In the aftermath of the “FISA Abuse” memo that the House Intelligence Committee released last Friday, several Washington, D.C., politicians and pundits were quick to assure us that the said memo had nothing to do with the “collusion with Russia” on-going investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.
That might be true assuming that the purpose of the Mueller’s probe was to crack down of any kind of “collusion with Russia” as if the said “collusion” was one of the greatest evils that threatens our national well-being. But even then, why would one a priori assert that the fact, indicated in the “FISA Abuse” memo, that Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC paid, via former British spy Christopher Steele and opposition research company, Fusion GPS, to the Russians for the “dirt” that would have potential of derailing Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, should not be scrutinized by Mr. Mueller and his prosecutors? Clearly, Russians, who gladly supplied (or manufactured) that dirt for the money they took, did de facto attempt to influence the result of the Presidential election of 2016, so there was at least a credible suspicion of Clinton campaign and DNC’s collusion with the Russians.
So, perhaps, the mentioned above politicians and pundits understood the descriptor “collusion with Russia” as “Trump and his campaign’s collusion with Russia”? Under such interpretation, their declaration of irrelevance of “FISA Abuse” memo to Mueller’s search for truth makes sense. But then, why would we have a special prosecutor spending more than a million dollars a month trying to investigate what looks like an absurd allegation of a wrong doing of unknown – if any – impact on the election result while ignoring a much bigger threat to the integrity of American elections: FBI abuse of its surveillance powers in a blatant attempt to prevent and obstruct transition of control the White House from one party to another? Is this because the establishment of the party that usurped a moral right to rule America, and its opportunistic collaborators in the “Deep State”, worry more about a speck in their opponent’s eye than about a log in their own? (It surely looks like that.)
Any sense of priority, please?
From the national interest perspective, the most pressing issue at hand that needs to be dealt with swiftly is protecting the integrity of American elections. The American electorate is entitled to its fundamental right to chose who the next president is. If there are individuals and groups that are trying to deprive the voters from that right, it is a sworn duty of the federal government to launch a publicly scrutinized investigation that would lead to effective prosecution and stern punishment of all those guilty of such attempts. The investigation should not just confine itself to such activities as collusion with Russia or other foreign entities, but should also target voter fraud (including “dragging” to the polls of some voters while intimidating others to not vote, as well as facilitating non-citizen voting), interference of the sitting president with the election process (including facilitation of opposition research on behalf of his party), and – which appears as the most serious matter – organized opposition of the unelected but powerful government’s officials (sometimes referred to as the “Deep State”) to undo the results of elections that they don’t approve of.
As of now, we still have a federal government that is mostly accountable to We the People. The said accountability has a weak point in that is hangs on the voters right to elect whom they (as opposed to anybody else) please. We have to jealously guard that basic right or else we won’t be able to keep the Republic that the Founding Fathers created for us. Mr. Mueller’s probe needs to be terminated and followed by an appointment of a new special prosecutor who will go after all those members of the Deep State who were trying to deprive We the People of our right to decide who the President of the U.S. is. Anything short of that would constitute an insult the the American people; the clause “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends” might apply.
February 3, 2018
~ The Author ~
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s recent columns are posted at:
Links to his other commentaries can be found here: http://www.oocities.org/readerswrite/List_date.htm