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

3 years ago

May 19, 2018

Andrew West

Parler Facebook Twitter

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: Black Man Brutally Attacks Mexican Woman He Thinks is Asian

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

Parler Facebook Twitter

Opinion

DC Statehood Incoming: House Set to Vote Within Days

Biden and his team are wasting no time setting up ways to stack the electoral deck in their favor.

Published

2 days ago

April 16, 2021

Andrew West

Parler Facebook Twitter

Joe Biden and his cohorts in the Democratic Party are doing everything in their power to never lose another election again, and they are doing so with all the subtlety and grace of a three-legged hyena that stepped into a yellow-jacket nest. First and foremost, there are their recently-revealed plans to pack the Supreme Court with several new justices during Joe Biden’s first term. Now they’re looking to make good on their long-held pipe dream of making Washington DC its own state…and they are wasting no time. The House of Representatives will vote Tuesday on whether to make Washington, D.C., a State. The House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), voted the bill, H.R. 51, out of committee by a vote of 25-19 to create D.C. statehood Wednesday. But there are likely constitutional issues at play here. The ultimate argument seems to be whether the 23rd Amendment guarantees the federal Capitol at least three electors in presidential elections, Rep. Any Biggs (R-AZ) suggested Wednesday. Biggs’ view is supported by legal scholars, who opposed D.C. statehood’s feasibility without a Constitutional amendment to the 23rd Amendment. The Office of Legal Counsel in 2007 believed it was unconstitutional, the Justice Department under former President Reagan and former President Carter stated the transformation was unconstitutional, and so did Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, when he sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The move is highly controversial, and twenty-two state attorney generals have already sent a stern letter warning President Joe Biden about the danger of moving forward.

Parler Facebook Twitter

News

Dems Begin Assault on 2A with Bill to Confiscate Suppressors

Here comes the heat from the left.

Published

2 days ago

April 16, 2021

Andrew West

Parler Facebook Twitter

When it comes to the right to bear arms, there truly is no foreseeable future in which the Constitutional guarantee will disappear entirely. It’s a logical fallacy to suggest otherwise…just look at how well outlawing guns went in Chicago starting back in 1982. There will likely never be a full repeal of the right, either, as the idea of disarming the American people, particularly as Russia and China grow ever bolder in their international devilishness, leaves the world’s greatest nation feeling like sitting ducks. So, instead of working toward a total nullification of the inalienable right, the Democrats simply work to make if more difficult, more annoying, and more expensive to own the sort of firearms equipment that they want. This year will be no exception. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) introduced legislation on Wednesday to ban the sale and possession of firearm suppressors. His legislation, the Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act, is co-sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), among others. It would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearm suppressors. Menendez commented on the legislation, saying: Gun silencers are dangerous devices with one purpose and one purpose only – to muffle the sound of gunfire from unsuspecting victims. The sound of gunshots is what signals you to run, hide, take cover, call the police and help others save themselves; however, this is nearly impossible when a gun silencer is used. That is why we must pass the HEAR Act, commonsense legislation that will prevent armed assailants from using these deadly devices to make it easier to shoot and kill another person. Of course, there was no definitive plan as to how confiscation would work, or what the left believes an acceptable amount of casualties would be for…