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.