Barack Obama

Obama’s Corrupt FBI Nailed in Campaign Cover-Up Worse than Watergate

Photo credit: Ververidis Vasilis / Shutterstock, Inc.

Think about this: If a Republican president named Barack Obama had ordered his FBI to send spies into the campaign of a Democrat candidate for President named Donald Trump, the media today would be erupting in proclamations that this is worse than Watergate…

And they’d be right. But, the fact is, this “worse than Watergate” point is right with the situation exactly as it exists, too. That it was a Democrat president who spied on the campaign of a Republican is an outrageous abuse of presidential powers. But, naturally, the media is silent since it was a Democrat who caused this crime.

In fact, not only is the media falling all over itself to avoid equating this crime to Watergate, the media have completely excised Barack Obama’s name from this story. Indeed, according to the Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman, Obama had to know that his FBI and intelligence agencies were spying on Trump’s campaign.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Woke Progressives are a Tiny Minority 

Yet, the media has decided that its hero, Barack Obama, is guilt free because… well, not because he’s innocent of anything, but merely because the media doesn’t want him to be brought to justice. Again, it is quite unlike how the media would be reacting if Obama was a Republican and had taken these illegal actions.

So, why did the corrupt U.S. intelligence and policing establishment think they could get away with all this? The truth is, the liberal intelligencia all assumed that Hillary Clinton could not possibly lose the 2016 election against Donald Trump and the Clintons were just one of the many liberals who were behind this law-breaking action.

The text messages exchanged between rogue FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page proved that a cabal was in the works when they talked of the “insurance policy” to prevent Donald Trump’s election.

This cabal of corrupt Obama officials also expected that their perfidy would just be swept under the rug once Hilary won and no one would be the wiser for their actions because nothing they did would ever see the light of day. After all, a Hillary Clinton regime would never work to expose their illicit work and the compliant media would certainly not be interested in exposing their crimes. They wouldn’t want to help make Hillary and Obama look bad nor would they want to be part of anything that could even lead to their prosecution.

But, then Trump won the election and surprised them all. And with Trump’s win, the Obama/Hillary/FBI cabal began to worry that a Donald Trump administration could start looking into their crimes and the jig could be up. So, to further protect themselves, this cabal of insider crooks launched this fake Robert Mueller investigation into the “Russia collusion” that never happened.

Every single American — no matter their political leanings –should be worried about this act of illegal political espionage perpetrated by people at the highest levels. After all if Obama can get away with it and face no repercussions at all, how many future presidents will try the same gambit? Soon we will have no law at all.

But it wasn’t just Obama, here, either. It was the whole of the upper echelon of our intelligence services that engaged in this deception.

Recently Fox Business Host Maria Bartiromo noted that Obama‘s entire administration — his Justice Department, FBI, IRS and his CIA — “were all involved in trying to take down Donald Trump.”

Per Mediaite:

Fox News chief judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano was on Bartiromo’s Fox Business show to discuss reports that the FBI had an informant speak to members of the Trump campaign in 2016 as part of an investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election.

Napolitano said that “we may be on precipice of exposing a very, very extraordinary political use of intelligence and law enforcement by the Obama Administration,” but hedged by noting there is a low threshold for what warrants an investigation.

“But this is very different Judge, this is a major presidential election,” Bartiromo replied. “President Obama, basically, what it appears to me, politicizing all of his agencies. The DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, the CIA — they were all involved in trying to take down Donald Trump.”

The media are no prize in this business, either. Indeed, as DC Whispers noted, one of the New York Times’ Democrat stenos posing as a journalist who recently claimed that the FBI was actually trying to help Trump by spying on him, also has a rather cozy relationship with Robert Mueller.

And we expect these people to be honest with their “reporting”? Sure we do.

That last whopper by the Times’ Asha Rangappa is quite the trick of prestidigitation, too. She was able to turn the FBI’s illegal spying on a political opponent into something done for his own good. That takes some kind of mental pretzel work, for sure.

In any case, the whole situation is likely coming to a head. It has gotten so bad that no less a man than former Bush U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has finally been forced publish an op-ed saying that Mueller’s investigation needs to be canceled.

Mukasey pointed out in his May 20 editorial that Mueller’s investigation broke the law before it even got under way.

“The regulations require that such an appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime,” Mukasey wrote. “However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.”

The former AG continued:

Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to publicly disclose a complete copy of it. In other investigations supposedly implicating a president — Watergate and Whitewater come to mind — we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not here.

Nor have any of the charges filed in the Mueller investigation disclosed the Trump campaign’s criminal acceptance or solicitation of help from the Russians. The one indictment that relates to Russian criminality charges that the Russians committed social media abuses, but says specifically that if the Trump campaign got the benefit of it, that was “unwitting” — i.e., without criminal intent.

Since then, although the White House has produced documents in the tens of thousands, the investigation has gotten further from anything suggesting Trump campaign criminality involving Russian influence, not closer. Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, however fascinating, have nothing to do with Russian campaign influence.

This investigation needs to end, Mukasey said. Because, “the law requires that a special counsel investigate a specified crime based on specified facts, not try to be the second coming of the Lone Ranger.”

But further, the ongoing investigation saps the resources and attention of the Trump administration. If the administration cannot function, the burden of this constantly shifting investigation will give rise to a narrative that any failure was due to the Mueller diversion — that the Trump administration was stabbed in the back. That is potentially more damaging to our politics than any salaciousness that might be tossed up by Robert Mueller.

“For both legal and political reasons, the end of this investigation is overdue,” Mukasey noted.

And he’s exactly right.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.