The RussiaGate Scandal Is Far From Over

By J. Peder Zane for RealClearWire

Special Counsel John Durham may have issued his final report last month, but the Russiagate scandal is far from over. This is not because there is no more to learn about the years-long effort by the Democratic Party, the FBI, CIA, and major news outlets to advance the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump teamed with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election.

Rather it’s because Russiagate never ended. Unlike political scandals of the past – from the XYZ Affair to Watergate and Iran-Contra – it is not a discrete set of events with a beginning, middle, and end. Instead, it has become a form of governing in which the entrenched forces of the Washington bureaucracy punish their enemies, protect their friends and interfere in elections with impunity.

A continuous thread connects the schemes to deny the results of the 2016 election, to cover up the Biden family’s influence-peddling schemes during the 2020 election, and the ongoing effort to tar President Biden’s opponents as extremists or racists.

Ironically, all of this is especially dangerous because it is out in the open. The profound misdeeds are not hidden in the dark web; they are part of the public record. And yet, none of the major malefactors – including Joe Biden, former President Obama, Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James B. Comey, and former CIA Director John Brennan, among others – have been held to account. Rather, they are lionized, and in some cases employed, by leading media organizations.

The breadth of these machinations is so extensive that I would need a book, rather than a column, to detail it. But here is a brief recap that can serve as a reminder of key events of this dark period of our history.

On July 28, 2016, then CIA Director John Brennan informed President Obama about intelligence reports indicating Hillary Clinton’s campaign “plan” to tie Donald Trump to Russia in order to distract the public from the growing controversy over her use of a private email server while Secretary of State. Notes in the margin – “JC,” “Susan,” and “Denis” – almost certainly refer to then FBI Director James Comey, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough.

On July 31, Comey’s FBI launched a counterintelligence probe into whether the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia to damage Clinton through the release of her emails.

On Jan. 3, 2017, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer warned the president-elect not to challenge the intelligence community’s claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election. “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. “So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

On Jan. 5, 2017, in his finals days in office, Obama held an Oval Office meeting with Brennan, Comey, Rice, Vice President Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and others to strategize responses to alleged Russian election interference and Trump’s victory.

On Jan. 6, Comey briefed President-elect Trump about the Steele dossier – a series of absurd and salacious memos paid for and disseminated by the Clinton campaign that sought to tarnish Trump’s character while tying him and his campaign associates to the Kremlin.

On Jan. 10, CNN used a leak it received about Comey’s briefing to broadcast the dossier’s smears, fueling a partisan feeding frenzy that led to the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate Trump/Russia ties. Buzzfeed News published the entire dossier the same day.

On Jan. 28, after assuring Trump privately that he wasn’t under investigation, Comey wrote a memo recounting that he’d boasted to the new president, “I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves.” He then went to his car and typed up his version of the conversations. When Trump fired him on May 9, Comey immediately leaked the memos, in violation of FBI rules, to a sympathetic college professor in hopes, he conceded later, of prompting the appointment of a special prosecutor. On May 17, Robert S. Mueller III, a longtime Comey friend and ally, was appointed special counsel to investigate potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Related: Durham Report on the FBI is So Damning That Chuck Todd is Calling For a Church Committee to Investigate

On April 18, 2018, the New York Times and Washington Post shared the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for their “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign.” This work, much of which was based on leaks from anonymous government sources, was filled with “false and misleading claims” which, my RealClearInvestigations colleague Aaron Maté reported, the newspapers have still refused to correct.

On March 22, 2019, Mueller submitted a report on his investigation which “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Mueller, however, claimed that the source of these falsehoods was beyond his mandate, so he did not look into the role Clinton, Comey, Brennan, Obama, and other high-ranking Democrats played in ginning up charges of treason against a duly elected U.S. president.

On May 13, it was reported that Attorney General William Barr had appointed John Durham to examine the origins of the Russia probe. Barr upgraded Durham to a Special Counsel role on Dec. 1, 2020. Durham’s final report, issued last month, detailed the Clinton campaign’s central role in the Russiagate conspiracy while concluding that “the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election” because it relied on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence.” Durham’s investigation also undermined the other pillar of the Russia hoax, endorsing earlier findings that there was no conclusive evidence that the Russians had hacked DNC servers. Like the Trump/Russia collusion theory, this claim also originated from associates of the Clinton campaign.

On Sept. 24, the Mueller report a bust, House Democrats began proceedings to make Trump just the third president in history to be impeached based on the claim that he sought foreign influence in America’s elections by holding up aid to Ukraine for a short period to pressure the country into looking into its potential connection to the Russiagate hoax and the Biden family’s work in Ukraine. The aid package was later delivered, and no investigation was undertaken. Nevertheless, the House approved two articles of impeachment on December 18, 2019, along party lines – all Republicans and three Democrats opposed the measure – and sent them to the GOP-controlled Senate, which acquitted Trump on Feb. 5, 2020, on another party-line vote (only Republican Mitt Romney crossed party lines to convict Trump on a single charge).

On Oct. 14, 2020, the New York Post reported “that Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.” The article, based on email from a laptop Hunter Biden had abandoned at a Delaware repair shop, suggested an influence-peddling scheme while flatly contradicting Joe Biden’s claim that he never discussed his son’s foreign business dealings.

On Oct. 17, Biden campaign official and future Secretary of State Antony Blinken discusses the laptop with former acting CIA Director Mike Morell.

On Oct. 19, Politico reported that a letter signed by Morell and 51 other former intelligence officials – including Brennan and Clapper – claimed that allegations in the Post article had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Echoing the false Russiagate claims, the letter continued, “For the Russians at this point, with Trump down in the polls, there is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help Trump win and/or to weaken Biden should he win.” Major news outlets and social media companies relied on this letter to downplay and suppress the revelations. The FBI, which had taken possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop in December 2019, refused to comment on its authenticity.

On Oct. 22, Joe Biden invoked the letter in his final debate with Trump to dismiss the laptop as “a Russian plant.” On November 3, Biden became president through razor-thin margins in key swing states.

On March 30, 2022, the Washington Post reported that it had authenticated thousands of emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop. CBS News subsequently verified almost all the contents of the laptop.

Related: Hawley Demands Prosecution of Democrats, Hillary Clinton After Durham Report Reveals FBI Used False Intelligence to Launch Trump-Russia Probe

On May 15, 2023, the New York Post reported that the Internal Revenue Service removed “the entire investigative team” in its years-long tax fraud investigation of Hunter Biden at the behest of President Biden’s Department of Justice. This purge came after several whistleblowers stepped forward claiming the probe was being slow-walked. The move also came after a series of revelations showed how the Biden family used a series of shell companies to funnel millions of dollars from foreign sources to at least nine family members – including Joe Biden’s young grandchildren. As Andrew C. McCarthy recently noted in the National Review, it is still not clear what the Bidens provided in exchange for this money, other than access to Joe.

On June 4, former FBI Director Comey, noting the long string of cases being brought against Trump by Democratic officials, told MSNBC that “it’s a crazy world that Donald Trump has dragged this country into, but he could be wearing an ankle brace while accepting the nomination at the Republican convention.”

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

The post The RussiaGate Scandal Is Far From Over appeared first on The Political Insider.

Don’t Believe the Hype: McCarthy Totally Dodged Questions About Holding Russiagaters Accountable

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy threw conservative media outlets into disarray on Tuesday, with many suggesting Representative Adam Schiff should be removed from Congress.

McCarthy’s comments came in response to a reporter asking what accountability looks like following the release of the Durham Report.

Durham’s report, details of which were released earlier this week, found that the FBI did not have enough “factual evidence” to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion and revealed that they and the Department of Justice “failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law.”

“You have pledged, if the GOP takes the majority in the House, that you would investigate the findings of the Durham investigation. Now that the report has been released, what does accountability look like?” a reporter asked.

McCarthy replied that House Republicans are looking to have Durham testify “so we can look at it more” and made the following comments about Democrat Adam Schiff:

“You remember when he told the American people he had proof? Remember when he told him he didn’t know the whistleblower and what he put America through and openly lied to us? And now it’s proven in this as well,” he continued.

“It raises a lot of questions about his character, his standing inside of Congress, or whether he should even be in Congress.”

RELATED: GOP Sen. Hawley Demands Prosecution of Democrats, Hillary Clinton After Durham Report Reveals FBI Used False Intelligence to Launch Trump-Russia Probe

Will McCarthy Kick Schiff Out of Congress?

Apologies for being a Debbie Downer here, but does anyone in their right mind think Kevin McCarthy has the intestinal fortitude to expel Adam Schiff from Congress? Or that he could whip up the two-thirds necessary to do so?

Even in the above video clip alone, there is some hedging.

Why does anybody have to “look at it more” with Durham’s testimony as McCarthy states, even as the report itself has “proven” Schiff  “openly lied”?

The report has been released to the public. His lies have been on record for years. His leaks have been readily transparent during that time. We’ve all seen it. It is “proven,” as McCarthy states.

Representative Schiff (D-CA) had repeatedly stated for years through friendly media outlets that there was “direct evidence” of collusion.

“I think there is direct evidence in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump,” Schiff said during a CBS interview in March of 2019.

Direct evidence. He knew there was no such thing but he fed it to the media regardless.

Schiff would also claim that he had “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion. He still hasn’t shown that alleged evidence.

Back in 2020, The Political Insider reported on transcripts of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe showing Obama officials testifying time and again that they had no evidence of collusion.

Now, according to Durham, “The FBI had no information in its holding indicating that any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.”

But don’t you worry, the Speaker of the House and his fellow Republicans are going to “look at it more.”

And to show he’s super-serious about holding Schiff accountable, McCarthy has issued a strongly worded … tweet. A tweet showing a letter from the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government inviting Durham to testify next week.

“If you’re concerned about threats to our democracy, you are right to be angry over the coordinated campaign to lie to the American public for years about Russia collusion—peddled at the highest levels of government, from Adam Schiff to the DOJ—to try to influence an election,” McCarthy wrote.

“This is why Republicans created a @Weaponization Committee—to get to the bottom of this abuse of power and bring accountability.”

RELATED: Transcripts Show Obama Officials Admitting Time After Time They Had No Evidence Of Russia Collusion

If You Can Dodge a Wrench, You Can Dodge Accountability

It would appear Kevin McCarthy’s big plan to deal with one of the biggest peddlers of Russian collusion misinformation – misinformation that would dog President Trump for years and undermine the entirety of his administration – is to have Durham testify about his already published report, hold committee hearings, tweet about them, and of course, “look at it more.”

Willing to bet he’ll even send out some fundraising emails. That’ll put Schiff in his place.

In an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo, McCarthy continued to dodge on what accountability looks like.

“Will there be accountability here?” she asked.

“There has to be,” McCarthy replied, but failing to note what form that would take.

“Maria, it’s not just me who knew. You knew it. And you got criticized for speaking the truth. And that’s what’s wrong. Is CNN talking about this? Is the White House talking about this?”

Why would they talk about it? They know Republicans will kick the can down the road with letters and hearings but with ultimately nobody being held accountable for their actions.

“Why is this individual still in Congress?” McCarthy asked, seemingly unaware that he, as Speaker of the House, is obviously the most powerful person in a position to do something about it.

Do you know who might want to look into that? Somebody with the ability to call into action Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution which states “each House may … punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

Prove you mean what you say, Speaker McCarthy. Call a vote. Even if it fails … do something. Force the media to talk about the vote, to talk about Schiff’s lies.

Oh, and as luck would have it, Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) on Wednesday introduced a resolution to have Schiff expelled from Congress.

“The Durham Report makes clear that the Russian Collusion was a lie from day one and Schiff knowingly used his position in an attempt to divide our country,” Paulina said in a statement.

She added that Schiff “is a dishonor to the House of Representatives.”

Paulina is taking appropriate action. Will McCarthy back her up?

To his credit, the Speaker did remove Schiff from the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year for leaking classified information in order to propagate the Russia collusion hoax.

“Schiff has lied to the American public,” he succinctly stated.

Now he’s got even more proof. Perhaps we’ve moved past the ‘let’s look into it more’ phase, Mr. Speaker.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Don’t Believe the Hype: McCarthy Totally Dodged Questions About Holding Russiagaters Accountable appeared first on The Political Insider.

‘RussiaGate’ Figure Fiona Hill Accuses Elon Musk of Speaking On Behalf of Putin

Elon Musk continued pressing for peaceful negotiations to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict and avert global nuclear war, while RussiaGate figure and star witness in the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump, Fiona Hill, accused him of transmitting messages for Vladimir Putin. 

The Tesla CEO took to Twitter Monday to share a Newsweek op-ed that argued “neocons and the woke left” are leading us into “Woke War III.”

The column, written by David Sacks, pointed out that Musk had found himself in hot water for daring to propose a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine that included concessions on both sides – in an effort to avoid nuclear war and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of humans perishing as a result.

For his troubles, Musk was immediately branded a Putin sympathizer, as has become common in recent years.

RELATED: Experts Split on Threat of Russian Nuclear Escalation as Biden Vacillates

Transmitting Messages For Putin?

Fiona Hill, who featured heavily in RussiaGate and the first impeachment of Trump, accused Musk of “transmitting a message” on behalf of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In particular, she noted the mention of water supplies.

“It’s unlikely Elon Musk knows about this himself,” she said in an interview with Politico. “The reference to water is so specific that this clearly is a message from Putin.”

Or, you know, he simply googled Crimea and read various reports on the key role the water supply has in the Russia-Ukraine conflict dating back to 2021. It’s not as if the water crisis in the area was super-secret.

But of course, facts don’t matter when it comes to accusing people of being secret Russian agents.

Hill continued to expand on her theory that Putin was speaking through Musk.

“Putin does this frequently,” she said. “He uses prominent people as intermediaries to feel out the general political environment, to basically test how people are going to react to ideas.”

And she simply wouldn’t let up.

“It’s ironic that Elon Musk, the man who has been talking about getting us to Mars should be Putin’s messenger for the war in Ukraine, when we’re having a really hard time getting our act together on this planet,” she alleged.

Related: Tucker Carlson SHREDS Ukraine’s Zelensky For ‘Shaking Down’ Congress For More Money

Elon Musk Continues to Lobby Against Nuclear War

Elon Musk continued to warn of the threat of nuclear war Monday, once again referencing Russia’s insistence that Ukraine acknowledges Crimea as Russian territory.

“If Russia is faced with the choice of losing Crimea or using battlefield nukes, they will choose the latter,” he wrote in response to his prediction of a possible nuclear war. “We’ve already sanctioned/cutoff Russia in every possible way, so what more do they have left to lose?”

“If we nuke Russia back, they will nuke us and then we have WW3,” he cautioned.

Critics noted that Musk’s messages were focused mostly on Russia’s needs and Ukraine’s concessions.

“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over,” the billionaire fired back.

“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”

And unlike Hill, Musk has actually put his money where his mouth is – with his company Starlink supplying and even paying for satellite internet that the Ukraine military depends on. Essentially, and whether deliberate or not, that makes Musk the enemy in the eyes of Russia.

Former President Donald Trump has also argued, like Elon Musk, that nuclear war must be averted.

“Be strategic, be smart (brilliant!), get a negotiated deal done NOW,” Trump said. “Both sides need and want it. The entire World is at stake.”

Musk and Trump’s calls for peace actually led Pavel Podvig, a so-called expert on Russia’s nuclear doctrine and capabilities at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, to accuse the men of being “dangerous.”

Let me repeat – calling to avoid nuclear war, not actual nuclear war, is dangerous.

“If you yield to this nuclear threat once, then what would prevent Russia in the future — or others — to do the same thing again?” Podvig said.

“Just giving in at this point would actually be dangerous,” he added.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post ‘RussiaGate’ Figure Fiona Hill Accuses Elon Musk of Speaking On Behalf of Putin appeared first on The Political Insider.

Biden And Obama Must Answer For Russiagate

By J. Peder Zane for RealClearPolitics

What did Barack Obama and Joe Biden know about the Russiagate collusion hoax their fellow Democrats ginned up to kneecap Donald Trump – and when did they know it? How much did their chicanery contribute to Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade the Ukraine?

Those questions are coming into sharp relief following a definitive report by my RealClearInvestigations colleague Paul Sperry last week that places the worst political scandal in our nation’s history and Putin’s brutal war directly inside the White House.

Drawing on a wide range of documents, many never previously reported, Sperry details how the Obama administration worked closely with the Clinton campaign and a foreign government – Ukraine – in a “sweeping and systematic effort” to interfere in the 2016 election. It turns out Democrats were guilty of every false charge they lodged against Trump.

RELATED: Liberal Bill Maher Slams Russiagate Narrative: ‘Why Didn’t Putin Invade When Trump Was In Office?’

Their maneuverings began in 2014 when Obama officials supported the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych because he was too close to Putin. Biden, then the vice president, was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine. Sperry reports that leaked transcripts of conversations between two high-level officials in both the Obama and Biden administrations – Victoria Nuland and Jake Sullivan – reveal that Biden gave his blessing to the formation of a new coalition government.

Sperry writes that Nuland even “traveled to Kiev and helped organize street demonstrations against Yanukovych, even handing out sandwiches to protesters.”

A few months after the anti-Putin government took power next door to Russia, Putin marched into Crimea. Eight years later, he invaded Ukraine.

Top Obama administration officials continued to influence Ukraine’s internal affairs. Biden, for example, would later boast of threatening to withhold aid until the government fired its chief anti-corruption prosecutor – who, among other matters, was investigating the gas company Burisma that was paying his son, Hunter Biden, $83,333 a month for a largely ceremonial position for which he had no qualifications other than his family name. [In 2019, House Democrats would impeach Trump for temporarily withholding aid to Ukraine to pressure it to investigate the Biden family’s dealings there.]

During its final two years, the Obama administration’s dealing with Ukraine became increasingly focused on the 2016 election. Sperry reports that Nuland received some 120 reports on Ukraine from an outside contractor – Christopher Steele.

A former British intelligence officer, Steele would soon start working for the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was paid by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion’s crown jewel was the so-called Steele dossier, a series of salacious and false memos allegedly cobbled together by Steele that formed the basis of the Trump/Russia collusion theory.

Steele and his Fusion colleagues weren’t the only political operatives working behind the scenes in the Obama administration. In April 2015, the Democratic National Committee hired a Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra Chalupa as a $5,000-a-month consultant.

Chalupa was convinced that Trump’s Achilles heel was Paul Manafort, a lobbyist who had done work for the party led by Viktor Yanukovych. Her effort to attack Trump by exposing Manafort’s alleged Russian ties was the seed of the collusion hoax. Sperry reports that the DNC operative visited the White House at least 27 times during 2015 and 2016.

Among the government officials she worked closely with was Eric Ciaramella, the CIA detailee to the White House who would later be the “whistleblower” regarding Trump’s 2019 call with the Ukrainian president that led to his first impeachment.

RELATED: Tulsi Gabbard Demands Mitt Romney Resign After He Accuses Her Of ‘Treason’

At the same time, the Obama administration was politicizing its foreign policy for domestic goals. In one of the more damning passages in his article, Sperry reports:

The Obama administration’s enforcement agencies leaned on their Ukrainian counterparts to investigate Manafort, shifting resources from an investigation of a corrupt Ukrainian energy oligarch who paid Biden’s son hundreds of thousands of dollars through his gas company, Burisma.

“Obama’s NSC hosted Ukrainian officials and told them to stop investigating Hunter Biden and start investigating Paul Manafort,” said a former senior NSC official who has seen notes and emails generated from the meetings and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

As it became increasingly clear that Trump would be the GOP’s 2016 nominee, Chalupa and the administration ratcheted up the pressure on Ukrainian officials to denounce Clinton’s rival in order to sanitize their dirty tricks. [Fusion GPS did the same with Steele, having him present himself as an independent former British intelligence agent – while hiding his ties to Clinton – so that his smears would seem apolitical.]

Democrats collaborated with several Ukrainian lawmakers who supported them. This is not surprising because, Sperry reports, while Ukraine might have been a relatively small and poor nation, one of its oligarchs contributed more money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state than any other group of foreign nationals, including the Saudis.

On March 30, 2016 Chalupa wrote to her contact at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington requesting that they express their grave concerns about Trump and Manafort. “Within minutes of sending the email,” Sperry reports, “Chalupa wrote the DNC’s communications director Luis Miranda, ‘The ambassador has the messaging.’ Then she reached out to a friend in Congress, Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, about holding hearings to paint Manafort as a pro-Kremlin villain.”

Sperry reports that these efforts paid dividends in August 2016, when Manafort was forced to resign as Trump’s campaign manager because of his previous work in the Ukraine. [Manafort would later be sent to prison on various tax and other charges, none of which involved him doing Russia’s bidding.]

After Trump’s election that November, a Ukrainian lawmaker who had worked with Fusion GPS in the effort to damage the Republican told the Financial Times that his nation believed “a Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy.” He said that most of Ukraine’s politicians were “on Hillary Clinton’s side.”

RELATED: Former AG Bill Barr Tells CNN He Would Help Defeat Trump In 2024

That, of course, was not the end of the story. Democrats, their allies in the FBI, CIA, and other branches of the government, as well as Never-Trump Republicans – all with the active collaboration of the media – would continue to peddle the Russiagate hoax to damage the commander in chief. On Jan. 5, 2017, just days before they left office, President Obama, Vice President Biden, and others met with then-FBI Director James Comey in the Oval Office.

The next day, Comey briefed President-elect Trump about the bogus Steele dossier. CNN then used that meeting as a pretext for trumpeting the false claims of collusion, sparking a media feeding frenzy that led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special counsel to investigate the charges bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign.

Sperry’s reporting strongly suggests that Obama and Biden were involved in this scandal well before then. The hydra-headed smear campaign against Trump deployed the powers of the executive branch to take down a political rival.

It is long past time for the media to begin the process of restoring its integrity. It could start by correcting the record – and then pressing Barack Obama and Joe Biden to explain why they accused Donald Trump of doing precisely what they did so effectively, which was involve a foreign nation in a U.S. presidential election.

Syndicated with permission from Real Clear Wire.

J. Peder Zane is an editor for RealClearInvestigations and a columnist for RealClearPolitics.

The post Biden And Obama Must Answer For Russiagate appeared first on The Political Insider.

Are Democrats Really Going To Cross The Rubicon?

By J. Peder Zane for RealClearPolitics

While the world focused on Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine last week, little attention was paid to the ineffably consequential decision by Democrats to go all-out in their assault on American democracy.

Just as Julius Caesar invited civil war by crossing the Rubicon, the partisan House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol let it be known that it will recommend bringing two sets of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump regarding the 2020 election.

One allegation is that that he tried to obstruct the lawful counting of votes. The other is that he engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States through his false claims of a stolen election.

RELATED: Former AG Bill Barr Wants Republicans To ‘Move On’ From Trump, Blames Him For Capitol Riot

Given how divided our country is, and the wide support Trump still enjoys, his indictment would be an incalculably reckless act. It would be tantamount to the first round of live fire across the bow. Even if the left honestly believes its claims that conservatives are itching to take up arms against the Republic – that Jan. 6 was just a dress rehearsal for a second civil war – why would they consider striking this match?

If Democrats had a slam dunk case against Trump, one could argue that they might have some justification for putting the nation at such risk. They do not. The New York Times tersely noted that it is “far easier for the committee to claim that Mr. Trump had committed a crime … than it would be for prosecutors to win a criminal conviction over the same facts.”

It underscored this point by noting, “In publicly sharing its work, the committee has only escalated expectations that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted, regardless of whether its evidence meets the standard that a federal prosecutor must clear to secure a unanimous guilty verdict.”

To prove the conspiracy charge, for example, prosecutors would have to show that Trump knew he had lost the election but recklessly argued otherwise. The existing evidence so far suggests that Trump truly believes the delusion that he won more votes. The committee, which is a finely tuned machine designed to leak cherry-picked damaging information about the former president, has provided no evidence to support that claim. Nor has it shown that he directed the mob to attack the Capitol to obstruct the vote count.

So far, their argument – which echoes the larger left-wing push to punish and erase all narratives that do not support their preferred version of reality – appears to be that there is a single truth, their truth, and that Trump’s unwillingness to embrace it is a crime.

It is impossible to overstate the danger of this mindset, which is a profound assault on free speech and a dramatic escalation of the effort to criminalize political differences. It is, as Democrats like to say, a page torn straight from Putin’s playbook.

Politics in free nations is necessarily rough and tumble. It is a contest of ideas that often lack scientific precision. It makes room for debatable claims that may contain falsity as well as kernels of truth. The best evidence shows that Trump did not win as many votes as Biden in 2020, but also that it was a highly unusual contest filled with troubling irregularities. Prohibiting people from making that case is un-American.

If Trump can be charged with a crime, what about Joe Biden, who repeatedly claimed that Trump was not legitimately elected in 2016? What about Rep. Jamie Raskin, a leading member of the Jan. 6 committee who objected to the certification of Florida’s electors by making the bogus argument that they were not qualified to serve under state law?

RELATED: Members of Congress Received 8,000+ Free Trips—Including Hundreds Paid for by Non-Profits Who Pocketed $100+ Million in Federal Funding

Once a precedent is set, it becomes the norm. Do we really want to go down this road of indicting – rather than just challenging and debunking – those whose only crime is holding problematic opinions?

Why would Democrats place our republic in such peril? The answer is that they want this conflict. As polls show their effort to transform America meeting ever wider resistance, they seem eager for a final battle that will allow them to vanquish the right once and for all. Unable to achieve their ends through democratic channels, they are intent on blowing up the system.

I know that sounds crazy. It’s impossible to imagine how this battle would unfold and how victory could even be achieved. But Democrats are convinced that only they possess the truth and that those who disagree with them are beneath contempt. They see their venomous tactics as virtuous.

If you have ever confronted hard-core Democrats about these issues, you know there is no talking to them. All they have is their certainty.

Truth be told, Democrats have paid little price so far for their war on American norms. Unwilling to accept Trump’s victory in 2016, they advanced the sulfurous claim that the president was an agent of Russia. We now know that false narrative was concocted by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and embraced without evidence by the Obama White House, much of the media, the FBI, and other aspects of the Deep State.

In its size and scope Russiagate is the worst scandal in American history. And yet Hillary Clinton and President Obama remain party heroes who are never pressed on the issue. Former Clinton staffers who spread the scurrilous Trump/Russia rumors, including Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, have only been rewarded for their perfidy. The New York Times, Washington Post and other news outlets who won prizes for pushing the conspiracy theory refuse to correct many clear errors in their coverage.

The incendiary path Democrats are heading down is unimaginably destructive, not just to the United States but to the world. As Putin continues his war in Ukraine and      intensifies, united American leadership is indispensable. Instead of bringing us together, criminal charges against Trump would burn down our house.

Syndicated with permission from Real Clear Wire.

J. Peder Zane is an editor for RealClearInvestigations and a columnist for RealClearPolitics.

The post Are Democrats Really Going To Cross The Rubicon? appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump Awards Congressman Jim Jordan With Presidential Medal Of Freedom

President Trump awarded Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) with the Presidential Medal of Freedom – the Nation’s highest civilian honor.

The Hill reports that Jordan received the award “citing his defenses of Trump against impeachment and the Russia investigation.”

In a White House press release, President Trump lauded the Republican Congressman for having “led the effort to confront the impeachment witch hunt.”

“He is an inspiration to freedom-loving Americans everywhere and has distinguished himself as one of the most consequential members of Congress of his generation,” the statement concluded.

RELATED: Trump To Award Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan With Presidential Medal Of Freedom

Jim Jordan, Adam Schiff Slayer, Wins Medal Of Freedom

Jim Jordan repeatedly took Democrat Adam Schiff to task during the RussiaGate impeachment inquiry meetings, claiming that the Democrat had a reputation for leaking and lying.

He called Schiff out for claiming outwardly that he had no idea who the famous ‘whistleblower’ was during the impeachment hearings, even though that would be an impossibility.

“This committee will not be used to out the whistleblower,” Schiff claimed at the time.

“You have said you don’t know who the whistleblower is – even though no one believes you,” Jordan shot back at the California Democrat.

Another memorable exchange between the pair took place when Jordan tried to finish a question and Schiff claimed he wouldn’t ‘indulge him’ much longer.

“I have indulged you with extra time—” Schiff said.

Jordan replied, “I appreciate it,” as he tried to finish his line of questioning.

“But indulgence is wearing out,” Schiff interjected.

“Our indulgence wore out with you a long time ago, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that,” fired back Jordan.

Jordan Grilled Dr. Fauci About Lockdowns And BLM Protests

Jordan also made a splash during testimony by Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the coronavirus, lockdowns, and Black Lives Matter protests.

In one particularly heated exchange Jordan asked Fauci, “Should we limit the protesting?”

“I’m not in a position to determine what the government can do in a forceful way,” Fauci responded.

“I haven’t seen people during a church service go out and harm police officers or burn buildings,” Jordan scoffed, noting Fauci had opined on plenty of other events prior to that.

“No limit to protests, but you can’t go to church on Sunday.”

President Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom one week earlier to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), another staunch ally.

Nunes was instrumental in uncovering the deep-seated corruption that took place behind closed doors during the Russia probe.

The post Trump Awards Congressman Jim Jordan With Presidential Medal Of Freedom appeared first on The Political Insider.