It always was. And it was always the Democrat-Marxists who were doing it.
This is rich, coming from this lot. For decades, the American Left has been in, yes, active collusion with Russia and Moscow Central. The Soviets penetrated the ranks of the American journalistic establishment, not only at the New York Times — and Walter Duranty was only the tip of the iceberg — but even suborned the so-called “independent” journalists like Izzy Stone and turned them into willing agents of influence.
Andy (McCarthy) makes a convincing case (here—M) that the entire FBI/Mueller charade was a way to cover their own malfeasance in — at the Obama administration’s behest and with Hillary Clinton’s willing collusion — surveilling the Republican candidate and trying to torpedo his campaign under the guise of “national security.”
Still, who can be surprised? When it comes to national elections, the Democrats invented the concept of colluding with the Russians. We know, for example, that the late Edward Moore Kennedy, the “lion of the Senate,” actively solicited the KGB’s help in denying Ronald Reagan a second term in the White House. And Teddy went straight to the top…
This shameful episode came right at the time the American media was indulging in one of its periodic love affairs with the Soviet leadership; Andropov, the head of the KGB-turned-Soviet premier, was routinely depicted as a whisky-sipping jazz lover, in contrast to the insane cowboy, Reagan, in the White House. As it happened, I spent a good deal of time behind the Iron Curtain during this period, and can attest that the Russians and their vassals were hysterical about the Pershing missiles and the specter of the Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as “Star Wars.” They were about to lose the Cold War, and both they and their allies at the Times and in the Democrat Party knew it.
What, one might ask, is the famous Trump Tower meeting set against this act of treason?
As McCarthy notes, the small fry like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were always only the means to the larger end, which was and always has been: get Trump. When you consider that the unofficial motto of the Democrats is, “by any means necessary,” you also understand just how serious this entire attack on the orderly workings of the American electoral system has been. There should be a price to be paid — and let’s hope, when it comes, that it’s terrible.
There won’t be—not for Mueller’s sleazy, greasy coup attempt, and not for Obama’s and Hillary’s crimes either—no matter how devoutly we might wish to see true justice done. Duranty paid no price, after all (there was some noise made about rescinding the Pulitzer he won for his “journalism,” but the Pulitzer board declined to do so); Kennedy didn’t either. So now that we’re tangled much deeper in the socialist web than we were in Duranty’s or Teddy’s day, how could anyone expect that there would be for their latter-day fellow travelers, especially in light of how much higher His Majesty and Her Herness rank in the Deep State labyrinth than Duranty ever did?
There’s a reasonable case to be made that seeing justice properly visited on Obama and Clinton would lead to massive upheaval and unrest—accompanied by the usual rampant violence as well—on the part of their acolytes, I suppose. It’s also reasonable to assume that Trump would be extremely reluctant to risk such disorder by insisting on said justice being done. Better to let them skate than to rend the nation asunder, would be the thinking.
But I ain’t the guy to make that case. Looking the other way at outright treason, thereby proving for all time that there are two sets of laws in force in this country—one for the elite and a much harsher, less flexible one for the rest of us—will do far more long-term damage.
On the other hand, it isn’t as if anybody paying attention doesn’t already know it—that we haven’t had ample demonstrations of such unequal justice flung in our very teeth for years and years now. “Equality under the law” is little more than a punchline; American justice is routinely bought and sold, and the powerful are de facto exempt from any due reckoning for crimes that would see us lesser mortals swinging from a gibbet with a quickness. Like money in politics, it’s part of the human condition, not something that’s ever likely to change. Nonetheless, it doesn’t say much for the national conceit of “American exceptionalism,” now does it?
This all gets me to thinking some larger thoughts, which I’ll try to address in my next post.