“The Obama administration and the FBI knew that it was they who were meddling in a presidential campaign — using executive intelligence powers to monitor the president’s political opposition. This, they also knew, would rightly be regarded as a scandalous abuse of power if it ever became public. There was no rational or good-faith evidentiary basis to believe that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin or that he’d had any role in Russian intelligence’s suspected hacking of Democratic Party email accounts…To believe Trump was unfit for the presidency on temperamental or policy grounds was a perfectly reasonable position for Obama officials to take — though an irrelevant one, since it’s up to the voters to decide who is suitable. But to claim to suspect that Trump was in a cyberespionage conspiracy with the Kremlin was inane . . . except as a subterfuge to conduct political spying, which Obama officials well knew was an abuse of power. So they concealed it.”
Former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy in the National Review
McCarthy isn’t just giving an opinion here; he’s analyzing evidence as the skilled prosecutor he is. As McCarthy explains, he’s basing his conclusion on recently unclassified documents, and they are incriminating.
McCarthy concludes, after excellent background,
But this much we know: In the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, President Obama authorized his administration’s investigative agencies to monitor his party’s opponent in the presidential election, on the pretext that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Russia. Realizing this was a gravely serious allegation for which there was laughably insufficient predication, administration officials kept Trump’s name off the investigative files. That way, they could deny that they were doing what they did. Then they did it . . . and denied it.
The information McCarthy relies upon and its clear implications create integrity tests, or will very soon, for many individuals and institutions. Prime among them is the news media. It was a an accessory to this scandal, beyond any doubt, but at some point journalists will have to make a choice, and it is inevitable that some will break ranks.
Pundits like the reliably corrupt Dana Milbank (of the Post), Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow can be relied upon to spin and obfiscate rather than admit that the hated Orange Man was the victim of a conspiracy to cripple, if not end, his Presidency in defiance of the will of the voters. Those three, and many more, will breach all professional standards and sense of fairness and decency to protect Barack Obama, particularly when black skin is a a shield against criticism and accountability. But again, we should pay attention to who breaks ranks. There is an opportunity there for a writer who wants to earn the public’s trust.
Congressional Democrats can be expected to close ranks; they have no integrity. I will be shocked if any of them dare to emulate Joe Lieberman, who at least had the principles to state the obvious about Bill Clinton’s lies about Monica under oath and his workplace misconduct with an intern: “It was wrong.” Think about it: no current Democrat will be willing to issue that verdict on efforts by a sitting President to sabotage a candidate for the office, and then an elected President. They will not be able to do it.
McCarthy also points a finger of blame at Republican leaders, whose loyalty to Trump was so thin, and whose dislike of him was so great, that they made no effort to resist what increasingly appears to be a Democratic conspiracy. “On cue, Washington Republicans genuflected, lest they be portrayed as covering up for Trump, or as soft on Putin,” writes McCarthy. Will the GOP pursue justice and accountability as it should?
Of course, this presents yet another integrity test for Ethics Alarms exiles from the left of the political spectrum. This blog recognized what was going on in general , if not all its specifics: hence the stuffed 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, still crazy after all these years. I knew the FBI and the deep state ein the Justice Department were part of the plot, as well as the Clinton campaign. I did not suspect that Barack Obama himself was involved until recently—Biden too, of course. That was my confirmation bias: much as I believe Obama was a destructive and wrongfully admired POTUS, I do not want to think holders of the highest office in the land actively work to pervert democracy.
Finally, this is one more opportunity for your Facebook friends and others among the Deranged to admit that Trump’s presidency has been under unconstitutional attack. I don’t have much hope for them, either. For all the abuse Trump has taken for joking that his supporters would vote for him if he shot someone in Times Square, the “resistance” stalwarts will support Biden and Obama even with evidence that they engaged in Watergate-level abuse of power.
That, in my opinion, is worse than shooting someone in Times Square, After all, the latter only kills one citizen. What Nixon, Obama and Biden did can kill a nation.
3 thoughts on “Ethics Quote Of The Month: Andrew McCarthy, And The Integrity Test It Presents”
There is more evidence of Obama’s personal involvement in this plot than Trump being personally involved in federal agents in camo kidnapping protesters and taking away in unmarked vans.
Finally, this is one more opportunity for your Facebook friends and others among the Deranged to admit that Trump’s presidency has been under unconstitutional attack. I don’t have much hope for them, either.
I’ve arrived at the point where I have none. As mentioned yesterday, I rarely post anything political anymore, and at the rare times I do challenge something particularly egregious the responses are thoroughly predictable: whataboutism, “Fox News talking points,” “gaslighting” and a whole bunch of other progressive cliches.
Even when the Durham investigation produces indictments – and I can’t see how it won’t – it won’t matter; that’s why the Dems and the MSM have spent so much time demonizing Bill Barr.
As for the rank and file, folks are so consumed by hatred, and so far beyond any ability to to see things objectively, that it would take the combined efforts of the Washington Post, the New York Times, MSNBC and CNN to jointly stand together and collectively say “we were wrong, we misled you, and we’re sorry.” But you know that won’t happen. All of them have been happily profiting from the hatred they’ve ginned up, and they’re unlikely to give that up.
I doubt they’ll even feel a scintilla of shame for the decision.
“Finally, this is one more opportunity for your Facebook friends and others among the Deranged to admit that Trump’s presidency has been under unconstitutional attack.”
Good luck with that one, Jack. No way, no how. At best, they will simply stop talking about the previous attacks launched against Trump (except racism) and focus on all the new ones that have risen (Trump’s inept response to the Wuhan virus, Trump wants to delayed the election, Trump’s anti-universal mail-in vote equals more deaths, equals voter suppression … equals racism.
Conformational Bias is the rule of the land. The currency with which information I traded. If you can find ANY media source that confirms your belief (on the left, Orange-Man bad; they are a-dime-a-dozen, two-for-one on Sundays), you accept it as gospel. A significant difference between this election period and others in the past 50-years is how blatantly locked step the mainstream media is with their anti-Trump bias. The Democratic Party does not even have to campaign! The media, purposely, does it for them.
McCarty is 100% correct, but if a tree falls ….