The Inter-Agency Attack On Ron Johnson

Over the weekend there was plenty of discussion about the WaPo hit piece on Rudy Giuliani--and incidentally, or so it seemed, on Senator Ron Johnson. We knew there was more to this story--that much was obvious. The question was whether any more would come out. That question is answered, partially, by Christopher Bedford  in a must read article today:

FBI’s Failed Ron Johnson Set-Up A Case Study In How Agencies Use Corrupt Reporters To Peddle Lies, Hurt Their American Enemies

For years now, a number of the country's most prominent publications have assumed the groveling role of palace guards for the state and its friends in Congress.

I urge you to read the entire article, which shows the WaPo working hand in glove with the Zhou regime's intel agencies. Here, however, are some key passages. It seems--are you sitting down for this?--that the WaPo didn't publish everything that Ron Johnson told them about the FBI "defensive briefing". Naturally nobody expects a newspaper article to simply be a transcript, unless it presents itself as an interview. However, in these cases, these omitted portions were extremely important and were major parts of the story--the story could not be understood without them. The statements by Senator Johnson are taken from a letter he wrote to the WaPo after their article was published.

In these excerpts, Bedford begins with a point I made that should be obvious even to WaPo reporters: the Russians always seek to influence powerful and/or influential persons. But it's not just the Russians. We do it, too--of course. In fact, it isn't just intelligence operatives in a formal sense. Diplomats from every country on earth seek to influence powerful people from other nations--especially important nations. Our allies seek to influence us in this way, too, to convert us to see world affairs from their standpoint, to possibly alter our own policies. Do we stop talking to them? How stupid would that be? Such influence efforts are no ipso facto "disinformation campaigns." We can actually learn from the views of other countries. We'd be pretty stupid if we stopped listening to Russian representatives--but the Inter Agency wants the public to think that such basic responsible governance is somehow treasonous without any further consideration:

Who Would Rule A Post-Constitutional America?

Right. I understand that we're pretty much in post-constitutional territory already, and actually have been for some time. Nevertheless, for most people the Constitution still matters--there's an idea that with a few tweaks of personnel, on the Court, in Congress and the White House, our fundamental constitutional institutions could resume functioning and governing as intended. That notion is increasingly delusional, in the very literal sense of being divorced from reality. We cling to the delusion because we're afraid of what a future ruled by those who openly call for the Constitution's definitive demise would mean.

If there's one cardinal rule of politics, it would have to be that Power abhors a vacuum. That means that, once exposed, the illusion of authority and legitimacy will eventually be replaced by the reality of power. As Glenn Greenwald recently wrote, The Threat of Authoritarianism In The U.S. Is Very Real, And Has Nothing To Do With Trump. The Lefty Greenwald points out that, in actual fact, Trump has struggled to preserve and restore our constitutional order, rather than attempting to establish authoritarian rule. Far from Trump being a threat to the rule of law, the last 4 years have exposed for all to see who the real enemies of our constitutional order are, who the people are who want to wield power in an America freed of its constitutional trammels.

One major group would be the people with lots of money and crazy ideas of transforming human nature. These are people who think their influence in politics should be commensurate with their wealth and their supposed genius. People who read their press clippings and are surrounded by sycophants who want their help, mostly in monetary form. Those sycophants, of course, include the elected representatives of We The People. These would be leaders of America are Globalist visionaries, but their focus is largely on what could be termed domestic policy--controlling the intimate details of day to day human life. Their great delusion is of extending that control to the entire world through 'soft power' means.