Patriotism vs. Party Loyalty

Illustration: FBI

The American Republic is facing an unprecedented moment that will define how its citizens relate to each other, and to the nation itself. It will reveal whether its people have more loyalty to party than to country, and whether partisanship exceeds patriotism.

After a prolonged, expensive and thorough investigation by professionals antagonistic to Donald Trump, it has become manifestly clear that the entire “Russian Collusion” charge levied against him was utterly and knowingly false. The apparatus of the American judicial and intelligence services was, in essence, kidnapped to overturn the legitimate results of a fair election.

Those with similar affiliation conspired to coverup crimes committed by Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the Administration she was a major part of.

During the Obama Administration, major portions of the federal government were essentially stolen and turned into arms of Trump’s opposition. It is indisputable that IRS official Lois Lerner intentionally and illegally used her agency to harass and abuse White House opponents. It is also evident that then-attorney general Loretta Lynch used the Department of Justice for political purposes, issuing groundless subpoenas for the sole purpose of discouraging disagreement with Barack’s views.

Throughout the eight years of that Administration, there was little difference between the Democratic National Committee and several federal agencies. No punishment resulted. Nor, for political reasons, was there punishment for Hillary Clinton’s blatant abuse of her office for personal financial gain, in a manner that jeopardized the national security of the Unites States. It is difficult to come to terms with a former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State agreeing to sell the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to an enemy nation in return for pecuniary gain—and receiving no punishment for it.

The outrage these acts would expectedly engender has been effectively quelled by a media that has abandoned its journalistic ethics by refusing to adequately cover the crimes of the politicians and bureaucrats they favor.

Too much smoking and in taking alcohol also lowest viagra price find out for more lead to weakness in males. The supermodels tell us that the beauty of the woman you are dating in discount viagra cialis order to value a person’s status. People who are over fifty and smoke should never take cialis sale. Temperature of 25 degrees C is most suitable for this medicine. levitra generic cialis

But the moment of truth may well have arrived. Attorney General William Barr has researched the Russian Collusion hoax and is expected to take action against those who knowingly presented false evidence to the FISA Court, and those who attempted to unlawfully cripple a presidency based upon it.

Attorney General Barr found last year: “ President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. “

A Fox report notes that “The FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team investigating the Trump 2016 campaign received multiple indications that former British spy Christopher Steele — one of their key informants in their investigation — was part of an elaborate ‘Russian disinformation campaign,’ according to several newly declassified footnotes from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on FBI misconduct.”

Despite that, leading members of the House of Representatives intentionally sought to destroy the Trump Administration based on information that House leaders knew to be false.

Elected members of Congress will not constitute Barr’s targets, but members of the intelligence services, and in particular former CIA director John Brennan, some individuals within the FBI, and other bureaucrats probably will.

The salient question is: With the facts now demonstrably clear, will Democratic leaders seek to counteract the vital investigation? Will the leftist media seek to ignore the facts and coverup the lies of those involved, as they did in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack?

The answer to that question will reveal whether those politicians place justice above party interest, and loyalty to country above partisanship.

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]