Politics

There Is A Serious Problem With James Clapper’s Remarks About The ‘Mole’ That No One Is Addressing

It was a long day with a lot of tough news, and the former Director of National Intelligence has just added to it.

Published

1 year ago

May 19, 2018

It’s been a long day with a lot of tough news, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has added to it.

He was interviewed on CNN on Thursday night. In the course of the interview, Don Lemon quoted from one of Trump’s latest tweets.

[CNN’s Don] Lemon stated, “Here’s what the president tweeted this morning. He said, ‘Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI spied on the Trump campaign with an embedded informant. Andrew McCarthy says, ‘There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.’ If so, this is bigger than Watergate!’”

Trending: Powerful Moment As Hundreds of Jews Take to NYC Streets & Demand ‘OMAR MUST GO!’ (Watch)

Lemon continued, “That is an extraordinary claim, and based on your experience, what is the likelihood that it’s true?”

take our poll - story continues below

Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Here’s how Clapper responded:

Clapper answered, “Well, I think this is hyperbole. They may have someone who was talking to them in the campaign, but the focus here, as it was with the intelligence community, is not on the campaign, per se, but what the Russians were doing to try to instantiate themselves in the campaign or to influence it or leverage it.”

Then Clapper made his outrageous statement: “So, if there was someone that was observing that sort of thing, that’s a good thing because the Russians pose a threat to the very basis of our political system.”

All right, so at least he didn’t say “kakistocracy.”

What saddens me is the deflection and faux moral posturing. “Hyperbole”? If the FBI had an informant in the Trump campaign, then it had one. There’s no “hyperbole” involved in pointing that out.

Disputing whether the verb “to spy” applies, which seems to be what Clapper is getting at, is being disingenuous. We’re not talking about 10-year-olds trying to peer into each other’s windows. We’re talking about the FBI. There’s no such thing as the FBI having informants monitoring your activities, and that not having weighty implications, about which there is no need to be “hyperbolic.”

But Clapper’s especially focused moral contradiction is the business about the Russians “posing a threat to the very basis of our political system.”

That has been the mantra of the Russiagate narrative, but no one ever defines it in a way that makes sense. That’s pure demagoguery: an attempt to railroad people with trigger sentiments. Sorry, I’m not selling America down the river for an emotional bumper sticker that has no meaning.

Here’s what has meaning. The actual basis of our political system — which is about government that is consensual, limited, constitutional, and federal — is the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says the government can’t spy on the people except with probable cause, which means having the “criminal predicate” for a law enforcement operation that the talking heads were alluding to on Thursday.

Clapper apparently wants to gloss over the bright, constitutional line between spying on Russians (green light) and spying on the American citizens in the Trump campaign (red light, and you don’t move a muscle until it changes, after a judge agrees with your reasoning).

The Russians aren’t the threat to our political system here. Careless obfuscators like Clapper are the threat to our political system.

THE FULL STORY CONTINUES HERE

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Politics

George Conway Goads Justin Amash with Pre-Praise for Potential POTUS Run

The ‘resistance’ is growing bolder by the minute.

Published

7 hours ago

May 22, 2019

Andrew West

President Trump is facing adversity like no other President before him, and there’s good reason for this. No, it’s not his alleged shortcomings that are to blame; it’s the fact that he is still very much an outsider in the world of national politics. Of course, this was a purposeful choice by the American people who have long been under the thumb of career politicians, many of them millionaires, who have taken their role as “public servants” and transformed it into an indoctrination into the ruling class. Which is precisely why we rebelled against the British so many years ago…but that’s a diatribe for another time. Trump has gotten under the skin of the Washington establishment in ways that few others have, and certainly more than any other President in recent memory. Even the husband of one the President’s closest advisers is counting himself among the “resistance”. Attorney George Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, declared Tuesday that a primary challenge by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) against President Donald Trump in 2020 would be a “supreme act of patriotism.” “This would be a supreme act of patriotism by Rep. Amash,” Conway, a frequent Trump critic, tweeted in response to an article shared by Reason editor Robby Soave about Libertarians and Never Trump Republicans urging Amash to run for the White House. Amash is the only republican to have called for the impeachment of President Trump, and the idea of both a primary challenge to Trump and a run as the Libertarian candidate in 2020 have been floated as possibilities. Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld has also declared his interest in running a primary campaign against the President.

Politics

Nevada Goes for The Jugular with ‘Popular Vote’ Bill

There are serious concerns about the move – concerns that conservatives in New York State and California have been warning us about for decades.

Published

7 hours ago

May 22, 2019

Andrew West

We all remember that one kid in school who would change the rules to whatever game you were playing whenever they were losing. It seemed to always be the most prevalent in the game of Monopoly, where the “house rules” were more malleable than Play-Doh in August in St. Augustine. When and where hotels could be built was always a contentious battle for the disadvantaged, regardless of whether or not this disadvantage was self afflicted. Then there were the unseemly declarations regarding free money, jail time, etc. In other words, some people just can’t stand to lose, and they lash out in unhealthy ways when that fate befalls them. Such seems to be the case these days with the democrats as well, who are still reeling from their electoral evisceration at the hands of Donald Trump back in 2016. Now, after being bested through the electoral college, a great many anti-Trump organizations are pushing to change the rules of the game. Nevada is just the latest to pontificate on just such an adjustment. Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, will consider signing a new bill that would require the state’s six Electoral College votes to be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the state’s vote. The legislation would only take effect once states representing a majority of the nation’s 538 electoral votes agree to join. Thus far, the participating states or jurisdictions include: California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12). These represent a total of 189 electoral votes. Most are solid “blue” states, but Colorado and New Mexico are considered swing states, albeit leaning Democratic.…