It has taken years and two elections to unravel. How did the war begin? What exactly was its purpose? What plots were devised, who devised them and who carried them out, covert and not so covert? What crimes, if any, were committed? Will there be consequences?
Now we know.
We know when it started, how it was put into play, who was involved and why. Whether anyone will be held responsible has yet to be determined, but from the beginning it seemed another historic hissy-fit between the House of Dems and the House of Reps, two sides of the same ruling class. War of the Roses, American-style. Both corporate, both corrupt, both adept at kabuki. The only thing we didn't know was how their internecine warfare would affect people who work for a living. It didn't really matter which band of cutthroats won. The con would continue apace.
In Act I, the first battle of the war takes place when the Dems accuse the Reps of colluding with Russia to help their candidate win the 2016 presidential election. The accusation is taken seriously, as party leaders, their stenographers in the media and the FBI stormtroop the narrative: agents for the Russian gov't, along with operatives from the House of Reps, hacked the DNC server in order to leak damaging information about Hillary Clinton's campaign. Dems investigate. Reps flaunt the charges. Dems threaten subpoenas and impeachment. Reps laugh like crazy. They're in power now.
In Act II the war continues with each House attempting to out-maneuver the other in a full-tilt political chess match, where lies are truth and down is up and each side blames the other. Reps begin to investigate Dems and their kin for corruption in Ukraine. Dems respond by impeaching Trump for investigating Dems and their kin in Ukraine. Reps obfuscate, deny, defend and throw tantrums. Dems push five more investigations into the president, his family & his businesses. Reps claim the investigations are an attempt to protect Clinton and her cohorts from being exposed to charges of treason. Dems and their minions cite the Mueller report. Reps and their minions cite the IG report. Dems obfuscate, deny, defend and throw tantrums. "Look at all these convictions," they stammer. Reps ask AG Bill the Pardoner to look into the matter. Dems bristle. Reps are the same. Tensions are simmering.
Act III. After a long, tense interlude, the curtain rises.
The House of Reps has just lost control of the White House and the Senate. But before the House of Dems can take control, Trump and his allies hold a rally on 6 January to "Stop the Steal." The disgraced former president baits a crowd of angry supporters, telling them the election was "stolen" and imploring them to march on the Capitol and "fight like hell" for democracy. A riot ensues. 5 dead. Hundreds injured. "Hang Mike Pence."
Reps in the House are initially outraged by Trump's actions and agree to hold him accountable. But their dally with integrity is short lived and within days the very same Reps are saying the opposite. Nothing happened. It's the Dems' fault. The folks who stormed Congress, beat police, destroyed property and threatened to kill lawmakers are "patriots." One especially delusional Rep described the rioters as "tourists."
Dems in the House promptly impeach Trump a second time for instigating the insurrection. Reps in the Senate shut it down, again, without a trial. Dems in the House and the Senate demand an intensive "911" type investigation. Reps in the House and the Senate play Scrabble.
Undeterred, Dems in the House announce they will organize a Select Committee to investigate the riot on their own. Reps in the House dare them, threatening to make faces and use bad language. In spite of the posturing, the two sides meet and agree on the form and the scope of the committee. When Dems announce the agreement, Reps publically reject it. Dems vote to codify the committee anyway. Reps think clever and try to appoint two unhinged flame throwers. Dems promptly kick them off. Reps threaten to remove all their members if they don't get their way. Dems appoint two level-headed Reps instead. Rep leaders slink into a corner and whine about fairness.
Dems investigate. Reps defend the terrorists and demand a recount. Dems claim the election lies and the assault on the Capitol appear to be part of a broad conspiracy that includes members of Congress and the White House. Reps scurry to re-shuffle the deck. Vaccine mandates, immigration, leaving Afghanistan, impeach Biden.
The Dem-controlled Select Committee orders 35 major "social media and communications companies" to preserve records related to the House of Reps and the WH. Reps huff and puff and talk revenge. Dems subpoenas four members of the former president's inner circle. Reps promise to "make American great again" in 2022. Dems defend the subpoenas. Reps claim "Executive Privilege." Dems continue to flex their legislative muscle and subpoena eleven more people associated with the 6 January riot. Reps are beginning to feel the pressure. Trump and his allies are facing a number of legal challenges. Lying about the election. Plotting the insurrection. Inciting a riot. Victory seems all but assured for the House of Dems.
Then, suddenly, rising out of a political memory hole, Rep-appointed Special Counsel Michael Durham announces the indictment of Michael Sussmann. Sussmann is one of the very first people to inform the FBI about possible collusion between Trump cronies and Russian bankers. When questioned, he said he was just being a "good Samaritan" doing his civic duty. Except he was also a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for the Clinton Foundation and for Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.
A low-level Dem operative caught lying to the FBI about the origins of Russiagate? You can't make this stuff up.
Dems sense trouble and quietly get their marionettes in the media to trash Sussmann's indictment. CNN argues the 57 year-old experienced federal prosecutor didn't lie to hide his connection to the House of Dems and, quite possibly, to the plotting of Russiagate. He simply "flubbed" the details. Court Jester Jeffrey Tobin lies about the substance of the indictment, while Politico, Chris Cillizza (CNN) and The Hill do their best to blur the issue as a "political spectacle" and not, say, as part of a criminal conspiracy to commit treason.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
