Did Obama Commit an Attempted Coup d’État?
On Thursday morning, I opened K’s copy of the NYT to see how the Gray Lady was coping with all the bad-for-Democrats news that has exploded since Trump and his team decided to stonewall the press about the Epstein files.
The biggest story, as far as I’m concerned, was Tulsi Gabbard’s report in which she said the recently declassified FBI and Justice Department files presented clear evidence that President Obama was the mastermind behind the Russian Collusion hoax.
According to documents she read to the press, just before the 2016 election, Obama’s intelligence community and Justice Department officials, who had been investigating the veracity of the Steele dossier, called a meeting with him to present their findings: that Trump was not a Russian asset, that he was not colluding with the Russians, and that, although there was plenty of evidence that Russia was “meddling” with the elections, it was not to favor Trump. Its purpose was the same as it has been for decades: to sow doubts and discontent among American voters about the integrity of American democracy.
Gabbard also presented evidence for what had already been evident in bits and pieces for years: that the Steele dossier, which was fabricated by an actual Russian agent, was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton reelection foundation with the express purpose of damaging Trump’s credibility and his effectiveness as president after he surprised everyone (including the Russians) by winning.
Multiple FBI officials, including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, worked assiduously and secretly to craft this story, even though they knew there was no credible evidence to support it. And they continued to promote this falsehood even after the Mueller report confirmed that there was no evidence that Trump had anything to do with the Russians.
At this point, the response from the mainstream media has been to characterize it as “no news” or “old news.” But as far as the American populace is concerned, there is nothing old or inconsequential about it. In fact, if the establishment press and all those implicated in Gabbard’s report cannot kill this story, it means that, in theory, Obama could be charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 US Code § 371, and obstruction of justice under 18 US Code §§ 1512 and 1505.
Both are felonies carrying potential penalties of up to five years or more in federal prison. Moreover, illegal surveillance – such as the illegal wiretapping and FISA abuses documented during this period – could involve violation of rights protected under the Fourth Amendment. And under Title 18, these are serious federal offenses that can lead to criminal charges.
The questions I’m now asking are: Will Gabbard be able to credibly back up her data and her findings in the next several weeks (before America’s short-term attention span wanders off to something else)? And: If the evidence for them becomes overwhelming, will anyone have the courage to try to prove it?
I’ll be watching this story as it develops, checking in with White House briefings, reports from Gabbard, and reportage and commentary in independent social media.
Just the Facts
1. The Origin of the Accusation:
* The narrative that Trump colluded with Russia originated from intelligence assessments and opposition research files, especially the Steele dossier, which was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC.
* The Steele dossier contained unverified and suspicious claims, but it played a pivotal role in launching the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the subsequent Special Counsel probe.
2. The Obama Administration’s Role:
* According to declassified documents and recent investigations, the Obama-era intelligence community, including CIA Director John Brennan and other senior officials, used the Steele dossier and other questionable sources to produce the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).
* The Obama administration’s officials publicly stated that Russia “developed a clear preference” for Trump, aiming to influence the election in his favor. However, far from being based on solid evidence, much of the report relied on poorly sourced or outright discredited information.
* Evidence now suggests that the assessment was heavily politicized, with analysts objecting to the credibility of key sources but being overruled by Brennan and others.
3. The Clinton Campaign’s Involvement:
* The Clinton campaign financed and directed opposition research against Trump, which included the Steele dossier.
* A memo from the FBI Office of General Counsel acknowledged the broader campaign role in funding and supporting efforts to link Trump to Russia.
* The campaign’s strategy was to frame the story that Russia was helping Trump cheat, seeking to undermine his legitimacy even before he took office.
4. The FBI and DOJ’s Decision-Making:
* Official reports reveal that key FBI and intelligence officials knew the Steele dossier was unreliable but chose to use it to justify the FBI’s surveillance efforts, including obtaining FISA warrants on Carter Page.
* The FBI also drafted a surveillance warrant application that relied on the dossier, knowing that much of it was unverified or dubious – yet they pushed forward, perhaps to justify the investigation.
5. The Political and Media Push:
* The investigation was promoted heavily by Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, and media outlets as proof of collusion.
* The bombshell came through the Mueller investigation, which ultimately found no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia – yet the entire narrative had long since done its damage in the public mind.
6. The Post-Mueller Revelations:
* Recent declassified documents and reports from House investigators have shown the assessment was based on demonstrably false or unsupported evidence.
* For example, the so-called “Russian preference for Trump” conclusion was built on weak sources, including a vague fragment, uncorroborated emails, and unreliable foreign reports.
* Top officials, including Brennan and Comey, knew the evidence was flimsy or false but still promoted the narrative because it served their political goals of undermining Trump.
7. The Evidence of Collusion (or Lack Thereof):
* Mueller’s final report in 2019 concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but the effort itself – driven by false evidence – had already poisoned the political environment.
* The findings indicated that FBI and DOJ officials exploited the Russia investigation for political advantage, with most of the “evidence” carefully curated and manipulated.
Further Reading
The claim that Putin “aspired” to help Trump was based on four pieces of evidence.
Well, no, says Matt Taibbi, writing in Racket News.
If you are a Washington Post reader, you may have read the response to Tulsi Gabbard’s accusations of John Brennan, James Comey, and the rest of the principles who lead the Russian Collusion hoax by their “fact-checking expert” Glenn Kessler:
“Why did the intelligence community become more convinced that Putin directed the effort to swing the election to Trump, instead of just seeking to inject turmoil in the US elections? As the news reports misquoted by Gabbard show – and as subsequent investigations confirmed – additional, credible intelligence showed that Putin decided to back Trump over Clinton. That’s not a conspiracy but a natural evolution from careful investigative work.”
“Careful, investigative work”! Here’s what Taibbi, who probably knows more about this story than anyone right now, had so say about that.
And this came in just this morning: Charlie Kirk questioning Gabbard in detail about statements already being made by the mainstream media to discount her announcement.
Another Campaign Promise Delivered?
The News: The federal government will now subsidize private-school tuition, via unusually generous tax credits for donations to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations, known as SGOs. But governors will decide whether SGOs in their state are eligible to receive federally subsidized donations.
The Views: This should be a big win for school-choice proponents and the parents of kids living in “underserved” communities – i.e., Black and Hispanic kids living in mostly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. But there’s a snag: State governors get to decide whether their state’s SGOs can access this federal manna.
What It Means: Most or perhaps all Republican governors will say yes to these dollars. But Democratic governors will be under pressure from teachers’ unions and school boards that know that, given the choice, many Black and Hispanic voters will say “yes” to this chance to send their kids to Charter schools and other non-public schools, which will mean fewer dollars to pay their bloated salaries.
Just the Facts
* Overall, the US tax expenditure on education is among the highest in the world at $16,000 per student annually. In comparison, Canada, Germany, the UK, and the Scandinavian countries spend between $10,000 to $13,000 per student annually.
* As for education, the US ranks between 15th and 20th in reading, science, and math, behind the countries mentioned above as well as Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Australia, Singapore, and Australia.
* But when it comes to Black students, they consistently score lower on standardized math assessments than white and Asian students. For example, in 8th grade, only 13% of Black students were proficient in math, compared to 45% of white students and 52% of Asian students.
* Similar disparities exist in reading, with Black students showing lower proficiency levels than white and Asian students. In one study, 23% of Black students demonstrated proficiency in reading, compared to 82% of white students.
Putting more money into public schools hasn’t worked. Taxpayer funding for US public elementary and secondary schools rose from $14,453 in 2019 to $16,280 in 2020.
Trump’s African Peace Deal Advances
The News: The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda-backed rebel group M23 signed a declaration of principles in Qatar July 19, bringing the two antagonists one step closer to a permanent ceasefire agreement, intended to end one of Africa’s longest conflicts.
A Bit of History: After the Rwandan genocide of 1994, which resulted in the slaughter of 2 million people, about 2 million Hutus crossed into the DRC – and so the fighting continued, adding an additional 6 million deaths.
My View: Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for this. Thirty years of bloodshed, 8 million deaths and 7 million displacements were basically ignored by every Western Democracy (and their media). Then Trump intervened earlier this year, secured a ceasefire, and we are now on the threshold of a peace agreement. (I’d like to know how he did it. By threatening tariffs?)
