It has become apparent that a coalition of former U.S. officials, current Democrats in office and the #NeverTrump contingent in the GOP is working to turn President Donald J. Trump into an American Viktor F. Yanukovych, the duly-elected president of Ukraine overthrown in February 2014. 

 To this end, the New York Times has taken to reporting, almost daily, what former Senator Harry Reid called "tarring... with thin innuendo."  As it happened, Reid used the phrase in his October 30, 2016 letter to James B. Comey, accusing the former FBI director of playing politics for the purpose of defeating the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton. (More on that later.)

Obama's bulbous twins, former CIA head John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr.  have taken to disparaging President Trump openly, for the obvious purpose of sending him fleeing from the presidency as Yanukovych  fled Kiev three years ago.  Unlike the false witness of these intelligence twins -- giving the American people conclusions that lack evidence, their goal of overturning the election of President Donald J. Trump, to quote an observation in John le Carre's  The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, "is an assumption which the evidence permits."

The New York Times, January 5, 2017, reported that "Clapper and other intelligence chiefs" effectively told president-elect Trump "that the spy agencies believe he won with an assist from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia."  That allegation more commonly appears in reports from the Oust Trump Campaign in terms of Trump colluding with the Russians to gain the presidency.  More than four months later, May 24, 2017, the New York Times turned to testimony from Brennan before the House Intelligence Committee about his concern that Russians aided the Trump campaign.  The Times story continued, "American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, tried to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign and help Mr. Trump." Most interestingly, the Times told of an August 4, 2016 conversation between Brennan and Alexander V. Bortnikov, head of "Russia's Federal Security Services."  According to the Times, Brennan warned the Russian security director "not to meddle in the [U.S.] election."

But what else, if anything did Brennan say to his Russian counterpart?  Surely, there must be a transcript of the conversation!  If what Prof. Stephen F. Cohen has termed "Intelgate" tells us anything, it is that we have all Russians officials under surveillance.  Hey, Republicans, how about demanding the transcript of Brennan's August 4, 2016  chat with Mr.  Bortnikov.  Indeed, let’s get transcripts of all conversations held, during the Obama years,  between our intelligence people and the Russians.  After all, given Brennan's past admission that he voted for Gus Hall, the Communist candidate for president (of the U.S., that is) has he ever reminisced with Russians about the good old Soviet Union? Has he ever let it be known that he would be less antagonistic towards the Kremlin if only it were led by a Communist? Let's have the transcripts or the videotapes of those "former U.S. officials" with Russians.  Let's also have transcripts of conversations between John Podesta, Clinton's 2016 campaign manager and Russians.

Former FBI director James B. Comey reportedly is again to testify before a congressional committee.  It is to be doubted, however, that congressional Democrats would call Comey's attention to the Harry Reid letter, mentioned above. That letter, by the way, was mentioned in a CNN report, January 11, 2017, whose contributors included Jake Tapper -- but the CNN reference omitted Reid's disparaging tone, saying only that Reid wrote:  "'It has  become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States.'"  CNN did not point out that the letter's tone was "'openly hostile'" to Comey.  Reid suggested that Comey had partisan intent in keeping   the "'explosive information'" about Trump's ties to Russia under wraps, and  may have violated the Hatch Act which bars, Reid noted -- with reference to a March 10, 2016 memo from Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, --"'activity directed towards the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.'"  Reid also accused Comey of a "clear double-standard," suggesting he "intended… the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.  Reid concluded the letter regretting he had "believed you to be a principled public servant." 

CNN, in its January 11, 2016 story, said that Reid's October 30, 2016 letter to Comey had alluded to material presented by Brennan, Clapper, Comey and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to President Obama and President-elect Trump from a British intelligence operative that "originated  as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats."  CNN also reported, "The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details..."  Yet, on CNN's State of the Union program, May 14, Clapper indicated to Tapper that he was not aware of an FBI Investigation prior to Comey's March 2017 testimony to Congress.  He added, ""So the bottom line is, I don't know if there was collusion, political collusion, and I don't know of any evidence to it, so I can't refute it and I can't confirm it."

Tapper did not respond by challenging Clapper:  Are we to believe that you were  one of  the intelligence chiefs who  gave President Obama and President-elect Trump a two-page summary of what became known as the Christopher Steele dossier, compiled by  a former British intelligence operative -- and you did not know the FBI was investigating?

What Tapper did get from Clapper, later in the interview, was Clapper's claim that President Trump was assaulting "our institutions."  Tapper then inquired about "checks and balances," and Clapper said he felt as though the "built-in system of checks and balances" was "under assault."  Tapper did not ask Clapper to elaborate.  The transcript continued:

TAPPER:  Are you surprised at how quiet Republicans on Capitol Hill have been?

CLAPPER:  Well, I can't--I can't say.  I think each senator or congressman has got to -- I hope will think in terms of their own conscience. And I can't -- I can't characterize it as being surprised. I just -- I hope they will speak up.

It is indeed time that Republicans spoke up -- spoke up against the campaign to disrupt the election.  This charge made by the Oust Trump campaign to describe Russian intentions certainly describes the actions of Democrats, their Never Trump Republican allies and the monolithic media since January 20, 2017 and the Inauguration of president Trump -- following failed attempts to derail the inauguration by vote-recount demands and then a pathetic attempt to rig the Electoral College vote against Trump.

It is time that Republicans spoke out against the Obama use of surveillance for purpose of spying on the Trump presidential campaign, and spoke out, too, against the illegal leaking of classified information to the monolithic media by the anti-Trump forces.   Failure to prosecute the illegal unmasking of Trump campaign aides and leaking of classified information makes a mockery of leftist cries that "No one is above the law."   The left brazenly asserts that The Law is whatever they say it is -- and Republicans are silent.   (In this regard, where is the Republican senator to remind Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy that in his opening statement at the July 9, 2013 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Comey's nomination to be FBI director,  Leahy called for "proper limits  on the Government's surveillance activities...,"  and to ask Leahy, do you claim that intelligence surveillance of the presidential campaign of a  Republican candidate  is within the proper limits of domestic spying?)

Is there no Republican member of the House or Senate with the fortitude to tell leftists:

We will not stand idly by and allow you to overturn the results of the November 8, 2016 presidential election.  We will not let you overturn democracy in America and replace our legacy of liberty with a leftist dictatorship.  

Simply stated, is there no Republican in Congress willing to stand up and defend the Constitution, and, thereby, demonstrating that he or she stands with the People?

By David Zukerman