|
Showing 1 - 6 of
6 matches in All Departments
The real collusion in the 2016 election was not between the Trump
campaign and the Kremlin. It was between the Clinton campaign and
the Obama administration. The media-Democrat "collusion narrative,"
which paints Donald Trump as cat's paw of Russia, is a studiously
crafted illusion. Despite Clinton's commanding lead in the polls,
hyper-partisan intelligence officials decided they needed an
"insurance policy" against a Trump presidency. Thus was born the
collusion narrative, built on an anonymously sourced "dossier,"
secretly underwritten by the Clinton campaign and compiled by a
former British spy. Though acknowledged to be "salacious and
unverified" at the FBI's highest level, the dossier was used to
build a counterintelligence investigation against Trump's campaign.
Miraculously, Trump won anyway. But his political opponents refused
to accept the voters' decision. Their collusion narrative was now
peddled relentlessly by political operatives, intelligence agents,
Justice Department officials, and media ideologues-the vanguard of
the "Trump Resistance." Through secret surveillance, high-level
intelligence leaking, and tireless news coverage, the public was
led to believe that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the
election. Not one to sit passively through an onslaught, President
Trump fought back in his tumultuous way. Matters came to a head
when he fired his FBI director, who had given explosive House
testimony suggesting the president was a criminal suspect, despite
privately assuring Trump otherwise. The resulting firestorm of
partisan protest cowed the Justice Department to appoint a special
counsel, whose seemingly limitless investigation bedeviled the
administration for two years. Yet as months passed, concrete
evidence of collusion failed to materialize. Was the collusion
narrative an elaborate fraud? And if so, choreographed by whom?
Against media-Democrat caterwauling, a doughty group of lawmakers
forced a shift in the spotlight from Trump to his investigators and
accusers. This has exposed the depth of politicization within
American law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is now clear
that the institutions on which our nation depends for objective
policing and clear-eyed analysis injected themselves scandalously
into the divisive politics of the 2016 election. They failed to
forge a new Clinton administration. Will they succeed in bringing
down President Trump?
The real collusion in the 2016 election was not between the Trump
campaign and the Kremlin. It was between the Clinton campaign and
the Obama administration. The media-Democrat "collusion narrative,"
which paints Donald Trump as cat's paw of Russia, is a studiously
crafted illusion. Despite Clinton's commanding lead in the polls,
hyper-partisan intelligence officials decided they needed an
"insurance policy" against a Trump presidency. Thus was born the
collusion narrative, built on an anonymously sourced "dossier,"
secretly underwritten by the Clinton campaign and compiled by a
former British spy. Though acknowledged to be "salacious and
unverified" at the FBI's highest level, the dossier was used to
build a counterintelligence investigation against Trump's campaign.
Miraculously, Trump won anyway. But his political opponents refused
to accept the voters' decision. Their collusion narrative was now
peddled relentlessly by political operatives, intelligence agents,
Justice Department officials, and media ideologues-the vanguard of
the "Trump Resistance." Through secret surveillance, high-level
intelligence leaking, and tireless news coverage, the public was
led to believe that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the
election. Not one to sit passively through an onslaught, President
Trump fought back in his tumultuous way. Matters came to a head
when he fired his FBI director, who had given explosive House
testimony suggesting the president was a criminal suspect, despite
privately assuring Trump otherwise. The resulting firestorm of
partisan protest cowed the Justice Department to appoint a special
counsel, whose seemingly limitless investigation bedeviled the
administration for two years. Yet as months passed, concrete
evidence of collusion failed to materialize. Was the collusion
narrative an elaborate fraud? And if so, choreographed by whom?
Against media-Democrat caterwauling, a doughty group of lawmakers
forced a shift in the spotlight from Trump to his investigators and
accusers. This has exposed the depth of politicization within
American law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is now clear
that the institutions on which our nation depends for objective
policing and clear-eyed analysis injected themselves scandalously
into the divisive politics of the 2016 election. They failed to
forge a new Clinton administration. Will they succeed in bringing
down President Trump?
While Americans focus on terrorism, a more insidious Islamist
threat to our way of life lurks. It is the agenda of sharia, Islama
(TM)s authoritarian legal and political system. The global Islamist
movement aims, in the words of the international Muslim
Brotherhood, to destroy the West by sabotaging it from within. Its
principal strategy is not mass-murder but the exploitation of
Western freedoms and the insinuation of sharia principles into
Western legal systems. Because those principles are hostile to our
core liberties - indeed, hostile even to the bedrock premise that
people are free to govern themselves as they see fit - shariaa
(TM)s advance gradually undermines our culture. The sharia agenda
has found a friend in the Obama administration, which has embraced
its vanguard, including the Brotherhood and the Organization of the
Islamic Conference. President Obama is actively abetting the
Islamist platform: promoting sharia in his foreign policy, easing
enforcement of laws that stop Islamic "charitiesa from diverting
funds to jihadist terror, and even sponsoring a United Nations
resolution that - under the guise of insulating Islam from
criticism - would stifle First Amendment rights.
With the Obama Justice Department under Attorney General Eric
Holder's direction, Americans are learning what really happens when
law-enforcement power is co-opted by politics.
In this eye-popping Broadside, Andrew C. McCarthy shows that the
biggest beneficiaries have been jihadists. For the past eight
years, a group of lawyers volunteered their services to America's
enemies. Now, the Justice Department is rife with some of those
same lawyers as it enhances due process for terrorists and feeds
the international Left's call for war-crimes charges against
President Obama's political adversaries. Just consider how the
administration has disclosed national defense secrets during
wartime or granted the 9/11 mass murderers a civilian trial. The
department, moreover, is working to tighten the Democratic Party's
grip on power, ignoring the Constitution and green-lighting
election fraud and abuse.
We still imagine ourselves a nation of laws, not of men. This is
not merely an article of faith but a bedrock principle of the
United States Constitution. Our founding compact provides a remedy
against rulers supplanting the rule of law, and Andrew C. McCarthy
makes a compelling case for using it. The authors of the
Constitution saw practical reasons to place awesome powers in a
single chief executive, who could act quickly and decisively in
times of peril. Yet they well understood that unchecked power in
one person's hands posed a serious threat to liberty, the defining
American imperative. Much of the debate at the Philadelphia
convention therefore centered on how to stop a rogue executive who
became a law unto himself. The Framers vested Congress with two
checks on presidential excess: the power of the purse and the power
of impeachment. They are potent remedies, and there are no others.
It is a straightforward matter to establish that President Obama
has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term signifying
maladministration and abuses of power by holders of high public
trust. But making the legal case is insufficient for successful
impeachment, leading to removal from office. Impeachment is a
political matter and hinges on public opinion. In Faithless
Execution, McCarthy weighs the political dynamics as he builds a
case, assembling a litany of abuses that add up to one overarching
offense: the president's willful violation of his solemn oath to
execute the laws faithfully. The "fundamental transformation" he
promised involves concentrating power into his own hands by
flouting law--statutes, judicial rulings, the Constitution
itself--and essentially daring the other branches of government to
stop him. McCarthy contends that our elected representative are
duty-bound to take up the dare. What are "High Crimes and
Misdemeanors"? Impeachment is rare in American history--and for
good reason. As the ultimate remedy against abuse of executive
power, it is politically convulsive. And yet, as the Framers
understood, it is a necessary protection if the rule of law is to
be maintained. But what are impeachable offenses? There is
widespread confusion among the American people about the answer to
this question. Article II of the Constitution lists treason and
bribery, along with "other high crimes and misdemeanors as the
standard for impeachment. Despite what "crimes" and "misdemeanors"
connote, the concept has precious little to do with violations of a
penal code. Rather, it is about betrayal of the political trust
reposed in the president to execute the laws faithfully and
"preserve, protect and defend" our constitutional system, as his
oath of office requires. At the constitutional convention in 1787,
the delegates concurred that the "high crimes and misdemeanors"
standard captured the many "great and dangerous offenses" involving
malfeasance, incompetence, and severe derelictions of duty that
could undermine the constitutional order. The Framers were clear
that "high crimes and misdemeanors" involved misconduct that did
not necessarily break penal laws; it might not even be considered
criminal if committed by a civilian. It would apply strictly to
"the misconduct of public men ...or the abuse or violation of
public trust," as Alexander Hamilton put it. "High crimes and
misdemeanors" are of a purely political nature as they "relate to
injuries done immediately to the society itself." To be clear,
"high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a standard conceived for
normal law enforcement. It applies instead to oath, honor, and
trust--notions that are more demanding of public officials than the
black and white prohibitions of criminal law. While the standard is
high-minded it is not an abstraction. The Framers were very clear:
betrayals of the constitutional order, dishonesty in the
executive's dealing with Congress, and concealment of dealings with
foreign powers that could be injurious to the American people were
among the most grievous, and impeachable, high crimes and
misdemeanors. Above all, the Framers had in view the president's
oath of allegiance to our system of government, a system in which
the president's highest duty is faithful execution of the laws. The
mere attempt to subvert the constitution would be a breach of trust
that warranted impeachment and removal. A free country requires the
rule of law. But the rule of law is a sham if lawlessness is
rampant among those who govern. This was the deep political truth
that the Framers of this country recognized in the providing for
the impeachment of an errant executive. It is a truth that we
ignore at our peril. Faithless Execution Author Q&A You are a
well-known conservative commentator -- how would you answer the
accusation that Faithless Execution is just a partisan stunt?
McCarthy: Well, 'conservative' does not mean 'Republican'--in fact,
the book is not very flattering when it comes to GOP fecklessness
in the face of the president's lawlessness. But the main point is:
Faithless Execution argues against partisan hackery. I analyze the
legal case for impeachment as a former prosecutor who would not go
to court without a sufficient case. And as far as the politics
goes, I argue that, despite the sizable majority Republicans hold
in the House, articles of impeachment should not be filed unless
and until there is a strong public will to remove the president
from power--one that transcends party lines. Many Republicans say
an effort to impeach Barack Obama is political suicide for the
Republican Party. How do you respond to this? McCarthy: The failure
to pursue impeachment is likely to be suicide for the country,
which is much more important than the political fate of the
Republican Party. But, again, making the case for
impeachment--which would probably help not only Republicans but any
elected official who defends our constitutional framework--is not
the same as moving forward with articles of impeachment, which
should not happen absent public support. How does the case for
Barack Obama's impeachment compare to the campaigns to impeach
Nixon and Clinton? McCarthy: Obama's presidency is a willful,
systematic attack on the constitutional system of separation of
powers, an enterprise that aims to bring about a new regime of
government by executive decree. This is exactly the kind of
subversion the Framers designed the impeachment power to address.
The Nixon and Clinton episodes involved misconduct that did not aim
to undermine our constitutional framework. You describe impeachment
as a political and not a legal remedy. What's the distinction?
McCarthy: Legally speaking, a president may be impeached for a
single offense that qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors"--a
breach of the profound public trust vested in the president, a
violation of his constitutional duty to execute the laws
faithfully. But real impeachment requires the public will to remove
the president from office. You can have a thousand impeachable
offenses, but without that political consensus, impeachment is not
an appropriate remedy.
The first fundamental truth about the "Arab Spring" is that there
never was one. The salient fact of the Middle East, the only one,
is Islam. The Islam that shapes the Middle East inculcates in
Muslims the self-perception that they are members of a civilization
implacably hostile to the West. The United States is a competitor
to be overcome, not the herald of a culture to be embraced. Is this
self-perception based on objective truth? Does it reflect an
accurate construction of Islam? It is over these questions that
American officials and Western intellectuals obsess. Yet the
questions are irrelevant. This is not a matter of right or wrong,
of some posture or policy whose subtle tweaking or outright
reversal would change the facts on the ground. This is simply,
starkly, the way it is. Every human heart does not yearn for
freedom. In the Islam of the Middle East, "freedom" means something
very nearly the opposite of what the concept connotes to Westerners
-- it is the freedom that lies in total submission to Allah and His
law. That law, sharia, is diametrically opposed to core components
of freedom as understood in the West -- beginning with the very
idea that man is free to make law for himself, irrespective of what
Allah has ordained. It is thus delusional to believe, as the West's
Arab Spring fable insists, that the region teems with Jamal
al-Madisons holding aloft the lamp of liberty. Do such
revolutionary reformers exist? Of course they do ...but in numbers
barely enough to weave a fictional cover story. When push came to
shove -- and worse -- the reformers were overwhelmed, swept away by
a tide of Islamic supremacism, the dynamic, consequential mass
movement that beckons endless winter. That is the real story of the
Arab Spring -- that, and the Pandora's Box that opens when an
American administration aligns with that movement, whose stated
goal is to destroy America.
|
|