Connect with us

The Swamp

Insiders: Why Not Prosecute Obama’s Secret Back Channel To Iran?

Published

on

WASHINGTON — National security insiders are trying to claim treason for the fact that President Donald Trump’s transition team discussed potentially setting up a phone call with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin have met publicly on several occasions, and Russia maintains an active embassy in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

The Hill reported: Former national security adviser Michael Flynn spoke with a “senior official” in President Trump’s transition team at the Mar-a-Lago resort to discuss what he should communicate to the Russian ambassador in a highly-scrutinized series of phone calls in December of 2016, according to federal prosecutors.
Flynn and the senior officials discussed both the recently implemented U.S. sanctions on Russia as well as the fact that they did not want Russia to escalate friction between the two nations, lawyers on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told a federal judge Friday. After the discussion, Flynn telephoned the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. Afterwards, he called the senior transition official and reported the sanctions discussion, prosecutors said…”

Trending: Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs

But sources say Flynn, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI, and other Trump allies are under persecution for raising alarms about President Obama’s back channel to Iran. That back channel was a lot more secretive than Team Trump’s conversations with Russia.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Mary Fanning and Alan Jones exclusively reported for Big League Politics:

General Michael Hayden (USAF Ret.), who served as CIA director and NSA director, is certainly well aware of Barack Obama’s secret, off-the-books, pre-election diplomatic mission to the Iranian mullahs during which Obama’s emissary promised that Iran would receive a better deal than it might receive from the sitting president — George W. Bush. The Obama campaign’s message: the Islamic Republic would be far happier with Obama’s policies if it would wait until the election was over.

“What manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt, would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate idea?,” Hayden said.

Senator Obama’s team set up the Iranian back channel not only before Barack Obama was sworn in as president, but before the 2008 election was even held.

Senator Obama’s team sent former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Green Miller to meet with Islamic regime officials inside Iran, circumventing NSA surveillance. In other words, the Obama campaign had its own private emissary on the ground inside Iran, secretly negotiating with a sworn enemy of the United States that was involved in a dispute.

General Hayden pretends to be oblivious of this pre-election Obama-Tehran communication arrangement. Why is General Hayden misrepresenting these facts to the American people?   Is this part of the ongoing “Deep State” seditious campaign to take down a duly elected president — Donald J. Trump?

President Obama would later repeat this scenario with another one of America’s major military adversaries when he was famously caught by a “hot mic” telling Russia’s President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” on missile defense after the 2012 election.

The Obama team’s back channel to Tehran was William Green Miller, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton, according to Michael Ladeen writing for PJ Media in 2014.

Ladeen, who claims to have spoken to Ambassador Miller for his article “Obama’s Latest Big Lie: ‘We Have No Strategy,“ Ambassador Miller confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.”

Such conversations would have constituted a clear violation of the Logan Act. The “Washington Post” is now claiming Kushner could have been guilty of the same violation had he followed through with establishing a secret communication channel with Russia.

Ambassador Miller was appointed by President Clinton as ambassador to Ukraine after Miller’s decades-long absence from the State Department. Miller had years earlier left the State Department as a form of protest against the Vietnam War, according to an interview archived at the Library of Congress.

Miller, whose grandfather is from Ukraine, once expressed that he was so appalled by McCarthyism that he was fearful of a career in diplomacy.  Miller initially took the foreign service exam in 1955, but chose not to pursue a career with the State Department during the height of communist investigations at the House and Senate. Miller instead embarked on a doctoral journey at Harvard University.

“I did not want to go into the Foreign Service because of the taint of McCarthy.” – Ambassador William Green Miller.
In 1959, as the McCarthy era investigations were winding down, someone inside the State Department signaled to Miller that the time to join the State Department was now or never.

Like President Obama himself, who was mentored in Hawaii by suspected KGB officer and known CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s secret envoy to Iran, William Green Miller, was mentored by revolutionary marxist, communist labor organizer, and literary critic Frederick Wilcox Dupee. Dupee was an associate of Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers, who at one time worked for the GRU but eventually switched sides and became an anticommunist.

Like Frank Marshall Davis, Ambassador Miller’s mentor Dupee joined the CPUSA and handed out communist literature to the longshoremen’s union — Davis in Honolulu and Dupee in New York City, where Miller grew up. Davis and Dupee were fellow members of CPUSA’s League of American Writers.

The Swamp

What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?

Trying to make sense of a messy situation.

Published

on

Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.

A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”

As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.

This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”

In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.

Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.

“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”

If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.

Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.

So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending