Hold January 6 ‘insurrection’ committee-type hearings on Obamagate!

Last week, I examined the reaction to and the consequences of a possible indictment of former President Barack Obama over “Obamagate,” the false claim that “the intelligence community” concluded a) Russians interfered in the 2016 election (which is not in dispute), b) they did so to help elect candidate Donald Trump, and c) Trump “colluded” with the Russians to get elected.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lit the fuse on this phony narrative because at the time she faced possibly campaign-ending political and legal jeopardy for her likely violation of the Espionage Act over the unsecured server in her basement. On the server, she sent and received information – including information stamped as “classified” – despite her public denials.

What to do? Clinton and the Democratic National Committee purchased the Steele dossier, replete with lies and unsubstantiated evidence of Trump-Russia “collusion.” Clinton manufactured a distraction by accusing Trump of working with the Russians to “hack” the election. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says that intel officials briefed President Barack Obama about the Clinton Plan and of its purpose.

(For designating her bought and paid for phony Steele dossier as a “legal expense,” Clinton received a fine from the Federal Election Commission. She faced no prosecution, let alone by a local prosecutor such as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, under the never-before-tried and convoluted theory that Trump’s supposed violation of federal election law also violated New York state law. For designating the payment to Stormy Daniels as a “legal expense,” Trump was prosecuted and found guilty.)

Shortly before the election, FBI Director James Comey threw her a lifeline. He publicly outlined the compelling factual and legal case against Clinton but said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges because she lacked the intent to violate the law. But the applicable section of the Espionage Act does not require intent.

U.S. Code Section 793(f) makes it a felony for one “entrusted with … information, relating to the national defense” to permit such information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” So, Clinton skated.

Last week, I argued that a prosecution of Obama – America’s first black president – would trigger massive, violent protests and riots that would make the George Floyd-Black Lives Matter 2020 protests look like an elementary school fire drill. Many readers said, in essence, “So what? How many times did Trump-hating Democrats, when pursuing their baseless lawfare against Trump, chant, ‘No one is above the law!’? Justice must be done, irrespective of where it leads and whoever commits the crime.”

This is, of course, a good point. In fact, one could argue, it is the point.

But during the 2016 campaign, Trump held rallies where the audience chanted, “Lock her up!”

During one of their debates, Clinton told Trump, “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.”

Trump gave this mic-drop response: “Because you’d be in jail.” Trump pledged, if elected, to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton.

Yet, when Trump became president, his Department of Justice brought no charges against Clinton. Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager, said: “… When the president-elect … tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message – tone and content. … And I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi just ordered a Trump-Russia grand jury probe into Obama officials. After the alleged Jan. 6 “insurrection,” congressional Democrats held public hearings. Republicans could and should do the same thing to investigate Obama officials, including the former president, who collaborated to push the false narrative that consumed so much of Trump 1.0’s time.

Such hearings would deter future conduct that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of an incoming president. As for Obama, Trump could, after the committee reports its findings, give a speech in which he describes in detail what Obama did, why he did it and its ramifications. Then, Trump, “to foster national unity,” could magnanimously announce he will grant Obama a pardon. And Obama, if he chooses, could turn it down.