By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a luncheon with Kennedy Center board members, a former president, whom the speaker expressed liking, reportedly stated, “I wish I did it. I wish I did,” referencing actions taken regarding Iran. The speaker further elaborated in the Oval Office, mentioning speaking with a former president who expressed a similar sentiment: “I wish I did what you did.” While refusing to identify the specific former president, the speaker indicated it was not George W. Bush and declined to confirm or deny if it was Bill Clinton, citing concerns about the individual facing political backlash due to “Trump derangement syndrome.”
Read the original article here
It appears Donald Trump is actively, though perhaps subtly, working to extricate an FBI informant from legal jeopardy, an individual who, it’s been alleged, provided fabricated information concerning the Biden family. This effort seems to involve the Department of Justice itself, with filings made by the former President’s former legal counsel indicating support for the informant’s release or reduced sentence. This situation raises significant questions about the motivations and implications of such actions, especially given the informant’s history of alleged deceit and his connections to Russian intelligence.
The involvement of the DOJ in supporting this informant, who is accused of peddling false narratives, is particularly noteworthy. This suggests a deliberate move to intervene in a legal case where the evidence presented by the informant was central to a narrative that gained traction during political campaigns. The fact that the DOJ, under the Trump administration, is now advocating for this individual paints a picture of an administration seemingly determined to protect its allies, even those whose credibility is deeply compromised.
Furthermore, this isn’t an isolated incident concerning Trump’s interventions in legal matters. There’s a pattern emerging that suggests a willingness to leverage his influence to benefit individuals who have played a role in narratives that served his political interests. This extends to other high-profile cases, hinting at a consistent approach to rewarding loyalty or perceived usefulness.
One can’t help but notice the timing and nature of these interventions. The alleged lies provided by the informant about the Bidens were significant and had a considerable impact on public perception and political discourse. The subsequent push for the informant’s freedom suggests a desire to preemptively address any potential repercussions or to ensure that the damage caused by the misinformation doesn’t lead to lasting legal consequences for those involved in its dissemination.
The argument can be made that this represents a form of quid pro quo, a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” dynamic playing out in the legal and political arenas. If an informant provided information that benefited Trump politically, even if that information was false, then there’s an incentive to ensure that informant is protected from the fallout. This creates a concerning precedent where truth and integrity seem to take a backseat to political expediency.
The Department of Justice, traditionally seen as an independent arbiter of justice, appears to be acting more like a personal legal team in these instances. The blurred lines between the administration’s political agenda and its legal functions are becoming increasingly evident, leading to public distrust and speculation about the impartiality of the legal system.
Moreover, the pardons and interventions extend to individuals convicted of serious crimes, including those involving significant financial fraud or espionage. This broad application of clemency or intervention suggests a consistent pattern of favoring certain individuals, regardless of the gravity of their offenses, as long as they align with a particular narrative or serve a perceived political purpose.
The potential for the informant to implicate others, including those who may have been aware of the fabricated nature of the information, is a strong motivator for ensuring their silence or continued cooperation. The risk of further revelations could be damaging, and protecting such an individual becomes a priority to prevent a cascade of negative consequences.
In essence, the current efforts to free the FBI informant accused of lying about the Bidens seem to be a continuation of a broader strategy. This strategy appears to involve using the power of the presidency and the Department of Justice to shield individuals who have been instrumental in advancing political narratives, even if those narratives are built on falsehoods. The long-term implications for the integrity of the justice system and the public’s faith in its impartiality are significant and warrant close scrutiny.