The New Democratic Strategy: When You Lose, You Still Win
Did you know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice technically work for the president?
In the current media environment, I would probably get dismissed as a partisan hack for making that statement. But I’m not making it up. The United States government exists because of the U.S. Constitution. And the Constitution specifies that there is exactly one person ultimately responsible for carrying out the federal laws of the United States: the president.
I discuss this issue on my May 4 radio program, which you can listen to here:
The executive branch of the government is established in Article ii, which states: “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” It establishes that the president, with Senate confirmation, appoints federal officeholders in executive departments for the purpose of assisting him in carrying out his duties. For “such inferior officers as they think proper,” Congress can forgo confirming the president’s appointments, leaving them to his discretion or to the heads of the executive departments or to the courts. Government officers are later mentioned briefly in the 14th Amendment (restricting Confederates from holding office), in the 22nd Amendment (concerning presidential disability), and hardly anywhere else. The Constitution is clear: The one in charge of the executive branch is the one who is elected by the people to be their president.
The Department of Justice (doj) and its Federal Bureau of Investigation are not independent entities with their own constitutional mandate. They came along later. (Establishment of the fbi, which began with an attorney general’s memo, was controversial, since the founders specifically and intentionally avoided establishing a federal policing force.) Constitutionally, the doj and the fbi that it oversees are legitimate entities only because they are part of the executive branch, under the president. Their officers—even their department heads—are unelected bureaucrats. They are accountable to the people of the United States only by virtue of the fact they are appointed by an elected president who is accountable to the people.
Despite the fact that leftists want to leave the Constitution behind, they would probably be stridently making a lot of these same points—if it were President Barack Obama or a “President” Hillary Clinton who was engaged in a power struggle with the doj and the fbi. But the target of fbi political bias, investigations, spying and worse is Donald Trump. So never mind the Constitution. Just use whatever means necessary to take down the president.
A Law Unto Themselves
Michael Caputo was a low-level Trump campaign supporter, but because of the doj investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged contact with Russia, he has been hauled before committees and prosecutors that are seeking evidence of a crime. His legal fees alone have cost him more than his yearly salary. He insists he knows nothing about any Trump-Russia collusion. But that hasn’t stopped the various Russia collusion investigators from calling him up to be a witness.
In a prepared speech at the end of his testimony with the Senate Intelligence Committee, Caputo basically told the committee that they are ruining his life. He said:
And I know I have you to thank for that.
Here’s how I know: How many of you know Daniel Jones, former Senate Intelligence staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein? Great guy, right? Most of you worked with him. One of you probably just talked to him this morning.
Of course, very few of us in flyover country knew Daniel until recently. Now we know that he quit his job with your Senate Committee not long ago to raise $50 million from 10 rich Democrats to finance more work on the Fusion gps Russian dossier. The one the fbi used to get a fisa warrant and intimidate President Donald Trump, without anyone admitting—until months after it was deployed—that it was paid for by Hillary Clinton.
Caputo went on to explain that since then, Jones has been raising money to “confirm the unconfirmable” in order to keep the Trump-Russia story in the news cycle.
So how does this process work? Take the story from several weeks ago about Michael Cohen meeting with Russians in Prague. Where did this story come from? Well, Caputo says that Jones would have “tried to sell that to reporters, and they didn’t buy it because it doesn’t check out. So, to get a reporter to write up his line … he gave the documents to the Office of Special Counsel.”
As soon as the Special Counsel has the “evidence,” that gives the news outlets a news hook that they can use to publish it:
Your pal Dan gave [the Special Counsel’s office] more of the Democrats’ dossier, funded by more Democrats, provided again by Russian and British spies. Information no reporter would write up, but now there’s an angle: the Special Counsel has it. Now it’s a story.
That’s exactly the same way it worked when James Clapper and James Comey fooled President Trump into being briefed on the Steele dossier, so that the briefing could be used as a news hook for cnn and Buzzfeed. As Caputo said in his statement, “It’s a clever but effective ruse.” It doesn’t matter whether the information is true or not—all that matters is that it has been given to the Office of Special Counsel or the fbi, or that the president has been briefed on it. Then the news outlets have an angle on the story. They’re being briefed on it, so there must be some truth to it!
Take the Steele dossier as an example. Caputo said: “Of course, now we know [Michael] Isikoff’s reference to ‘intelligence reports’ was just him renaming a dossier funded by Democrats and dug up by his longtime pal Glenn Simpson and some foreign spies. Once Simpson gave his Clinton campaign opposition research to the feds, it was news.”
Once the feds get hold of it, it’s serious, it’s an investigation, and it must be factual. It’s all dressed up as intel, when it’s nothing more than salacious gossip and slanderous lies. “This was especially true after Isikoff intentionally labeled the campaign materials as intelligence—just like McClatchy called Dan’s information ‘evidence,’” Caputo said. It’s all in the wording!
Caputo then made a very good point (emphasis added throughout):
What America needs is an investigation of the investigators. I want to know who is paying for the spies’ work and coordinating this attack on President Donald Trump. I want to know who Dan Jones is talking to across the investigations—from the fbi to the Southern District of New York to the osc to the Department of Justice to Congress.
Forget about all the death threats against my family. I want to know who cost us so much money, who crushed our kids, who forced us out of our home, all because you lost an election.
The Constitution has provisions for this kind of corruption. When a department appears to be overstepping its bounds, there are checks and balances written into the Constitution that show what to do. In this case, the fbi and doj are within the executive branch, so the president has every right to ask for information on ongoing investigations. And Congress has every right to ask either of these departments for documents to determine if they are going too far. It’s a constitutional obligation!
For months, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has refused to let Congress have non-redacted files about the Trump-Russia scandal. He says that the request is “extortion.” The Founding Fathers would have disagreed. Rosenstein and every other appointee and employee at the doj are unelected bureaucrats. Elected representatives in Congress have a constitutional right and duty to check and balance the executive branch, which includes the Justice Department. Rosenstein has been stonewalling Congress for months and now compares the constitutional duty of elected representatives toward his bureaucracy as “extortion.” According to him, it’s Congress that is abusing its power—not the doj.
In response, Republican Mark Meadows tweeted, “If he believes being asked to do his job is ‘extortion,’ then Rod Rosenstein should step aside and allow us to find a new deputy attorney general—preferably one who is interested in transparency.”
Congress is trying to investigate the investigators, but the investigators say, “You can’t investigate us! We’re above the law!” In their minds, the unelected bureaucrats of the Department of Justice are their own branch of government!
While claiming to uphold the Constitution and justice itself, these men are ignoring both. Mark Penn wrote at the Hill:
This government within the government has now crossed a line that is unacceptable. By gaining the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rosenstein stepped into the shoes of the attorney general, even though he was not appointed to that role by the president.
Now he believes he is above the law despite the myriad of conflicts he has ignored to authorize these unlimited investigations of the administration he supposedly serves.
These individuals at the top positions of the doj and fbi are assuming unconstitutional powers!
My father said in his recent article “Saving America From the Radical Left—Temporarily,” “It is the president’s right to receive a full briefing of all ongoing investigations! If corrupt agents can withhold vital intelligence from the president, and even spy on him, what can they do to you?”
We’re watching a frightening scenario play out. Who could have imagined something like this even just a few decades ago?
Read “Is the Government Reading Your E-mail?” in the May-June 2014 Trumpet magazine. Notice what it says about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Even in 2014, the secret fisa court was not really a court, but more of a rubber stamp. The judges almost always gave investigators the go-ahead. At that time, the court had received nearly 40,000 requests since its inception. It had turned down 11.
These commentators all say that the fisa court wouldn’t have approved the wiretapping of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page if there hadn’t been serious evidence of a crime. (Page still has not been indicted or convicted of a crime.) But does 11 out of 40,000 sound like an accountable institution insisting on serious evidence? Does approving surveillance of a presidential campaign based on unverified, salacious research produced by the opposing campaign sound like an accountable institution insisting on serious evidence?
Here’s another dimension. Take a look at the history of doj Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s right-hand man in the Trump investigation, Andrew Weissman. In 2017, the New York Times called him Mueller’s legal pit bull, because he had a history of hyperaggressive tactics that put people in jail. Sidney Powell at the Hill wrote in October 2017, “We all lose from Weissmann’s involvement. First, the truth plays no role in Weissmann’s quest. Second, respect for the rule of law, simple decency and following the facts do not appear in Weissmann’s playbook. Third, and most important, all Americans lose whenever our judicial system becomes a weapon to reward political friends and punish political foes.”
This is Mueller’s right-hand man? Weissman’s hallmarks appear to be on this investigation as well, as the probe has resulted in the early morning raid on Paul Manafort’s house and the raid on Michael Cohen’s house, office, hotel and safety-deposit box.
The previous administration assumed that Hillary Clinton would win the election. President Obama’s doj lawyers and fbi agents, who we now know were heavily biased toward Clinton, assumed their special treatment of Clinton and other unconstitutional decisions would be easily swept aside after she took office. But then Donald Trump won and threw a wrench into their plan. So now they’re going after him and anyone associated with him—even low-level Trump supporters like Caputo.
Caputo was caught in the crossfire and was made a casualty for the higher glory of deposing Donald Trump. “Clearly these lawsuits after the fact are the new Democratic strategy,” Caputo said. “When you lose, you still win.”
As my father wrote in “Saving America From the Radical Left—Temporarily,” “We are getting a hard look at just what the radical left is willing to do in order to seize power and stay in power. They have no respect for the rule of law! They believe they are above the law.”
They believe they ARE the law.
To understand more about this, please read “Saving America From the Radical Left—Temporarily.”