The Obama case discussion pertains to the recent disclosures that the Democrats engaged in a conspiracy to discredit Trump in late 2016, and that Obama was involved. The false narrative about Trump colluding with the Russians was exposed years ago. So, what’s new here?
Two things. First of all, documentation has been released proving that the conspiracy against Trump was real. Prior to this point, the Democrats could always deny the allocations, asserting that MAGA made the whole thing up. The second newsworthy item is that Obama was involved in the conspiracy. His actions shouldn’t be surprising since he is a radical left ideologue himself.
Obama, through a spokesman, denied involvement, which is interesting because he always says he will not respond to Trump. Obama has a gold-plated reputation to protect, so he must feel the need to react forcefully if the accusation is serious enough. As the god of the Democratic Party, he probably has nothing to worry about with his base, although he has received some criticism lately.
America’s tribal state dilutes the effect of these disclosures because half the country doesn’t believe them. Their ideological echo chamber blocks them from accepting the truth. The seriousness of these crimes, mainly conspiring to subvert the will of the American people, who elected Trump in 2016, makes Watergate look like shoplifting a candy bar.
As Tulsi Gabbard has stated, the disclosures should serve as a warning to all Americans of what can happen when a powerful group engages in illegal activities in an attempt to maintain power, no matter which party. More often than not, this behavior comes from the left because they are the ones who seek to change the American political system. The right’s status quo orientation and individualism mitigate their forming a conspiracy.
This case is a telling example of the left’s hubris, because they assume they will always be in power, forgetting that the Republicans might be in control someday and discover their misdeeds. It also demonstrates the extent of TDS on the left. To them, get Trump means to use any means to do so, without limits. This is an unfortunate byproduct of the Trump phenomenon – any good that comes from Trump generates an increase in America’s tribal behavior.
Contrast the Obama Case with the Epstein Case, which is a whole different animal.
MAGA has been fed a narrative by Trump for the last ten years that the Democrats covered up the Epstein case. Now that Trump is in office, he has declared that he will release pertinent information about the case. Attorney General Bondi, responding to media questions earlier in the year, stated that documents would be forthcoming soon. They haven’t been. The Epstein case has turned into a mess for Trump, because the MAGA ideology includes getting to the truth about government behavior.
Trump’s fans have followed him for ten years, partly because he has overcome a myriad of attacks by the left. Part of that overcoming was forcing the truth to come out, so it could be used to validate Trump’s behavior. MAGA wants the truth about Epstein, or they will begin to doubt the promises of their man.
There is an obstacle to disclosure that appears to be overlooked in the media’s narrative. The Epstein grand jury documents (2005 and 2019), one in Florida and one in New York, are under judicial seal. That means they cannot be released. Trump requested that relevant documents be released, but the Florida judge declined to do so. Other materials have been released, including:
Court documents: These files include depositions and other legal filings from civil lawsuits related to Epstein and his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. Some of these documents were unsealed in January 2024 and contained references to individuals associated with Epstein, including Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. Many of the names were already known from prior reports and interviews.
Flight logs: These documents detail the passenger lists on Epstein’s private plane and have been previously released through media reports and legal proceedings.
Redacted contact book (“black book”): A redacted version of Epstein’s contact book, listing names and phone numbers, has been released, although the majority of this information was already publicly available.
Evidence list: A three-page document detailing evidence seized during investigations of Epstein’s properties was released. This list includes items such as computers, electronic devices, storage drives, CDs, recording devices, cash, and blueprints.
The gold standard data are the trial testimony from 2005 (Epstein was convicted) and the grand jury testimony from 2019, which was later used to convict Ghislaine Maxwell. That testimony was given by victims who need to have their privacy protected. How could the so-called perpetrators be convicted without giving them the ability to confront their accusers?
Ghislaine Maxwell has filed an appeal of her conviction to the Supreme Court. She has also agreed to testify before Congress in exchange for immunity. Her involvement eliminates the need to unseal the court documents. She’s holding high cards that might get her out of jail for time served in exchange for the right information. Since the Republicans are in power, they can control how Ms. Maxwell is handled. If using her as a substitute for the sealed documents will help manage their politics in this situation, it will happen.
Stay tuned.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
It's gradual but cumulative: people are abandoning progressive orthodoxies. Every 1/1000th person who hears about Obama's misdeeds, every 2nd person whose neighborhood becomes unlivable because of bail reform, every person who's badly assaulted only to see the perpetrator released within 24 hours. Those people begin to add up, ideological convictions or not.
Of course it helps that progressives are naturally disdainful and intellectually inflexible and moralistic and completely unwilling to make honest and convincing arguments to people who disagree with them.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/intransigence