From Calvin Freiburger: Last week came word that former President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice had justified her unmasking of senior officials within Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in intelligence reports on the grounds that she was attempting to get to the bottom of a late 2016 visit to New York by the prince of the United Arab Emirates, with whom Trump associates have had dealings.
This explanation doesn’t pass the smell test for several reasons (not least of which being Rice’s initial denials that she knew anything about any unmaskings), and now comes word of a more likely explanation.
Daniel Greenfield at FrontPageMag thinks he’s figured out the real reason for all of this, and we’re inclined to agree.
Many people have already reached the obvious conclusion that the Obama Administration was exploiting its powers to dig up whatever dirt they could on their political enemies, first to hand the 2016 election to Democrat Hillary Clinton, and then when that failed to delegitimize and undermine the incoming Trump Administration.
On one level their reasons for doing this are nothing new; from judicial activism to vote fraud, Democrats have always embraced whatever dirty trick they can to subvert democracy whenever it doesn’t go their way. However, Greenfield sees something else at play in this particular scandal.
First, he lays out why the legal justifications Obama apologists have trotted out ultimately don’t matter:
A criminal motive can be spotted by a consistent pattern of actions disguised by different pretexts. A dirty cop may lose two pieces of evidence from the same defendant while giving two different excuses. A shady accountant may explain two otherwise identical losses in two different ways. Both excuses are technically plausible. But it’s the pattern that makes the crime.
Manafort was spied on under the Russia pretext. Bannon may have been spied on over the UAE. That’s two different countries, two different people and two different pretexts.
But one single target. President Trump.
Greenfield essentially argues that not long after Team Obama opened the door to spying on Trump officials, that pattern became not only undeniable, but a Watergate-level threat to them…meaning they had only one option left:
The more crimes they committed by spying on the opposition, the more urgently they needed to bring down Trump. The consequences of each crime that they had committed spurred them on to commit worse crimes to save themselves from going to jail. It’s the same old story when it comes to criminals.
Each act of illegal surveillance became more blatant. And when illegal surveillance couldn’t stop Trump’s victory, they had to double down on the illegal surveillance for a coup.
From this, Greenfield concludes that America currently stands at a historical turning point: “If Obama goes down, the left will go down with him. If his coup succeeds, then America ends.” And what needs to happen for Obama to go down?
Either the investigation gets results. Or its perpetrators are left hanging in the wind. If McMaster is fired, which on purely statistical grounds he probably will be, and a Trump loyalist who wasn’t targeted by the surveillance operation becomes the next National Security Adviser and brings in Trump loyalists, as Flynn tried to do, then it’s over.
And the Dems finally get their Watergate. Except the star won’t be Trump, it will be Obama. Rice, Power, Lynch and the rest of the gang will be the new Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell.
There’s a lot more at the link, which you should read in full. We find this to be a fascinating and all-too-plausible explanation for what happened, what’s at stake…and why the Trump Administration needs an Attorney General willing to hold these thugs accountable.