Cross-posted from Fellowship of the Minds
The phrase “the dog that didn’t bark” originates from a Sherlock Holmes story (“The Adventure of Silver Blaze”) – the indispensable clue coming in the form of something that would normally have occurred – but didn’t.
Which brings us to the relentless effort on the part of the Democrat Party (and its Deep State overlords) to remove President Trump from office, and thus undo the election of 2016. Since that time the Progressive forces visible to the public – the so-called mainstream media, the minions of the Democrat Party – have fed the public with allegations of “Russian collusion,” emoluments clause violations, 25th Amendment removal, and “obstruction of justice.” In spite of their all-out efforts, that poisonous Progressive tree has failed to produce impeachment fruit.
The Democrats’ motto appears to be: “if at first you don’t succeed, and second you don’t succeed, and third you don’t succeed, coup, coup, again.”
We now find ourselves being hauled out on to yet another limb of that tree – an “impeachment investigation” (a/k/a “impeachment inquiry”) borne of neither House vote nor due process – purportedly to investigate not “Russian collusion,” but “Ukrainian coercion.”
An obvious question becomes was there ever any good faith belief on the part of Democrats that President Trump had committed any bad acts, much less any serious enough to support a bona fide impeachment and removal from office?
Or has this all been an unprecedented, a downright evil attempt to remove a duly-elected President from office using trumped-up charges (pun intended) – a de facto attempt at pulling off a political coup to overthrow the rightful President of the United States?
It is submitted for your consideration that in answer to that question, “a dog that didn’t bark” provides the telltale clue.
Harken back the Mueller special counsel investigation, and how it was conducted – and in particular, the questionable ethical tactics of its attack dog Andrew Weismann. He did not hesitate to squeeze witnesses in an attempt to get them to testify against President Trump, and appeared to be indifferent as to whether such testimony would be made under duress or false – only that it could be used against President Trump.
So we witnessed people charged with “process crimes” and unrelated “crimes” that occurred years before the 2016 election; we witnessed non-violent but uncooperative individuals place in solitary confinement; and we witnessed heretofore cooperative witnesses SWAT teamed out of their homes in the middle of the night (with sycophant media outlets tipped off in advance so that the cameras would “capture” the event – again, pun intended).
Now consider the matter of Admiral Mike Rogers – head of the NSA at the time the 2016 election occurred. Contemporaneous reports indicate that he helped blow the whistle to the FISA court regarding intelligence and law enforcement abuses of the FISA process.
More importantly, contemporaneous reports show that he visited President-elect Donald Trump shortly after the 2016 election, and apparently tipped him off that he and his campaign were being surveilled.
Tellingly, Admiral Rogers did not inform his Obama administration superiors in advance that he was going to visit President-elect Trump (and so presumably did not have authority from the Obama administration).
Also, tellingly, reports indicate that the very next day the Trump transition team suddenly decamped its prior headquarters for new (untapped?) quarters.
For confirmation regarding the above events, see here and here and here and here.
Now, if Admiral Rogers warned the target of a legitimate investigation into potential “foreign interference” – i.e., “Russian collusion” – that he was being surveilled, is not that both a clear-cut violation of intelligence secrecy laws, and a slam-dunk case “obstruction of justice?”
Would not one expect that attack dog Andrew Weissmann would have barked-out a multi-count indictment, and sent a post-midnight SWAT team to apprehend Admiral Rogers? Would he Rogers have been apprehended before he could do more damage to national security?
Yet the Weissmann-dog didn’t bark. Unlike the other prosecutions spawned by the Deep State dynamic duo of Weissmann and Mueller, Admiral Rogers was of no value as a potential witness against President Trump.
But if this had been a legitimate investigation on the matters as portrayed to the public, Rogers would certainly have been a target for prosecution; perhaps even being accused of “colluding” with the Russians, since he was warning the target so that it could take defensive measures.
Unless … unless … an arrest and prosecution would have revealed what Admiral Rogers actually knew, and what actually revealed to he President-elect Trump – and that such a prosecution would have forced disclosure that the surveillance of Trump was nothing more than a setup, and entrapment scheme.
That is the logical inference to be drawn from the fact that Admiral Rogers was left untouched by that prosecutorial zealot Andrew Weissmann, even as folks like General Flynn, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone were not just prosecuted, but persecuted.
It is submitted for your consideration that this clue – this “dog that didn’t bark” – evidences that the Democrat–Deep State cabal and its jihad to remove President Trump from office has from the very beginning been a sham – likely the most diabolical abuse of our political and justice system in the history of this great nation.
While we cannot yet know, history will record the truth of what has been committed, and by whom. This writer believes that Admiral Rogers, General Michael Flynn, Congressman Devin Nunes and a select few others will go down in history as some of our greatest heroes; and prays that history will also record that the perpetrators not only experienced the full weight of righteous justice, but also paid the appropriate price.
Mr. Wigand is the author of the book Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions).