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

Did the FBI Conspire to Stop Trump?

While you are here…For the last 15 years, our magazine has endeavored to be your refuge from the nasty partisan politics and Washington echo chamber with thoughtful, smart conservatism, fresh and challenging writing, and authors who, above all, bravely hew to our most basic tenets: Ideas over ideology, principles over party. Please consider a tax-deductible, year-end contribution [1] so that TAC can make an even bigger difference in 2018!

The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was supposed to answer was a simple one: Did he do it?

Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack the emails of John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump?

A year and a half into the investigation, and still no “collusion” has been found. Yet the investigation goes on, at the demand of the Never Trump media and Beltway establishment.

Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.

Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?

Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation for what is going down here.

That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump’s presidency, overturn his mandate, and bring him down.

change_me

Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting national security secrets over her private email server. That initial objective was achieved 18 months ago.

On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the evidence gathered by the FBI, “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton. Therefore, that was the course that he, Comey, was recommending.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton—to discuss golf and grandkids, of course—seconded Comey’s decision.

And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious?

First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not the FBI. Comey’s preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing.

Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been “extremely careless” with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of “gross negligence”—the precise language in the statute that justifies indictment.

Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase “gross negligence” was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the “idiot” Trump.

After one meeting with “Andy” (McCabe), Strzok told Page an “insurance policy” was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.

Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did sit down with her, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers present.

One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude that the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary was wired from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, and Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.

Yet if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton campaign.

For there a Russian connection has been established.

Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his “dirty dossier” that was distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.

And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?

Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions through law firm Perkins Coie.

Let’s review the bidding.

The “dirty dossier,” a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods, and half-truths, created to destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy’s collusion with Kremlin agents.

In December 26’s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision “to open a counterintelligence investigation (of Trump).” And press reports “cite the document’s disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps.”

If this is true, a critical questions arises.

Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American people?

Director Comey has been fired. FBI number two McCabe is now retiring under a cloud. Mueller’s top FBI investigator Peter Strzok and lover Lisa have been discharged. And Mueller is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.

Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his “Get Hoffa Squad” to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King.

Is history repeating itself—with the president of the United States the designated target of an elite FBI cabal?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

All of us at TAC wish you a Merry Christmas holiday and the best wishes for 2018. Our 501(c)(3) depends on your generosity to make the biggest impact possible. Please consider your tax deductible donation to our magazine, here. [1]* Thank you!

*Contribute $250 or more before December 31 and receive an autographed copy of Robert Merry’s brand new book, President McKinley: Architect of a New Century!

50 Comments (Open | Close)

50 Comments To "Did the FBI Conspire to Stop Trump?"

#1 Comment By tzx4 On December 28, 2017 @ 10:20 pm

Hey Pat!
I would love to hear how you square up Mr. Comey’s announcement 11 days before the election that there was an investigation of emails related to Ms. Clinton with the thrust of your essay. Shortly after that the polls shifted dramatically. To my mind it looked like Mr. Comey deliberately torpedoed Ms Clinton.
Why do you not mention this in your essay?

#2 Comment By Dale On December 29, 2017 @ 2:11 am

Pat,
You’re starting to sound like a neocon. You and Bill Kristol close golfing buddies now?

#3 Comment By Frank On December 29, 2017 @ 7:20 am

Only Gunga Din could carry more water than Mr. Buchanan.

#4 Comment By collin On December 29, 2017 @ 8:21 am

That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

Then why did the Comey letter come out 10 days before the election? (Which obviously did not need leaked) Or why did the FBI deny any investigation of Trump and Russians before election day. Or why was the FBI leaking to Flynn and Gulliani like crazy most of 2016.

If you ask which side the FBI supported on November 8th 2016, the answer was Trump. And don’t pretend that was not true.

#5 Comment By k squared On December 29, 2017 @ 8:29 am

a week before the election comey and the fbi let out that there was a new investigation of hillary – you don’t think that was a major factor in the election?!?!?! that’s more suspicious than any of the investigations into trump and his cronies

#6 Comment By JLF On December 29, 2017 @ 8:30 am

How can you say this, Pat? How do you know? Why isn’t the infamous dossier solid gold, 100’% truth? What makes your evidence good and Hillary’s evidence bad? Who is arbiter of truth?

None of these questions can be answered until there is an agreed upon standard. And there won’t be one if it lets my enemies, whomever they may be, “win”. This isn’t an existential crisis for the country; it’s an existential crisis for a civilization. And we won’t have the luxury the Romans and other hegemonic empires have had. This could be gone in what’s left of our lifetimes (and I’m just a very few years younger than you.)

#7 Comment By JohnS On December 29, 2017 @ 8:57 am

@tzx4
+1

Also, if there was malfeasance on the part of the FBI, why doesn’t Trump’s Justice Dept. open an investigation?

#8 Comment By Mark Thomason On December 29, 2017 @ 9:31 am

It always read to me that no reasonable prosecutor would indict a candidate for the Presidency late in a campaign, since that would be too great a political intervention. It did not matter what she did, a “reasonable prosecutor” was not going to indict her.

#9 Comment By Michael Kenny On December 29, 2017 @ 9:53 am

Diversion! The usual hair-splitting: Russiagate concerns only collusion by the the Trump campaign with the Russian government to hack the DNC. The FBI seems to have conspired to stop Hillary Clinton. It may well be another “Deep Throat” situation. Comey may have wanted to be Trump’s Attorney General and when he didn’t get the job, turned on Trump.

#10 Comment By KevinS On December 29, 2017 @ 10:00 am

tzx4 asks, “Why do you not mention this in your essay?”

Because Comey intervening 10 days before the election with information that would undoubtedly harm Clinton’s chances goes against the narrative Buchanan has latched onto.

#11 Comment By persisting On December 29, 2017 @ 10:11 am

There are surprisingly cogent and logical writers at TAC. PB is not one of them.
Remember Watergate? More than two years and not nearly the amount of players or materials to review.
Cool your heels.

#12 Comment By Robert Otis On December 29, 2017 @ 10:18 am

Pat,
If Trump is innocent of any wrong doing, he should welcome the investigation.

It’s people like you including Trump that are throwing gasoline on the fire.

Grow up and quite crying.

#13 Comment By Ken T On December 29, 2017 @ 11:39 am

A year and a half into the investigation, and still no “collusion” has been found.

A year and a half ago Trump wasn’t even the nominee yet, so what in the world are you talking about? Mueller was appointed in May of this year. By my calendar, that’s only six months ago. (By comparison, Watergate took two years to investigate, the Benghazi investigation went on for four years).

And we have no idea yet what collusion has or has not been found, because Mueller has not yet released any findings.

#14 Comment By Ken T On December 29, 2017 @ 11:46 am

Sorry, that should say seven months, not six. But still a lot less than “a year and a half”.

#15 Comment By peter On December 29, 2017 @ 12:04 pm

As seen from a place far away from Washington, it appears that director Comey worked from both ends on the election so that whoever wins, he would win too – aka keep his position.
Well, it did not work out this way.
FBI staff are normal people: their interests come first then comes some ideology. Naturally they would be more accepting of a Washington insider, like Hilary Clinton.
The outsider Donald Trump spelled trouble!
I believe that Mr. Buchanan has a few points.

#16 Comment By Ray Woodcock On December 29, 2017 @ 12:04 pm

Gee, I wonder if Pat Buchanan complained about politically motivated investigations in the 1990s, when Republicans were endlessly dragging the Clintons through the same.

My dislike of Trump is less than my dislike of corrupt “investigations” that make effective governing impossible. I am concerned about the possibility of political motivation underlying Mueller’s probe. The point here is just that Pat Robertson is not a credible voice on such matters.

#17 Comment By mrscracker On December 29, 2017 @ 12:21 pm

Could be. I don’t know, but there was some strange stuff going on for sure. I don’t know who was involved but it’s more about individuals, not the entire FBI.
There are many good & decent folk in the FBI who shouldn’t be tarnished by the acts of a few-assuming that’s the case.

#18 Comment By Fran Macadam On December 29, 2017 @ 12:39 pm

Any truly innocent witch should welcome a witch hunt?

Yeah, right. The objective of witch hunts is to find witches to burn, and amazingly, they are always found and burnt even though there really weren’t any.

Now that Jill Stein is in the crosshairs as a Russian agent, and the investigation now expands to include contacts with Russians, Russian immigrants and citizens of Russian descent…

“Witch, witch!”

Hell hath no fury like that of a powerful woman scorned by too many voters, whose partisans believe those deplorables, Green or populist, must have been brainwashed by Vlad the Impaler of American Democracy to thwart the assured coronation.

#19 Comment By Donald ( the left leaning one) On December 29, 2017 @ 1:14 pm

The theory that makes the most sense is that nearly everyone involved is guilty of something. There obviously were people in the FBI out to get Trump and exonerate Clinton, but that does not include Comey, who looks like a hapless dolt. It is also obvious that Trump and his cohorts are liars and corrupt, though so far the only proven collusion is with Israel. As for Steele and his dossier, it could easily be a mixture of truth and falsehood. I would be happy to see all sides investigated, though finding someone to do it might be a problem.

There is a swamp that needs draining, but Trump is part of it.

#20 Comment By TheIdiot On December 29, 2017 @ 1:38 pm

The reason for Comey’s letter 10 days before the election was to try to stem the threat that an elected Clinton would be under pressure from investigations of a Rebublican congress combined with a Trump lawsuit against the FBI. They were convinced that Clinton would win and we’re trying to protect her from a soiled presidency. Trouble is, it backfired.

Now, to try to fix the problem they caused (inadvertently getting Trump elected), they are soiling Trump’s presidency. The deep state is in deep doodoo.

#21 Comment By Mary Myers On December 29, 2017 @ 1:50 pm

Another great column by Pat Buchanan with cogent questions! Too bad his column is always targeted for criticism, no matter what he writes about, by the leftists who hate him for speaking the truth.

#22 Comment By Lenny On December 29, 2017 @ 1:59 pm

Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation for what is going down here.

That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.

————————————————–

Why and where is the proof? No one has shown one shred of evidence to suggest that. You just made tons of assertions about what Comey MaCabe and others without actually providing proof.

As for the dossier, it was released after the elections not before.

And finally, we know the RNC was hacked, yet miraculously , only the DNC emails were released

#23 Comment By William Foster On December 29, 2017 @ 2:07 pm

Rather than waiting for Mueller to release his report and the evidence, Buchanan abets the GOP’s counterfactual preemptive strike.

During the campaign Comey and the FBI kept secret their knowledge of Russian efforts on Trump’s behalf. And Comey’s Oct 28 letter to Congress – for which he was praised by Trump – can hardly be regarded as helpful to her campaign, even by Buchanan.

As for “Who hired Steele?”, Fusion GPS did, at the behest of the Washington Free Beacon, whose owner Paul Singer was a major donor to the Marco Rubio campaign. It is true that after Rubio dropped out, Fusion GPS shopped their dossier to the Democrats, but but Buchanan ignores the dossier’s true origins.

One thing I did enjoy was Buchanan’s comparison of Trump to Jimmy Hoffa. The comparison was perhaps more apt than he realized.

#24 Comment By Dee On December 29, 2017 @ 2:44 pm

Director Comey has been fired.

Yes, by trump, because of that russia thing..

FBI number two McCabe is now retiring under a cloud.

Yes, that cloud that says if you are not married to a republican, you are under a cloud..

Mueller’s top FBI investigator Peter Strzok and lover Lisa have been discharged.

Yes, by the republican Mueller the minute he was told of these text messages, which were also derogatory about democrats..

denominator appears to be that they loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.

denominator is that they put country above trump.

#25 Comment By RinTX On December 29, 2017 @ 3:05 pm

Sigh.

Pat Buchanan really has turned into just another mindless Trump apologist.

Sad!

One more thing:

BRING BACK PHILIP GIRALDI!!!

#26 Comment By Tulsa Ron On December 29, 2017 @ 3:35 pm

Pat:
I’ve been with you since you ran for President.
But, it seems like you’ve switched to defending Trump’s excesses.
Maybe there is no direct link to The Donald, but there is no question about his campaign operatives and their serial collusions.

#27 Comment By Heddrick Steel On December 29, 2017 @ 4:13 pm

The Comey email gambit was designed both times to aid Hillary. The first long speech by Comey ended with his saying that no sane prosecutor would charge Clinton because she lacked intent. Hillary cited that in speeches and debates from that point on.

It was not designed to hurt her but to help her.

Then additional emails came to light on Weiners laptop, if I recall correctly. Thousands of them. THAT fact was hurting Hillary so Comey jumped in again to save her. He announced the email review and in a mere 5 days again was at the podium declaring her totally innocent and just 4 days before the election.

It was almost as if the plan was October surprise-ish, and it was to put to rest all the angst about her email problems.

Unfortunately for her, though, the election really didn’t hinge on the emails. They hinged on her obstinance about visiting the midwest states that she thought she had in the bag. Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin…she blew them off and she blew her chance to win.

#28 Comment By Anonymous On December 29, 2017 @ 7:51 pm

“Hey Pat!
I would love to hear how you square up Mr. Comey’s announcement 11 days before the election that there was an investigation of emails related to Ms. Clinton with the thrust of your essay.”

It’s not difficult. Those emails were revealed at the last minute, allegedly by FBI agents unhappy with Comey’s softball treatment of Clinton. Comey had no choice in the matter. Imagine if he’d purposely done nothing only to have Hillary elected and immediately found guilty of a crime (there was that possibility). His hand was forced in the matter. Comey was never on Trump’s side.

“Shortly after that the polls shifted dramatically.”

No they didn’t. They simply equalized during the run up to Election Day and as the previous manufacturered Trump scandal faded. The polls went up and down during the run up to the election. Besides, Clinton and her cronies tried doing the same thing to Trump leading up to the election with their endlessly made up controversies (“oh no, he called a girl fat once!”). You only have a problem with this because it didn’t benefit your candidate.

“To my mind it looked like Mr. Comey deliberately torpedoed Ms Clinton.
Why do you not mention this in your essay?”

Because that’s not what happened. It’s strange how the left supports conspiracy theories when they support their preconceived worldview.

#29 Comment By Paul Clayton On December 29, 2017 @ 7:51 pm

“Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American people?” Yes, by the Americans that voted for him, and for the others that have since come on board. But not for the Hilary true believers and the anti-Trumpers, some of them weighing in on this piece. If Mueller, his boyz and gurlz in the media, the dems, and the Clinton/Obama party succeed in impeaching Trump, it will be obvious to every fair minded American that a great injustice has been done to the American people, the legal ones, and the ones that love their country above party. And they will have to choose: Go back to work, paying taxes, and watching the rabid left tear the country and culture to shreds while the Republicans argue among themselves, OR, take to the streets, not to trash and burn them like the Hillary/Obama crowd, but to bring commerce and a pathetic sham of law and order… to an end.

#30 Comment By Field Cady On December 29, 2017 @ 9:25 pm

Pat you co-founded TAC, a thoughtful periodical that I greatly respect (though I often disagree). So I am flummoxed that you would then write a piece like this, which conspicuously leaves out the all-important Comey memo.

TAC filters its comments down to only the ones that are semi-coherent and written in good faith. Maybe they should do the same with their articles.

#31 Comment By Matto On December 30, 2017 @ 3:49 am

“It always read to me that no reasonable prosecutor would indict a candidate for the Presidency late in a campaign, since that would be too great a political intervention. It did not matter what she did, a “reasonable prosecutor” was not going to indict her.”

Oh sure, no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute a case according to the law without fear or favour, when politics is involved. When the FBI changed the language from grossly negligent to extremely careless they were obstructing justice, and interfering with the election. All they had to do is their job and prosecute Hillary’s crimes, and the FBI’s integrity would remain completely intact. Instead they chose high crimes against the republic, democratic process and the American people.

The FBI knew early in the campaign that Hillary was indictable, what they were unsure about was if Trump would win. Comey only sent the letter to congress as a last minute just in case, if Trump one. He realised that he was in deep poo poo if Trump won.
The FBI should have easily prosecuted Hillary, campaign or no. The Law is all that mattered, not whoever was in a campaign, justice is supposed to be blind and impartial.

Now we see the permanent government exposed, unelected bureaucrats favouring their candidate against the Will of the American people. This is the swamp Trump has talked about, and they are far more dangerous to the republic than any foreign power, they are the enemy domestic.

#32 Comment By JeffK On December 30, 2017 @ 7:34 am

“Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?” – Truly a false dichotomy.

How about the theory that the truth is Trump is dirty as heck, and the FBI is after him because of it?

The Faux News narrative is that, since the Mueller team has leaked almost nothing, then nothing exists. How about an alternative theory?: The Mueller team is very professional, has a mountain of evidence, and is looking to drop an incontrovertibly damning report on The Cheetoh Messiah once all of the loose ends are tied up.

Or would The Trumpsters prefer a steady drip, drip, drip of leaks?

As many have stated, let Mueller finish his work before you trash him and his team.

Per Wikipedia, the investigation into Bill Clinton began in January of 1992 with the appointment of Robert Fiske as an independent counsel, replaced by Ken Starr in Aug of 92. In Nov of 1998 Ken Starr gives his report to congress. Six years, 5 months to figure out Bill lied about getting something from a consulting adult. And let’s not forget about the 7 Benghazi hearings, each one exonerating HRC. Nothing there, so let’s gin up something on Uranium One!

The Republicans love leaking, nonprofessional investigations when a Dem is in the Whitehouse. Professional investigations when a Repub is in the wWitehouse? Not so much.

I cannot wait until the Democrats regain the majority in The House in 2018. They will absolutely torture The Cheetoh Messiah relentlessly with investigations, and will bring to light ALL of his shady dealings, way back into the 1990’s.

Karma is coming. Get a sack of popcorn. It’s going to be a great show.

#33 Comment By Lenny On December 30, 2017 @ 11:47 am

Does it not bother you Pat that foreign nation interfered heavily in our elections while our government was fast asleep?

What if North Korea or China does the same? What of the Republican party is the victim next time around?
I bet you if Hillary was not so loathed by Putin,because of her Right wing foreign policy, and if Rubio was the Republican nominee, Wikileaks woudl have releasewd the RNC emails.

What would the GOP do if President Hillary said tehre is no there there on that case?

#34 Comment By The Other Sands On December 30, 2017 @ 4:26 pm

Rambling dotards stick together.

#35 Comment By Countme-a-Demon On December 30, 2017 @ 5:10 pm

I would appreciate it if Pat Buchanan would post his these idiocies in the original Russian, and some of the other Trump/Putin dupes commenting here could do so as well.

Thank you

#36 Comment By Brendan Sexton On December 30, 2017 @ 7:02 pm

One of the mysteries to me of this Comey/FBI-conspiracy- to-clear-Clinton [ by changing the words ‘grossly negligent” to…well anything not named in the statute and therefore grounds for indictment….. is this mystery: why has it not been brought to indictment since? Sessions was AG, Trump’s picks are at the other key DOJ positions, at the FBI, and so on. No one has alleged–even in this highly tense blame game we are living in–that the evidence against her has been altered, stolen or lost. It must still be there, if ever it were. So, why has it not come back before some Grand Jury? Because Comey made some equivocal statement that so many don’t believe, and which does not bind all these other parties anyway????
No, I think it is most (by very very far, most) likely that there really IS nothing there that a reasonable prosecutor would pursue.
Anyone else think that this is possibly true? Occam’s razor and all that?
Certainly various congressional committees tried hard to pin SOME thing indictable on her; do we think that they would not be an interested audience for this evidence if it were really all that? Let’s just entertain the possibility that it really isn’t all that, and that people have got themselves up into a huge pet over what may have been impolitic behavior, may have been ‘wrong’ in some way(s), but which is simply not criminal, not indictable. Possible?
no ‘Deep State’ conspiracy necessary after all?

#37 Comment By Rebecca Zicarelli On December 30, 2017 @ 10:05 pm

I know Mr. Buchanan’s not a fan of the New York Times, but he really should read [2], the tale and timeline of how the FBI investigation began:

During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Now note the time: May, 2016.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.

This is, according to the Times reporting, what triggered the Trump investigation. Drunken cocktail chatter over cocktails about a matter that Trump’s campaign should have reported to the FBI, not pursued for advantage.

#38 Comment By Phil D On December 31, 2017 @ 2:47 pm

You’ve covered this already Pat (see link below). I remain strongly in favour of close scrutiny of a president with such a morally chequered history.

[3]

#39 Comment By VikingLS On December 31, 2017 @ 4:50 pm

“Does it not bother you Pat that foreign nation interfered heavily in our elections while our government was fast asleep?”

Does it not bother you that your government heavily interferes in other countries’ elections?

Until this ends, you have no right to complain.

#40 Comment By VikingLS On December 31, 2017 @ 4:57 pm

“I would appreciate it if Pat Buchanan would post his these idiocies in the original Russian, and some of the other Trump/Putin dupes commenting here could do so as well.”

It’s interesting, posts like this from right-wingers are supposedly racist.

#41 Comment By Countme-a-Demon On January 1, 2018 @ 7:02 am

Buchanan, Rump, Putin, and I are, to a man, white males.

Your word choice “supposedly” covers either a lot of ground, or none at all. But, Ben Carson is a know-nothing conservative sentimentalist as well, if that helps your hapless case.

But it’s fun at last to observe so-called conservatives, like the first three, twist at the end of a McCarthyite rope for a change.

There was a time in America, as in since 1917, when a guy would, for example, make a case that some version of universal healthcare, Medicare perhaps, might be superior to the status quo in America and any number of “conservatives”, probably a Reagan or a Buchanan, would suggest, irrelevantly, “why don’t you say that in Russian, boy”.

Supposedly.

#42 Comment By Intelliwriter On January 1, 2018 @ 6:08 pm

I hope the FBI drags out every dirty deed by Trump and his family of grifters. Anyone who thinks this guy hasn’t played fast and loose with his business has to be living in a fantasy world. For all those he’s stolen from, Justice must be served. Go Mueller!

#43 Comment By EngineerScotty On January 1, 2018 @ 11:27 pm

Viking,

I suspect the “original Russian” remark is a reference to Molly Ivins’ reaction to Buchanan’s 1992 GOP convention speech. She said it sounded better in “the original German”.

#44 Comment By Dr. Diprospan On January 2, 2018 @ 12:24 pm

Regardless of the topic on which
Mr. Buchanan writes, it is always a pleasure to read the work of an outstanding master of language and a clear statement of thought. Indeed, Mr. Buchanan’s major works have been translated into Russian.
Interview with Mr. Buchanan periodically appear on Russian central channels, when the authorities want to show that rather rational, weighed and sane people live in America than schizoid characters like
Mr. Demon.
The vagueness of modern world ideology contributes to ambiguous people in law enforcement structures, which apparently can serve several centers of influence.
Whatever people think about Russogate in America, but in Russia no less dramatic struggle happens between different centers of power. Most recently in Moscow, deputy head of the main federal unit leading the fight against corruption in the economic sphere, in the rank of colonel was convicted of corruption. The investigation found in the apartment of his relative 150 million cash dollars, the origin of which they could not clearly explain …
Meanwhile, before the new year, the CIA helped the Russian security forces prevent a large-scale terrorist attack in the
St. Petersburg Orthodox Church…
I think that President Putin expressed his gratitude in a telephone conversation with President Trump in Russian.

#45 Comment By VikingLS On January 2, 2018 @ 2:10 pm

@Scotty

Thanks for clarifying the reference. I knew it was “the original German” but I didn’t remember the source.

That said if someone had said a pro-Obama article sounded better in the original Arabic, you wouldn’t have trouble recognizing the commenter was making an appeal to xenophobia.

#46 Comment By One Guy On January 2, 2018 @ 5:15 pm

I guess xenophobia is only ok if directed at a “liberal”.

#47 Comment By You can call me Mista Demon On January 3, 2018 @ 1:59 pm

“Xenophobia”

Izzat what you gleaned from my comment? Yeah, me and the Zulus.

Ivins was referencing one particular type of German, extolled as a brave man by Mr. Buchanan, among the latter’s pronouncements over the decades.

So, now in the comments section of the American Conservative, pronouncements from both the American and Russian governments, never before taken at face value by the conservative movement and both presumed to be prevaricating enemies by the conservative movement these last 100 years, are suddenly deemed unquestionable truth.

Putin and rump, leaders of two deep-state kleptocracies, are now unquestioned regarding claims about alleged terrorist threats against the St. Petersburg Orthodox Church.

Dupes.

#48 Comment By Michelle On January 3, 2018 @ 2:10 pm

As usual a Republican blames the other side for what it got caught doing.

#49 Comment By Dr. Diprospan On January 4, 2018 @ 9:38 am

I seem to be mistaken with the diagnosis of Mista Demon.
The case turned out to be heavier.
A large Orthodox church stands opposite the building where I live.
And it’s certainly good. But … not really.
In Russia, various beggars and homeless people gather around Orthodox churches before worship services. Such a tradition. No problem with that. Another is the Problem. After the beggars have received their money, they need to rest and sleep somewhere. Despite the magnetic locks, they penetrate the entrances of closely located buildings, where they drink alcohol on their money and fall asleep.
It can be endured, but not that their natural needs they make right there in the entrance of the house. When the tenants drive them out into the street, they shout out curses and insults to the residents, as if they deny Jesus Christ, who cared for the poor and the sick.
Schizophrenia can be treated, but not sociopathy. Sociopaths are not afraid of anything, they despise health and well-being, do not value their lives, and even more so the lives of others.
I do not think that the FBI can stop President Trump.
Recently, President Trump and President Reagan can not help being compared.
Q: President Donald Trump wants to be like President Ronald Reagan in all the details or not?

#50 Comment By Egypt Steve On January 4, 2018 @ 11:08 am

Re: “you wouldn’t have trouble recognizing the commenter was making an appeal to xenophobia.”

That’s the point. The difference is, as is also true on the right, we on the left consider some forms of xenophobia to be more respectable and useful than others. Using xenophobia to attack conservatives from the right, especially (Trumpskyites are all commie simps in the pay of the KGB) is fun.