials about investigating the election, potentially replacing the Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen with Jeff Clark, and potentially sending a letter to state officials from DOJ. Such actions are not reviewable in any other forum and cannot be restricted by Congress or the Courts.”

Those are the very activities for which Clark is charged in both the Georgia indictment and the DC Bar case. “Clark was a participant in the activities that are within the scope of the absolutely immune core constitutional powers,” says MacDougald. “If Trump is immune, Clark is immune.”

In addition, says Clark’s lawyer, “the Court held that there was a category of official conduct that was not absolutely immune, but ‘presumptively’ immune. But to prove a crime for conduct in the ‘presumptively’ immune category, no evidence can be introduced that would intrude on the President’s core constitutional powers.”

The Supreme Court, says MacDougald, “was keen to protect the exercise of core constitutional powers from intrusion, lest the President be deterred in the vigorous discharge of his duties. To prevent such intrusion, the Court prohibited the use of any evidence relating to the exercise of these core constitutional powers.”

As the Court explained: “If official conduct for which the President is immune maybe scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the ‘intended effect’ of immunity would be defeated.”

MacDougald adds: “If evidence of Trump-to-DOJ communications cannot be introduced against Trump, they cannot be introduced against Clark.”

From a summary provided by the Court’s Reporter of Opinions:

“[T]he parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such [core immune] conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.”

And, says MacDougald, “all the evidence regarding Clark’s conduct is clearly and obviously within this zone of prohibited evidence. We made a motion in the DC Bar case to exclude all such evidence on the grounds that it intruded on the President’s core constitutional authorities. The motion was, of course, denied. But the decision in Trump v. US confirms that the Constitution prohibits the admissibility of the evidence against Mr. Clark at the Bar hearing.”

All of this relates to Trump v. US and, says MacDougald, “an additional and equally solid constitutional defense is that the Supremacy Clause prohibits inferior governments such as the State of Georgia or the District of Columbia from interfering with or intruding upon the operations of the federal government. The opinion in Trump v. US cements the validity of this argument because it irrevocably establishes that the conduct for which Clark is charged is within the scope of the President’s core constitutional authorities.”

There may not be much movement on either case right away, but MacDougald and his client are optimistic, and grateful. When I spoke with Clark on the phone he told me: “Despite threats of criminal contempt of Congress, disbarment, criminal prosecution in Georgia, the destruction of my career, enormous legal fees and being ostracized by the establishment legal community, I have stood fast on principle to protect the same core constitutional authorities of the Presidency that the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v US.  It has been a long and very difficult ordeal. I am strengthened by the prayers of those who support me and gratified by the vindication by the Supreme Court.

With Trump v US, the Roberts Court has sent a clear message to progressive activists who have weaponized the justice system to target their political opponents. The war may not be over, but this battle has been decisively won by the Constitution. It’s time to let Jeff Clark come home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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