- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

An Obama Plot Against Trump?

Devin Nunes just set the cat down among the pigeons.

Two days after FBI Director James Comey assured us there was no truth to President Trump’s tweet about being wiretapped by Barack Obama, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Trump may have had more than just a small point.

The U.S. intelligence community, says Nunes, during surveillance of legitimate targets, picked up the names of Trump transition officials during surveillance of targets, “unmasked” their identity, and spread their names around, virtually assuring they would be leaked.

If true, this has the look and smell of a conspiracy to sabotage the Trump presidency, before it began.

Comey readily confirmed there was no evidence to back up the Trump tweet. But when it came to electronic surveillance of Trump and his campaign, Comey, somehow, could not comment on that.

Which raises the question: what is the real scandal here?

Is it that Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails and handed them off to WikiLeaks? We have heard that since June.

Is it that Trump officials may have colluded with the Russians?

But former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and ex-CIA Director Mike Morrell have both said they saw no evidence of this.

This March, Sen. Chris Coons walked back his stunning declaration about transcripts showing a Russia-Trump collusion, confessing, “I have no hard evidence of collusion.”

But if Clapper and Morrell saw no Russia-Trump collusion, what were they looking at during all those months to make them so conclude?

Was it “FBI transcripts,” as Senator Coons blurted out?

If so, who intercepted and transcribed the conversations? If it was intel agencies engaged in surveillance, who authorized that? How extensive was it? Against whom? Is it still going on?

And if today, after eight months, the intel agencies cannot tell us whether or not any member of the Trump team colluded with the Russians, what does that say of their competence?

The real scandal, which the media regard as a diversion from the primary target, Trump, is that a Deep State conspiracy to bring down his presidency seems to have been put in place by Obamaites, and perhaps approved by Obama himself.

Consider. On January 12, David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote,

“According to a senior U.S. government official, (Gen. Michael) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials … What did Flynn say?”

Now, on December 29, Flynn, national security adviser-designate, was not only doing his job calling the ambassador, he was a private citizen.

Why was he unmasked by U.S. intelligence?

Who is this “senior official” who dropped the dime on him? Could this official have known how many times Flynn spoke to Kislyak, yet not known what was said on the calls?

That is hard to believe. This looks like a contract hit by an anti-Trump agent in the intel community, using Ignatius to do the wet work.

Flynn was taken down. Did Comey turn his FBI loose to ferret out the felon who had unmasked Flynn and done him in? If not, why not?

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Dan Henninger points anew to a story in the New York Times of March 1 that began:

“In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Trump and Russians — across the government.”

“This is what they did,” wrote Henninger, quoting the Times:

“At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies.”

For what benign purpose would U.S. intelligence agents spread secrets damaging to their own president—to foreign regimes? Is this not disloyalty? Is this not sedition?

On January 12, writes Henninger, the Times “reported that Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed rules that let the National Security Agency disseminate ‘raw signals intelligence information’ to 16 other intelligence agencies.”

Astounding. The Obamaites seeded the U.S. and allied intel communities with IEDs to be detonated on Trump’s arrival. This is the scandal, not Trump telling Vlad to go find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails.

We need to know who colluded with the Russians, if anyone did. But more critically, we need to unearth the deep state conspiracy to sabotage a presidency.

So far, the Russia-connection investigation has proven a dry hole. But an investigation into who in the FBI, CIA, or NSA is unmasking U.S. citizens and criminally leaking information to a Trump-hating press to destroy a president they are sworn to serve could prove to be a gusher.

As for the reports of Lynch-White House involvement in this unfolding plot to damage and destroy Trump the real question is: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority [1].

46 Comments (Open | Close)

46 Comments To "An Obama Plot Against Trump?"

#1 Comment By Fran Macadam On March 23, 2017 @ 10:34 pm

Oh, but the Most Open Administration Ever (TM) would never do anything to spy on or retaliate against its domestic enemies…

#2 Comment By Joe F On March 23, 2017 @ 10:53 pm

Just nonsense Pat and you know it. Trump was never a direct target of surveillance and his associates got dragged in by communicating with individuals currently being tracked by US intelligence during the transition, not campaign. I don’t get the vapors over them having discussions with foreign individuals and would expect that Obama and his administration turned up on these calls when they came into the White House, so I don’t impugn his associates without further information, but yours is an intentionally misleading representation of event and you know better, but carry the water anyways. I have no idea where the Russia probe leads, but Nunes clearly crossed a line by briefing Trump and none of the disclosures do anything close to what you suggest as far as implicating Obama. I know the water is getting heavy to carry, but good grief, this is a knowingly misdirection on your part and is a transparently weak effort

#3 Comment By Ken T On March 23, 2017 @ 10:55 pm

The story is that the Intelligence Community, in the course of monitoring Russian espionage targets, stumbled across contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian targets. The attempts to spin this story as some kind of plot by Obama against Trump is not only ridiculous, but more and more is sounding pathetically desperate. Whether or not there was actual collusion has yet to be determined (at least publicly). But if those contacts existed, they were not planted there by Obama. The Trump team walked into that snare entirely on their own. The only thing that Nunes accomplished with his panicked run to the WH was to prove his utter lack of impartiality, and completely disqualify himself from having any further contact with the investigation.

#4 Comment By ReallyTAC On March 23, 2017 @ 10:55 pm

Reality has never kept Pat Buchanan from writing a long narrative about something he has been completely wrong about, so it should not be that surprising.

Hark what do I hear?

[2]

That Nunes has to admit he doesn’t know what he was talking about.

“The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know “for sure” whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president’s wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson.”

I am sure for Buchanan’s ethics, morals, and truth telling abilities he will put an addendum stating how wrong he is . Ha, I know.

#5 Comment By Whine Merchant On March 23, 2017 @ 11:23 pm

Let me see if I can make sense of this Trumpian pseudo logic:
There was no collusion between the Trump camp and Putin’s people.
Obama [perhaps personally, according to Buchanan] went seeking evidence of something that wasn’t there.
Agencies [that we now know are personally loyal to Obama and not to the duly elected President]found something suspicious, that happened to include Camp Trump.
So this article says that there was nothing going on with the Russians, and any evidence of Trumps people talking with Russians proves that Obama was spying on Trump, but that the conversations don’t exist if the question is about Republicans.

Phew – had one to follow…

#6 Comment By john On March 24, 2017 @ 1:47 am

Oh BS! Trumps tweets created a vision of Obama in the basement of Trump tower with his tool belt doing something funny in the electrical closet.

Instead we learn that if you talk to the Russian ambassador there is a chance the NSA is listening. Apparently Trumps guys talk to the Russians a lot which isn’t illegal but it is interesting. Well what dummy didn’t know that? I mean other than Flynn

#7 Comment By Tiktaalik On March 24, 2017 @ 5:02 am

But it can be even more troubling.
Maybe Russia does not need any strong leadership in the USA, and the state of permanent turmoil suits it much better.
Thus can it be that people like Adam Schiff, whose ancestors came from the Russian Empire are real ‘Russian candidates’? And incessantly stirring these scandals they play in the hands of their Moscow masters?

#8 Comment By stephen weber On March 24, 2017 @ 7:38 am

I think that Obama was a great orator. You can without doubt say that he influenced every politician’s words for the rest of eternity. For example the word “folks”. Obama owns the copyright on that word. And you now find “folks” on the other side of the aisle saying that word just like Obama did. In this regard you are correct.

#9 Comment By Jim J On March 24, 2017 @ 8:07 am

Dear Mr. Buchanan,

How far does one need to fall to know that he can’t recover from the fall?

If this insubordination is so deep and incorrigible and there is no way to jettison it, where does the chief executive go, or to whom does his staff go to get anything done? It seems you have done a fair accounting of those organizations who wish to see the fall, but we are not asking the right questions? I, for one, want to know why. There must be a deeper meaning to this than plain greed. “How can it be undone?” is another question that comes to mind… does the deep state want to see the wrath of God out of some bizarre curiosity?

#10 Comment By Kurt Gayle On March 24, 2017 @ 9:55 am

“…A Deep State conspiracy to bring down his presidency seems to have been put in place by Obamaites, and perhaps approved by Obama himself…We need to unearth the deep state conspiracy to sabotage a presidency.”

That may well be the case, but as much as we need “an investigation into who in the FBI, CIA, or NSA is unmasking U.S. citizens and criminally leaking information…to destroy a president,” we must not allow such an investigation to preoccupy the White House and Congress or to distract the Trump administration from pushing through the important policy changes that Trump was elected to push through.

A conspiracy to sabotage Trump is, after all, not motivated by the conspirators’ hatred of Trump, as much as their disagreement with the vital changes in US policies that Trump was elected to push through.

It isn’t Trump the person that the conspirators want to stop, but Trump’s America First agenda.

If it will tie up Trump’s agenda, the conspirators are quite willing to feed the fixation, frenzy, and circus of a prolonged investigation by throwing various Obama administration players and appointees under the bus. They are willing to sacrifice any of their co-conspirators in order to create a months-long national distraction from the important national business at hand.

An investigation, yes. But those of us who elected Trump deserve not to have such an investigation distract the Trump team from carrying out all of the President’s campaign promises to the American people.

An investigation, yes. But we need to keep our eyes on the ball

#11 Comment By Fred Bowman On March 24, 2017 @ 10:44 am

Pat, in your worship of Trump you have “sold out” all your paleo-conservative principles and values. Trump is well on his way making America more of a warmaking interventionist state than even Hillary Clinton would have done, as I feel she would been pretty reckless herself. You do understand that when the Empires falls that it WILL take what’s left of the Republic with it. Of course you could have changed into a bitter old man who doesn’t care anymore?

#12 Comment By Michael On March 24, 2017 @ 11:22 am

Pat, you have truly jumped the shark. Time to go collect your Social Security and keep your paranoid ramblings to yourself.

#13 Comment By Steveb On March 24, 2017 @ 11:33 am

It apesrs that this was mistakenly posted on TAC, it was supposed to be posted to Fox News as click bait for the weak minded.

Sorry for the inconvenience…

#14 Comment By Dana Pavlick On March 24, 2017 @ 11:46 am

Excellent article, Pat.

Nothing proves it as well as the commentators here today who you clearly have good and scared. They think so little of your readership’s mental acumen that they think their usual substitution of refutation with sneering or attacking your person instead of your point will fly here. Save it for NYT and WAPO; the home of such antics.
As you well know, you only get flak like this when you are over the target.

#15 Comment By Joe the Plutocrat On March 24, 2017 @ 12:40 pm

The problem with desperate, partisan conspiracy theories are, they’re, for lack of a better word; partisan (a better word would be plausible). I’ve argued this ad nauseum; the ‘deep state’ conspiracy is the next logical ‘conspiracy’ now that the ‘birther’ allegations have been debunked. And ironically, although ‘their guy’ won in 2016, they are still working through the “sour grapes” produced by the Obama victory in 2008. Guys, let it go. As has been noted, it is becoming obvious members of the Trump campaign team, and activity at Trump Tower – perhaps before Trump announced in 2015, maybe even before 2008 – caught the attention of intelligence/counter-intelligence professionals, who as part of their sworn oath (job description) sought and conducted surveillance. And let us not forget, just like 45, the 44th POTUS swore an oath the best of his ability, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Even of the 44th POTUS, via some classified Executive Order, authorized said “wire taps”, it was done legally. To re-brand this as some sort of ‘deep state’ conspiracy, or political vendetta on the part of the previous POTUS is, well as bizarre as, well continuing the crises of “show us your birth certificate” years after seeing the birth certificate (or Tweeting, ‘see you in court’ after being defeated in court). Again, this is a desperate, “double down” bet, which is in line with the way real estate moguls and game show hosts (think “Let’s Make a Deal” meets “The Art of the Deal”).

#16 Comment By chipshot On March 24, 2017 @ 12:42 pm

Jeez, the hatred of liberals is so visceral, that previously well regarded people like Pat will tie themselves in logic knots over bad policy. When do we as a country get past this? Will respect for truth and reality based argument ever make a return?

We are waiting for our long lost brothers to come out of their deliriums of hatred and return to respecting science, respecting and helping those less fortunate or different than themselves, ie being real the authentic christians they have long claimed to be, rather than whatever it is they practice now, a cold religion that appears to all others like a white robed religion of intolerance and driven by corporate profiteering.

#17 Comment By meejaboy On March 24, 2017 @ 12:47 pm

I mean, all this faux outrage about Obama – Trump people were picked up *when they called foreign spies* undermining US democracy.

It’s rather like saying – why was Obama surveilling Russian spies? Shouldn’t he have known the Trump team were calling them?

Did Obama *tell* the Trump team to call the Russians – and that’s why did it? Did Obama play a trick on them to do it?

The lesson? If you’re colluding with foreign powers to subvert US democracy, don’t call your handler – they’re under surveillance, and you’ll be found out.

#18 Comment By The Other Sands On March 24, 2017 @ 12:50 pm

TAC has had very little serious conversation about the actual Russia story, which is that they interfered in our election and have shady relationships with multiple people very very close to Trump over the last year or two. Even monetary relationships.

It looks increasingly likely that the FBI will act, and not against ephemeral complaints about Obama, but against Trump’s close advisers and perhaps Trump himself. I think some people around here and across the right-wing media bubble are going to feel a profound whiplash when they realize they’ve been ignoring the actual Russia story playing out right under their noses, due to their own biases.

#19 Comment By OhhJim On March 24, 2017 @ 12:55 pm

Stuff and nonsense. Mr. Buchanan needs to keep more current of events. This was obviously written 3 days ago. Circumstances have changed since then. Maybe long naps are not really what’s needed.

#20 Comment By collin On March 24, 2017 @ 1:03 pm

Several items:

1) Nobody has a clear idea what Nunes is talking about here and what he wanted to achieve by his actions.
2) Listening to Nunes’ comments we learned some Trumps name were intercepted with people our intelligence sounds really Bad. And they are still not pointing anywhere near Obama at this point and it is all CIA & FBI findings.
3) Manafort and Stone are going to testify one way or another but likely behind closed doors.
4) Trump’s team is leakiest campaign team and administration ever. Seriously this is not Nixon’s team (solid and organized) but extremely an incompetent team that really likes to stab other members in the back. And Carter, Stone and Manafort can’t shut the heck up.
5) It appears Schiff is smart and patient. Whatever happened WILL come out. (see point 4)

Again, what if the goal is not Impeachment (Where are the crimes?) but to drag the Trump/Russian connection out the next several years. It made HRC look bad and it may stick on Trump a lot here.

#21 Comment By John S On March 24, 2017 @ 1:19 pm

@JoeF
+100

#22 Comment By Joe the Plutocrat On March 24, 2017 @ 2:31 pm

excuse me; the way real estate moguls and game show hosts operate. I think the ‘deep state’ is hacking my posts and applying its nefarious spell/grammar check to discredit me. or I could be sloppy and lazy when it comes to editing/proofing my posts?

#23 Comment By grumpy realist On March 24, 2017 @ 2:54 pm

Why not blame Trump’s problems on The Illuminati? You have just as much evidence for that as for a “Deep State” talked about only on far-right conspiracy websites.

#24 Comment By ADC Wonk On March 24, 2017 @ 3:03 pm

I want to know how the guys that leaked info to Woodward and Bernstein got away with that. That was the real crime, I tell ya’!

And this article is spot on, too. Clearly it’s Obama’s fault that they were monitoring known Russian spies, and Trump’s campaign were making phone calls to them. What an elaborate trap!

#25 Comment By Derek On March 24, 2017 @ 4:32 pm

Does anyone else find it ironic that the guy who worked for and still to this day defends a President who LITERALLY TAPPED AND BUGGED HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES AND HAD TO RESIGN is calling the incidental collection of Trump administration conversations as some new Watergate. Incidentally, you’ll notice that Pat declined to use that term when talking about these (fake) transgressions.

Don’t get me wrong, I have huge issues with incidental collection, but who wants to take a bet on whether Trump will call for an end to the practice or propose legislation to curb the ability of the NSA to incidentally collect American communications? Does anyone want to take that bet? I’ll give you 100-1 odds.

#26 Comment By Al Strickland On March 24, 2017 @ 4:40 pm

Quote from the article: “Which raises the question: what is the real scandal here?” This is a propaganda technique called ‘Diversion”. The question implies (in the context of the statements directly above) there is only one ‘real’ scandal. The author then goes on to ‘direct’ the reader to the ‘real’ scandal and away from the ‘unreal’ scandal. An example is quoting Senator Coons: “I have no hard evidence of collusion.” To put this in a partial context: I have no hard evidence the world is round. My statement and Coon’s statement are most assuredly accurate, but also (in proper context, most assuredly misleading.

#27 Comment By Craig On March 24, 2017 @ 7:18 pm

Unfortunately, for this story line, Nunes seems to be rapidly walking back much of what he originally claimed.

#28 Comment By genetuttle On March 24, 2017 @ 8:10 pm

The “Putin’s puppet” hysteria raises many unanswered questions and Buchanan has succinctly summarized them. There is far more circumstantial evidence indicating that the “Manchurian Candidate” conspiracy theory is being promoted by entrenched Washington establishment diehards than there is circumstantial evidence of the alleged conspiracy itself.

The nastiness of some of the comments above reflects the bitterness of so many in the Washington media/political establishment who cling to the conviction that only Putin himself could effectively engineer opposition to a Cold War renewal.

#29 Comment By Lee On March 24, 2017 @ 11:19 pm

Considering both CNN and MSNBC broadcast the very same Congresswoman “Live” today?

It’s too early to tell…

But the one thing for sure…the Globalist interest that have gotten a free bought and paid for ride for decades. Did we really think they’d give up all that easily?

#30 Comment By Egypt Steve On March 25, 2017 @ 12:24 am

Trump himself is a one-man conspiracy to destroy the Trump presidency. Obama doesn’t need to do anything except sit back, crack a beer with Richard Branson, and enjoy the show.

#31 Comment By Tiktaalik On March 25, 2017 @ 1:26 am

2 ADC Wonk
>>Clearly it’s Obama’s fault that they were monitoring known Russian spies, and Trump’s campaign were making phone calls to them.

Whj are these mysterious ‘known Russian spies’ you’re talking about?

#32 Comment By balconesfault On March 25, 2017 @ 5:14 am

@Tiktaalik “Thus can it be that people like Adam Schiff, whose ancestors came from the Russian Empire are real ‘Russian candidates’?”

It goes even deeper than that … since Schiff, as an assistant US Attorney back in the 90’s, successfully prosecuted Richard Miller, the first FBI agent ever accused of espionage after having passed secret documents to the USSR in exchange for money.

Clearly the first Bush Administration put Schiff into that position specifically after colluding with USSR so that he could gain anti-Russia credibility by prosecuting that case. All in the knowledge that 27 years later, Schiff would be the ranking Dem on the House Intelligence Committee when a President with significant business ties between himself, many of his political advisors, and Russian oligarchs who are loyal to the multi-billionaire Russian President – and would point to those otherwise benign financial obligations to “stir scandals” that would benefit Russia?

Given that we already know that the liberal-Russia axis is so nefarious that they managed in 1961 to get hospital officials in Hawaii to falsify a birth certificate so that the newborn black baby could decades later gain legitimacy as a US President, this positioning of Schiff seems like childs play.

Tiktaalik seems expert in teasing out these kinds of Russian conspiracies … perhaps because he is far more familiar with Russian culture and practices than those of us who live here in America?

#33 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On March 25, 2017 @ 8:02 am

Jeez, the hatred of liberals is so visceral, that previously well regarded people like Pat will tie themselves in logic knots over bad policy. When do we as a country get past this? Will respect for truth and reality based argument ever make a return?

We are waiting for our long lost brothers to come out of their deliriums of hatred and return to respecting science, respecting and helping those less fortunate or different than themselves, ie being real the authentic christians they have long claimed to be, rather than whatever it is they practice now, a cold religion that appears to all others like a white robed religion of intolerance and driven by corporate profiteering.

Seriously? You’ve noticed the “hatred of liberals” in an article where they were not even mentioned? And then have passed to a most puerile and whiny diversity propaganda as a “response” to a “religious fundamentalism” where the religion was not even implied? Pathetic. Iratus, ergo nefas. And this can be said about all of you, dear liberals, progressives or whatever you think yourselves to be. I understand that Trump derangement syndrome is, perhaps, the hardest of all possible deliriums a human being can be plagued with, but I would never imagine it could make an unfortunate entirely and permanently reject the queen of all sciences – logic, the science of judgement. This is pretty… deplorable, I’d surmise.

#34 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On March 25, 2017 @ 8:10 am

To put this in a partial context: I have no hard evidence the world is round.

No, you have it. Like anyone of us who ever bothers to think about it and to behold the world around for a moment there.

#35 Comment By Ken On March 25, 2017 @ 9:13 am

Does the American Conservative really want to do the route of craven Trump apologists? I realize that you have some writers who aren’t, like Daniel Larison, who is fantastic, but keeping Pat Buchanan will bring you down in the end.

#36 Comment By Kurt Gayle On March 25, 2017 @ 10:04 am

In “Exposing Shabby Intelligence” (TAC, March 23, 2017) Philip Giraldi makes reference to key NSA whistleblower William Binney.

In an interview on March 24th Binney told Tucker Carlson that President Trump’s phone calls, emails were probably being monitored:

[3]

#37 Comment By Mark Thomason On March 25, 2017 @ 10:40 am

This turns on whether you believe Rep Nunes.

I do. The critics don’t. They say a lot, but underneath it they just think he is lying.

What would they have said if the party leader in that Committee had revealed that Hillary’s campaign had been subject of the same thing that was then spread around to her political opponents?

#38 Comment By EliteCommInc. On March 25, 2017 @ 12:46 pm

The ultimate I gamesmanship. Make an accusation and the proceed with a long tedious allegation of the claims that it’s an ongoing investigation.

There’s no evidence that the Russians actively did anything concerning the election. The Russians primary issue were those pertaining to events in the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. For nearly eight years the interventionists have been casing a case against Russia as part of the NATO, EU and US objective of containing them as was part of the goal with the Soviet Union. An undoubtedly irrational fear. But understandable, if one thinks of them as the “Bear”.

All three organizations miscalculated about Georgia, the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. The entire Middle East gambit has backfired. And blaming the Russians as they have become heroes of sorts for rational conduct is convenient. He blackened the eyes of the US on the Redline, as it turned out the “chemical weapons” were most likely a rebel ploy. Pres Putin has not reacted to mistakes by Turkey, nor over responded to ISIS or others shooting down a Russian Airliner. And all this has made Pres Putin an ameliorating force in the middle east. His support for Syria is welcome as opposed to the regime change ambitions of the Sec of State Clinton and company.

Pres Putin had no cause for alarm. All he need do was watch the news in the US. In all areas, the interventionists have been losing ground. Even of Sec Clinton had won, which the Russians as most of the globe thought likely, her press against Russia was only popular among beltway and connected clique. Events in the US didn’t need any Russian involvement.

Frankly, the Russians are winning the press war in the region. And whether we like it or not, our strategy against ISIS has the US having to negotiate with the Russians as allies, because apparently we oppose ISIS as well. So as has been the subtle case since 9/11 the Russians and the US have been allies of sorts in their position on “terrorists”. A rather complex scenario as the we seem to have relationships wit various groups at odds with each other as much as they are at odds with the US. Our support for a Kurdish state which nearly no one if the region supports is a nexus for violent conflict between the Sunnis and the Shia. For all of the bellyaching about Iran our policies have done more than Iran alone could to bolster their fortunes in the region.

With all the dynamics ignoring the economics of complexities of sanctions it seems rather obvious that the Russians would be engaged in negotiations — and US elections is unlikely to be their top priority.

It’s become increasingly clear that if you want effect policy, you don’t harangue the executive, you hobnob with members of Congress and powerful organizations with money, i.e, the Clinton Foundation.

I have no doubt the previous executive got sucked into the machinations of the interventionists. And I have no doubt that he had issues with the Trump bid for the WH. But It is highly unlikely that he initiated much of what has come to light.

Most of the comments here don’t make much sense to me in light of what has come to light. And the worst part of it, the darkest in my view, is that it was hidden by legal maneuvering.

#39 Comment By Robert Levine On March 25, 2017 @ 3:20 pm

Buchanan’s next piece will claim that Obama’s famed abilities at 12-dimensional chess enabled him to actually convince all those Trump associates (and appointees) to get nice and close to all those shady Russian figures so that he could “wire tapp” them.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have a grandparent who was born in Russian, so I guess that makes me someone who’s working for Putin’s chaos agenda. Or something like that.

#40 Comment By Judith Sylvester On March 25, 2017 @ 8:04 pm

I’ve been trying to figure out who has been sneaking into my house at night and shrinking my clothing. Phew. Now I know. Thanks.

#41 Comment By Steve Gibson On March 25, 2017 @ 8:56 pm

Holding Trump responsible for his awful judgment in choosing his staff is not a witch hunt. Flynn is flipping, apparently. I wonder what tune he will sing.

#42 Comment By EliteCommInc. On March 26, 2017 @ 5:25 pm

“Does anyone else find it ironic that the guy who worked for and still to this day defends a President who LITERALLY TAPPED AND BUGGED HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES AND HAD TO RESIGN . . .’

You are as they say,

“Whistling Dixie.”

President Richard Nixon did attempt to impede the investigation into Watergate. But there’s no evidence he did what you claim. Yes he had a teak that engaged in hardball, most political candidates do. But its pure speculation that he had intimate knowledge before the fact of what was taking place as to the burglary or other activities.

It has been stated that he is heard on tape, but the only information on tape reflects that he attempted to protect his legacy by impeding the investigation.

#43 Comment By Sunset On March 26, 2017 @ 7:44 pm

Pat is right. He is well informed.

Couldn’t help but wonder if some comments here and in other places aren’t from Obama plants. It surely was uncovered that Hillary had paid plants on talk shows when she was campaigning. Blinded by hatred or manipulated by the establishment, that’s why the conspiracy and plot to overthrow Trump is “diverted” by parsing the word “wiretapping,” in addition to scapegoating Russia for everything and anything.

#44 Comment By jeff On March 26, 2017 @ 11:42 pm

I counted that Mr. Buchanan raised 21 substantive questions in his article. Bravo. Let’s have an independent investigation so that we can answer these questions. Who wouldn’t support such a thing?

#45 Comment By Ellen Kennon On March 27, 2017 @ 3:55 pm

I’m no Hillary fan or plant but it’s obvious that Trump and many on his team are in some sort of collusion with Russia. There are far too many coincidences. It was made clear during the hearings that there was more than circumstantial evidence. I knew when he initially wouldn’t produce his tax returns he was probably hiding a big connection to Russia–especially since no American banks will lend him money. IT’S SO OBVIOUS.

#46 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On March 27, 2017 @ 6:57 pm

I’m no Hillary fan or plant but it’s obvious that Trump and many on his team are in some sort of collusion with Russia. There are far too many coincidences. It was made clear during the hearings that there was more than circumstantial evidence. I knew when he initially wouldn’t produce his tax returns he was probably hiding a big connection to Russia–especially since no American banks will lend him money. IT’S SO OBVIOUS.

The word “envidence” can only be used if you can show that evidence. If you cannot do it – and you cannot – then it is thousand miles away from the concept of obviousness.