“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” was reportedly the question King Henry II asked of his knights in 1170 AD to goad them into murdering the English Archbishop, Thomas Beckett. Did President Obama utter a similar wail to inspire his intelligence agencies to wiretap Trump headquarters at Trump Tower?
It’s an interesting speculation, and not the only one rising in the flotsam that is called “breaking news.”
Anyone under 60 is too young to remember that in the Watergate impeachment saga of 1972-74, President Richard Nixon was never proven — or even seriously accused – of having personally ordered the break-in of the DNC offices at the Watergate Hotel. That fact did not save him from impeachment, and it may not save Barack Obama from criminal prosecution.
It turned out that Richard Nixon did not know about the Watergate break-in until he read about it in the newspaper. And that turned out not to matter at all. It was done by people working for his Attorney General, John Mitchell, and like Obama’s agents, John Mitchell’s “plumbers” had been told they were doing it for national security reasons.
The successful Watergate prosecution of Nixon aides tells us that Obama’s personal role in launching the wiretap of the server at Trump Tower is irrelevant to his political and legal culpability. It was done on his watch, by appointees on his team, for the benefit of his political allies — under the cover of national security. Sound familiar?
The question Americans will soon be asking is the same one asked by the Watergate Special Prosecutor: What did Obama know and when did he know it?
- Did Obama see summaries or transcripts of the wiretapped conversations? Why?
- Did he or anyone in the Obama administration share summaries with the Clinton campaign?
- Did anyone on the Obama team, such as the appointees at the CIA, NSA or Treasury Department, leak summaries or transcripts to the media for political purposes?
If the answer is “yes” to even one of those questions and if former Obama appointees are now busily engaged in a fervid cover up of those facts, then we witnessing the unfolding of Watergate Scandal 2.0.
We already know the answer to at least one of those questions because the first public acknowledgment of the alleged wiretapping was in a New York Times story in January a day before the Inauguration of Donald Trump as our 45th president. The purpose of the leak to the New York Times was to feed the narrative of a Trump campaign link to “the Russians.”
The supreme irony of the Trump Tower wiretapping enterprise is that the wiretaps found no illegal activity: no evidence was uncovered of collusion with Russian hackers or the Russian government to advance any illegal plot—and no evidence of attempted manipulation of the election. In fact, no evidence has yet been produced from any source to support that desperate Democrat narrative.
Richard Nixon was forced to resign the Presidency because of his involvement in the attempted cover-up of the role his appointees played in the break-in at the headquarters of his political opponents.
- It is irrelevant whether Obama himself “ordered” the reported wiretapping at Trump Tower or knew of it in advance.
- One or more of Obama’s appointees went to the FISA court and got a warrant to wiretap the Republican candidate for President.
- And then someone on Obama’s team leaked the existence of the wiretapping enterprise in an effort to smear the incoming President as a Russian stooge.
Just like the bungled Watergate break-in, the reported wiretapping of Obama’s political opponent, Donald Trump, was done on Obama’s watch by his team for his benefit. If any of the wiretaps of Trump associates produced evidence of Trump collaboration with Russian agents to influence the outcome of the November election, that evidence would have already been splashed across our television screens.
Judging from Obama’s behavior since January 21, he and his team are still at it, still working to sell a lie. And, so are his allies and agents in the corporate media.
Special Prosecutor time? Bring it on!