Mission: Insurrection

This message will not self-destruct in five seconds.

I’ve long believed Obama’s hands were dirty in every aspect of the “Get Trump” affair.

This is just not something a little insurrection-ey the members of a coffee klatch cooked up in an Alexandra Starbucks and then decided it was worth doing. This is something that gets done because you are completely dedicated and devoted to a charismatic leader you believe somehow supersedes all others in wisdom, purity and leadership and want to see his legacy become real and permanent, and you are willing to break every oath, every law, and ignore the Constitution to see it through.

For people to risk their reputations – in truth, risk life and limb - to run a decades long operation to try to stop a candidate from being elected and when he beat the odds, to try to manufacture a process to end his presidency before it started, to impeach him twice, then try literally every trick in the book to destroy his business, his family , his inner circle, and to imprison him for civil, criminal, and national security crimes seems way too Jim Jones/Peoples Temple-ish.

This is about hatred of Trump, but I think it is more about total devotion to Obama – mostly because what people did represented great personal risk – bordering on sedition and possibly extending to treason.

The notion that a DOJ operation targeting a rival party’s candidate could proceed without the sitting president’s knowledge or approval is unthinkable. Obama, known for his calculated oversight, likely relied on Susan Rice as an intermediary to maintain plausible deniability until Trump’s unexpected 2016 victory over “Madam NeverPresident” Hillary Clinton forced his direct involvement.

The question in my mind isn’t whether Obama was complicit - it’s just how deep his involvement ran. With DNI Tulsi Gabbard now accessing classified records and referring them to the authorities and Congress, the extent of Obama’s role may soon come to light.

The Jack Smith J6 indictment of former President Donald Trump fierce debate, drawing parallels to the actions of Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. If the legal threshold applied to Trump were universally enforced, both Gore and Clinton could face severe consequences for their roles in challenging election results. Gore’s prolonged legal battle over Florida’s vote count in 2000, which delayed the certification of George W. Bush’s victory, and Clinton’s persistent 2016 claims that Trump’s presidency was “illegitimate” due to alleged Russian interference, could be interpreted as undermining electoral trust - much like the accusations against Trump.

The left claimed – and still claims – that “election denialism” is some kind of disqualifying belief, even as they indulge in it.

For example, Hillary Clinton’s public statements, including her 2019 assertion that the election was “stolen,” mirror the rhetoric she criticized in Trump. Similarly, figures like James Clapper, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, John Brennan, and the 50 intelligence officials who falsely labeled Hunter Biden’s laptop as “Russian disinformation” in 2020 could and should face legal scrutiny for peddling misleading narratives to sway voters. Their actions, often justified as protecting national security, suggest a pattern of manipulating public perception to influence elections.

A key example of this interference is the January 5, 2017, White House meeting involving Strzok, Susan Rice, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Sally Yates. Declassified notes reveal they discussed surveilling Michael Flynn, Trump’s incoming national security advisor, and withholding critical information from the Trump team. This meeting, far from a one-off, was part of a broader effort tied to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, launched in July 2016 to probe Trump’s campaign based on flimsy evidence like the Steele dossier - a document later discredited for its unverified claims. By the time the 2020 election loomed, Crossfire Hurricane had evolved into a sprawling operation, raising questions about its true purpose: was it to investigate or to sabotage?

And remember Rice’s memo to herself, written on January 20, 2017, claiming Obama insisted everything be “by the book”? Why even have any written evidence of that meeting, especially a memo that reeks of a cover-your-ass move.

This may well turn into one of those “we know” situations where we lack enough hard proof to overcome the horrific thought of dealing with, and punishing, the aftermath of the greatest conspiracy to attack the Constitution and American sovereignty in the history of this nation. I think the only hope there are more than a few breadcrumbs is that this group of saboteurs were far more arrogant than they were smart or careful. Whether enough clear evidence can be found and substantiated is still open – and assuming there is something concrete, perhaps the biggest question is whether our judicial system has the courage to pursue them against a former two term president and his Mission Insurrection team.