We are experiencing the most critical period in American history since 1945, and perhaps even the War Between the States. The crisis is a triple one: of public health, the economy, and the Constitution. The last of the three is also the greatest. The country has recently learned that the highest levels of state, including the presidency, have been corrupted by criminals and even traitors.
The recently completed Democratic primaries have been exploited by journalists and politicians to represent Barack Obama’s administration as having been a politically moderate one, not only by comparison with what a Democratic successor is likely bring on but in terms of Aristotelian balance and restraint. Republicans and conservatives who feared the worst when Obama was first elected in 2008—and said so—have been condescended to ever since as reactionary alarmists. Just look what he might have done, as the agenda of the new progressive Democratic candidates suggest—but didn’t do! The Republican Party on the other hand, by nominating and electing Donald Trump as President, thus radicalizing members of the opposition party (Obama’s Vice-President included), have only themselves to blame for the present enflamed political situation. The most recent disclosures made last week by the Department of Justice concerning l’affaire Flynn should dispel forever the myth of Barack Obama’s “moderation,” and that of his presidential inner circle. Andrew McCarthy, adding this new evidence to what was already known about the case, has done a brilliant job of piecing the full story into a coherent and convincing narrative that appears to explain the facts as we have them so far. First published as an article in National Review, it has subsequently been posted on the internet.
As McCarthy says, the “what” of the matter has long been known: The FBI trapped General Flynn into making misstatements about his wholly conventional conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak regarding American economic sanctions that it could plausibly present as lies that would support a perjury charge and even perhaps prosecution, accomplishing in this way his removal as the new President’s National Security Advisor. The “why,” however, has never been satisfactorily explained. It is now.
The Agency’s objective was decided in collaboration with officials of Obama’s administration in its last days in office. These included the President himself, Vice-President Biden—currently preparing to run for president himself against President Trump!—Susan Rice, Flynn’s predecessor in his job, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and James Comey, then Director of the FBI. The four met at the White House on January 5, 2017 to lay their plans. Later Rice drafted a memo summarizing the meeting. “President Obama said,” she wrote in part, “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.” She composed the memo, McCarthy notes, on the 20th of the month, as the FBI was preparing to get Flynn ousted from his job. The purpose of this collaborative effort was to ensure that the agency’s investigation of President Trump’s relations with the Russians would continue after the inauguration; fatally impeding the new Administration’s efforts to govern–and to reverse its predecessor’s policies especially–while continuing to ferret out the impeachable offenses it was confident of finding. By ridding the White House of Flynn, the conspirators supposed, they would be depriving it of its sole politically experienced hand, one whom they expected would prove loyal to the Chief Executive, not the FBI and the Deep State. Afterward, nothing would be easier than to arrange for a successor from the Swamp to succeed him.
Traducción del francés
[
Considerado el Padre de la Ciencia Política y del Derecho Constitucional Comparado y precursor de la Ciencia Económica y del Liberalismo.
other belief is permitted; not even under state control.