THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Jul 25, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support for Fantasy Sports and Betting Enthusiasts.
back  
topic
Kevin Finn


NextImg:The Law Strikes Back

Whether or not indictments, trials and convictions of high-profile figures like Hussein Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, and Hillary Clinton occur, the consequences will likely be profound, impacting political, legal, social, and institutional domains. The differences between the political Left and Right are so deep that no matter which way this goes, the divide is likely to deepen.

If these individuals are held to account, leftists will likely call it a politically-driven vendetta. Rep. Jim Himes, for example has called the revelations “baseless” and a distraction. Unaware of or ignoring the irony, Democrat voters would accuse President Trump of weaponizing the Justice Department. Conversely, Trump’s base would see prosecutions as validation of what we've known for years -- the Russian Collusion story was a hoax orchestrated by the Deep State. 

Charges against such prominent figures would require substantial evidence to meet legal thresholds, particularly for a crime like treason. Treason, under 18 U.S.C. § 2381, demands proof of levying war against the U.S. or aiding its enemies, requiring two witnesses or a confession in court. Obstruction of justice, seditious conspiracy or falsification of documents, more plausible charges, would still face hurdles due to statutes of limitations (typically five years for federal crimes) and possible presidential immunity for Obama’s official acts, (for which Obama should thank Trump)

 One rhetorical question I have is if seditious conspiracy can be considered an official presidential act.

"Seditious conspiracy is a federal crime defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which targets agreements between two or more people to use force against the government. This includes plans to overthrow the U.S. government… or forcibly oppose its authority. The statute also criminalizes conspiracies to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any federal law.” [snip] “The core of the offense is the conspiracy itself, so prosecutors do not need to prove the plot succeeded. Evidence of planning and coordination is sufficient for a conviction..."

As for the issue of statute of limitations: “Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. An individual's "withdrawal" from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. "Withdrawal" from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators.”

While indictments of individuals such as Hillary, Brennan, or Clapper would likely result in some leftist outrage and unrest, the arrest of Obama could inflame social tensions far beyond what we saw during the "mostly-peaceful" George Floyd riots. I imagine we’d see violent protests erupt in major cities, particularly if he were to be convicted. Social media platforms would amplify reactions, either condemning or celebrating the events. Public trust in institutions could erode further if the prosecutions are perceived as selective or lacking transparent evidence. Conversely, successful convictions with robust evidence might restore conservatives' faith in accountability, although as we've seen, no amount of evidence of a Democrat's guilt is wholly sufficient to convince the Left.

The Intelligence Community (IC) could face significant disruption. Charging former leaders like Clapper, Brennan, and Comey could chill IC operations, as officials might fear future political retribution. DNI Gabbard's declassification of documents alleging IC misconduct might expose operational weaknesses or embolden our adversaries to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities. Morale within the FBI and CIA could plummet, especially if career professionals feel unfairly targeted for political reasons. Long-term, this could hamper recruitment and retention, weakening national security. On the other hand, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is on the record saying that whistleblowers are "coming out of the woodwork". This could be just the reform those agencies needed.

Globally, such prosecutions could signal internal U.S. instability, potentially emboldening adversaries to challenge American influence. The narrative of a “treasonous conspiracy” could also strain U.S.-Russia relations further, complicating diplomatic efforts.

Judging from comments on social media, conservatives are hoping for accountability but many also express skepticism that high-level figures, especially at the levels of Obama or Clinton, will ever face charges due to political protections or fears of unrest.

It is to be hoped that DNI Gabbard and the DoJ have compiled airtight evidence, without which the prosecutions risk being seen as political persecution which could backfire on the Trump administration. Past investigations, such as the Durham report, have not substantiated claims of widespread conspiracy.

If, however these individuals are not held to account, the public’s distrust of the justice and intelligence agencies will deepen. Many Americans already question their impartiality and the lack of consequences for alleged misconduct could reinforce perceptions of a politicized bureaucracy. Americans will see that, once again, justice is unevenly applied, favoring the elites.

The absence of legal consequences after DNI Gabbard's revelations might prompt calls for retaliatory investigations or prosecutions under future Democrat administrations, creating a cycle of political vendettas. Allegations of unaddressed politicized intelligence could embolden future officials to manipulate intelligence for political ends, signaling that orchestrating narratives to influence elections is permissible.

If evidence like Brennan's notes or declassified documents are ignored, many voters will conclude that their will was subverted without consequence. Individuals such as Comey and Brennan who were accused of perjury might similarly conclude that high-ranking officials are above the law, encouraging future abuses. A lack of accountability could reflect yet another justice failure or an acknowledgement that the evidence doesn't meet prosecutorial thresholds.

Those demanding accountability and those defending the previous regimes may have valid concerns, but the highly-charged, politically polarized lenses through which this situation is viewed are distorting the intelligence and legal issues.

Any action either to hold these individuals to account or to excuse them is likely to deepen distrust, entrench polarization and set precedents for the integrity of our justice and electoral systems. An overzealous pursuit of accountability or, conversely, excusing the actions of those involved risks further politicizing justice.

A completely transparent process, on the other hand will help demonstrate that justice is being served impartially.   

While leftists have a long-established pattern of violence when their will is thwarted, it remains to be seen what conservatives will do if no accountability is forthcoming. The disgust over the mishandling of the Epstein files is palpable, but no stores were looted and no cities were burned as a result.

Conservatives have been maligned and abused by the Left for decades. We’ve had our hopes raised and dashed times beyond number. Will we once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Either way, buckle up. It’s about to get real.

Image: Public Domain