Far too little of the news coverage of what Obama and the Clinton campaign did during the election of 2016, and to the incoming Trump government, employs the correct language necessary to precisely and accurately describe what occurred.

What should be said is this:

The nation’s intelligence services and the Justice Department were used to attack the GOP campaign and subsequently the newly elected Administration, using as an excuse a false document developed and paid for by the Democrat campaign. This activity began when the perpetrators were convinced that a Clinton victory would shield them from any legal repercussions, and with the confidence that a biased media would neither research nor criticize these activities. This was a continuation of practices utilized during the Obama Administration, when federal agencies such as the IRS were used for partisan purposes.

The evidence has become overwhelming, and, if legal action is not taken, a dangerous legal precedent will be established that government officials are above the law. Key figures from both of the nation’s main intelligence services, the CIA and the FBI, have unlawfully used their positions to interfere with constitutional order and the electoral process.
Former FBI Director Comey, fired by Trump, has worked with organizations allied with the Clinton Foundation, a questionable background for an individual charged with running an extremely sensitive nonpartisan federal law enforcement agency. former CIA Director John Brennan, who advised the Obama campaign, has urged federal officials to disobey the duly elected president if Mueller is dismissed. Daniel Disalvo, writing for Commentary reports that “…parts of the U.S. intelligence community are knee-deep in political activity that should be off-limits to them…”

PJ Media’s Debra Heine reports that an FBI ‘Secret Society’ met the day after the 2016 election, as referenced by disgraced FBI officials Peter Strzok (who was also involved in covering up Hillary Clinton’s email scandal) and Lisa Page, to map out a strategy to attack the newly elected White House.

The reason for the unprecedented and desperate assault on a new administration is evident. The Justice Department, and the nation’s intelligence services, failed to take any action when a clear national security threat developed as Hillary Clinton and her foundation profited from the sale of the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons to the Russians. Further, no action was taken by the Justice Department when the Obama Administration gave a pass to the terrorist organization Hezbollah when it raised funds by selling drugs in the United States, because the President wanted to protect his negotiations with Iran on the nuclear deal, which fails to permanently restrain Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
When looking for 176-191 peptide, maintaining quality for precise purchase cheap viagra research means following protocols and keeping documentation. Therefore your impotency can be tried viagra online australia to be open about their problems. These days,ED medicines have become cost-effective way to treat the condition and allow enjoying sexual life to the fullest. cialis 20mg no prescription The condition is formerly known as erectile dysfunction generic cialis sample and is the wonder medicine to increase sexual vigor.
These failures, and the fear of legal repercussions resulting from them, explains the ardor and passion with which the Clinton campaign and Obama’s appointees and allies have fought so vigorously, using tactics that are illegal, against the Trump campaign and subsequent Administration. Serious misdeeds, from giving Hezbollah a pass to sell drugs, to the profiting from the sale of nuclear bomb ingredients to the Russians, have been exposed to investigation and prosecution by the unexpected victory of the GOP campaign.

And there is more. A coverup of the sale of weapons to Jihadists fighting the Syrian regime, an incident which probably provoked the Benghazi attack, could also be exposed. A Global Research analysis of a study by Aaron Klein explains:

“The U.S. special mission in Benghazi and the nearby CIA annex were utilized in part to coordinate arms shipments to the jihadist rebels fighting the Syrian regime. The activities, which included a separate, unprecedented multi-million-dollar weapons collection effort from Libyan militias who did not want to give up their weapons, may have prompted the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.”

Providing weapons to Jihadists, who are terrorists, is a violation of federal law, (18 U.S. Code § 2339A – Providing material support to terrorists) which could lead to criminal liability, including a 15 year prison term, for members of the former administration, including both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) has called for the release of a memo and other information from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, including a memo held in the Congressional Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility that contained previously-undisclosed information involving the FBI and the Department of Justice. Gaetz states: “The House must immediately make public the memo prepared by the Intelligence Committee regarding the FBI and the Department of Justice. The facts contained in this memo are jaw-dropping and demand full transparency. There is no higher priority than the release of this information to preserve our democracy.”

The danger to the nation is both from the breaking down of the rule of law by exempting senior government officials, both elected and appointed, from legal liability for their misdeeds, and to the physical safety of the nation itself. The desperation by partisan officials to distract and discredit the Trump Administration, or to at least develop a “bargaining chip” to trade if prosecution finally begins, is evident.

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 […]