WASHINGTON. Sunday, President Donald Trump announced that Texas GOP Rep. John Ratcliffe is his nominee to replace Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). It is a significant development following Ratcliffe’s devastating questioning of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller last Wednesday.
The two faces of the GOP
That verbal confrontation proved a contrast in Republican mindsets. Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller is the bumbling, ineffectual, swampy Washington Republican whose stellar reputation among the media is commensurate with his usefulness in supporting false Democrat narratives.
Rep. John Ratcliffe, on the other hand, is the kind of Republican who asks pointed questions of those, like the revered Mueller, who support false Democrat narratives to get at the truth.
Subverting the rule of law
Last Wednesday, Ratcliffe asks Mueller if it was Justice Department policy to “exonerate” the subjects of their investigations. An unusual policy in light of our legal system’s Latin dictum, “ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat.”
“The burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies.”
Mueller admitted that the presumption of innocence – a cornerstone of American justice that he swore an oath to uphold when he served as US Attorney and FBI director – applied to all US citizens but President Trump. He called the president’s exclusion from the privileges and immunities of our Constitution a “unique situation.”
Inequality under the law
That was a remarkable statement in light of Hillary Clinton’s exoneration for her clear violations of the Espionage Act of 1917. This despite the FBI’s discovering hundreds of classified emails on her assistant’s unsecured laptop.
It’s important to highlight this contrast in American justice:
Hillary Clinton: Overwhelming evidence exists to substantiate the charge she violated US laws protecting national security. Despite this clear evidence, Clinton is “exonerated,” with then-FBI Director James Comey announcing her surprising vindication in an extraordinary televised news conference.
President Trump: No evidence is found to support the charge that as a candidate he committed treason by helping Russian intelligence steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton. Likewise, no evidence supports the additional charge he attempted to obstruct the investigation into the non-existent underlying crime. Despite this clear lack of evidence, Mueller says his report should not be construed as an “exoneration.”
America’s secret arbiters of justice
So, who or what is responsible for this clear violation of America’s so-called “equality under the law”? The clear determining factors, it seems, are US intelligence services (NSA, CIA) working in conjunction with their domestic spying partner, the FBI.
Trump’s appointment of John Ratcliffe is causing uncomfortable squirming among Obama administration officials, go-along-to-get-along never-Trump Republicans, and their friends among the mainstream media.
James Clapper, former Director for National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, expressed his disappointment at Coats’ departure to the New York Times:
“It’ll be a big loss for the intelligence community, and, for that matter, the nation. Dan [Coats] has been pretty courageous about speaking truth to power over his entire tenure.”
I spy a lying spy
It’s worth noting that the unprecedented collection of every cellphone conversation, every email, every text message, of every American, began under the Obama administration through a domestic spy program known by the name PRISM. (Government Surveillance Projects You Should Know About)
Remember that Clapper did lie in sworn testimony to Congress when asked if such a violation of Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure did occur. (Read Also: Clapper denied NSA surveillance before Senate panel in March testimony)
Clapper’s praise of the departing Coats is understandable. That’s because “he [Coats] was vocal in defending intelligence agencies and their assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on Mr. Trump’s behalf,” the Times said.
An assessment that has since proved to be nothing more than disinformation spread by the British spy and anti-Trump dossier author Christopher Steele and his paymasters, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee. Disinformation provided to Steele by Kremlin sources and used by the FBI – for whom Steele was a paid confidential informant – to secure warrants to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign.
Damnable establishment Republicans
The Times describes the departing Coats as a former GOP House and Senate member who served the administration of President George W. Bush as ambassador to Germany. And that Coats was “an important link between Mr. Trump and the Republican establishment.”
Trump owes nothing to these establishment never-Trump Republicans. Its sainted member, the late Sen. John McCain, dishonored himself by shopping the discredited Steele dossier to the FBI. A dossier that was the product of a joint Russian and Democratic Party disinformation campaign.
Investigating the investigators
If confirmed, Rep. John Ratcliffe is uniquely situated as Director of National Intelligence to render assistance to US Attorney John Durham. Durham is investigating the origins of the Obama administration’s domestic spy operation against Trump.
That said, it should come as no surprise if in the weeks and months to follow, it’s revealed that CIA, NSA, and FBI internal memos and emails concerning their political espionage against Trump – not to mention the electronic devices on which they are stored – have been wiped clean… ala Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 emails.
After all, in August of 2016, it was Michael Morell, who served as the CIA’s deputy director under President Obama, that declared in the editorial pages of the New York Times:
“First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president – keep our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”
There are questions in desperate need of answers. Was the Trump campaign the only instance of Deep State interference in a presidential election? Or were earlier presidential campaigns derailed by unelected Deep State bureaucrats friendly to the political party of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?
The answers may indicate that it is time to reevaluate the continued existence of Cold War institutions that for lack of enemies abroad have, instead, refocused dangerous and unwanted attention here at home.
And that attention seeks to hamper the consent of the governed while simultaneously subverting the idea that all Americans – including President Trump – are entitled to equal protection under the law.