Don's Tuesday Column

         THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   4/16/2019

Spying, surveillance, potato, potahto

Other distinctions without differences: You say myocardial, cardiac, infarction, or coronary thrombosis—and I say heart attack. Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto, pyjamas, pyjahmas—“Let’s call the whole thing off,” as Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong sang.

The virtual “tar baby” of now-disproven collusion between candidate (now President) Donald Trump, his campaign and Russia, to defeat Hillary Clinton—now morphs into a “let’s call the whole thing (the investigation of the investigators) off.” The theme of the song, that seemingly irreconcilable differences doomed hitherto amicable romance, has more relevance than first take would suggest.

Has the American political house become so divided that not only is agreement on the collusion delusion lacking, but also any agreement on the likely and logically corrupt genesis of the collusion investigation? Is the American citizenry hopelessly locked in an uncivil war? I don’t see that as a joyous thing, my schadenfreude over the misery of Trump’s enemies aside.

Attorney General William Barr reluctantly categorized the obvious “surveillance” of Trump’s campaign associates as “spying.” You would think he had declared the world to be flat, or the moon landing to be fake. Judging by the nearly hysterical protests from the “Bigs” in the Democrat Party, the DNC/media industrial complex, and some of their “go to” sources like disgraced, fired FBI head James Comey—you’d think AG Barr had made it up out of whole cloth.

Webster’s defines “spying” as “watch closely and secretly,” but the left’s final fallback position is often simply refusing to accept common factual definitions. I’ll never forget the silliness (how else to describe it) of Barack Obama glibly, condescendingly chiding reliably liberal “This Week” host (former Clinton “war room” hack) George Stephanopoulos for his temerity in reading a dictionary definition of “taxes” to Obama. Obama’s deflection: “Oh George, using a dictionary just shows that you’re stretching it.” That’s some gall.

It’s beyond gall for Democrats and their enablers to protest that Barr said: “Yes, I think there was spying.” He immediately and reasonably qualified it as needing examination for the legal or legitimate “predicate”; the spying occurred while Obama was President, and Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Comey, Brennan and Clapper et al ran Obama’s Justice and National Security agencies.

Was Barack Obama involved? In a strict sense, yes because Rice (I recall) wrote emails to herself in the hours before Trump was inaugurated, citing Obama’s insistence that all that had occurred in the Hillary “exoneration” and the Trump “investigation” be done “by the book.” Did Obama actually say that, or was Rice providing “plausible deniability” for her POTUS? We know, to the extent that Clinton email records reveal, that Barack Obama lied, er “misrepresented,” that he didn’t know of Hillary’s illegal home server until news media reported it. His emails are there, proving that he received from and sent to the illegal, unauthorized and, most importantly, unsecured-from-foreign-hacking Clinton server.

There is an Inspector General report, as well as Utah federal attorney John Huber’s investigation, that’s going to provide some answers: Was implementation of the surveillance, under the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)” a good faith, warranted “spying” operation on the Trump campaign? Was there any other primary evidence beyond the now-discredited (to all but the unhinged loons on the left) Steele “Dossier” given to the FISA Court? Did the fact that said “Steele Dossier” was accepted in good faith by a FISA judge based on the (flawed, possibly disingenuous) reliance and reputation of the FBI agents—does that fact absolve anyone of perfidy?

Barr said, rightly as I see it, that “spying on a political campaign is a big deal.” How could a partisan on either side, or on no side, see it any differently? No one can deny the electoral powers of incumbency for any office: name recognition, prominently displayed projects and programs, the political apparatus. Fairly or not, that is a benefit accruing to all office holders. All should accept the rottenness of using the power of the state to fraudulently cheat the election process to retain office. Same for misusing judicial, law enforcement or security tools, i.e. spying, to defeat someone.

That’s the lowest common standard of prohibited tactics, which should inspire voters to trust in the winner’s legitimacy. Whether through newer shenanigans like “vote harvesting,” or age-old ballot box stuffing, voters’ cynicism undermines our very republican form of representative democracy. Lenin infamously said that he cared not who voted, but who counted the votes.

Expect an unraveling of the twisted methods that brought about the 2-year, $30 million Mueller investigation. While potentially and irrevocably discrediting much of Obama’s reputation and sullying his top people, Americans of all stripes should see with their own eyes that such illegalities are exposed and perpetrators are punished. Democrats could eventually salvage their image by joining a nonpartisan “clean up politics” effort that looks as hard at the misuse of official power as at money.

“If Comey’s FBI conducted itself properly in obtaining its court orders, the former director has nothing to worry about. But that’s a big ‘if.’” However, “Democrats’ railing about Barr and spying will end badly for them,” by Patricia McCarthy, is a warning to take to heart. More ominously, “Barr Will Find Spying On Trump Directed By Obama,” by Daniel Sobieski, suggests we strap in for the take-down of Democrats’ most beloved leader. Shine a beacon of truth on dark deeds done in secret, whoever is sullied.

Could Barack Obama have been uninvolved, out-of-the-loop in utilizing foreign “assets” Halper, Mifsud and Downer to “surveil” and manipulate Trump associates Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Michael Caputo into compromising use of Clinton-related intel? “Barr Brings Accountability—Trump’s foes call it ‘stunning and scary.’ Here’s what they have to be scared about,” by WSJ’s Kimberly Strassel, shows the potentially devastating coverups that may come to light. It’s just the start.