The Beria Rule

Last year, Michael Henry suggested that Robert Mueller's investigation of "Russian collusion" followed a model suggested by Lavrentiy Beria. Bet you never heard on him. Henry explains:

Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin’s death in 1953, supervising the expansion of the gulags and other secret detention facilities for political prisoners. He became part of a post-Stalin, short-lived ruling troika until he was executed for treason after Nikita Khrushchev’s coup d’etat in 1953.

Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895).

Unlike Beria’s paradigm, U.S. prosecutions start with the discovery of a crime. Then there’s an investigation to find or confirm the identity of the perpetrator and collect evidence to prove his or her guilt.

The Democrats' behavior throughout the Trump presidency follows the 'Beria Rule.' They hate Donald Trump because they believe he stole the political power that was to be rightfully theirs. So they (and their allies in the media, the deep state, and even among a few Republicans) have targeted the man and run amuck looking for crimes. Their long list of phony accusations began on Trump's first day as president as did their calls for impeachment. They continue to this day—ever more dishonest, strident, and often hysterical in their accusations. All predicated on the Beria Rule.

As he watches this unfold, David P. Goldman (along with tens of millions of other Americans) is angry—very angry. The Dems dishonestly accuse Trump of doing what their candidate and party actually did—collude with the Russians to produce a paid disinformation campaign that was used by partisan FBI and CIA leadership to mount a soft coup attempt. Goldman writes:

That's the canonical definition of chutzpah -- shameless effrontery -- and it summarizes the Democratic position on the attempted impeachment of President Trump. The Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the Steele dossier, assembled out of bits handed to ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele from his Russian intelligence sources, and the FBI used this concoction to obtain FISA warrants to bug the Trump presidential campaign. Now, THAT'S foreign interference. And those facts aren't in dispute. When the Trump administration tries to get the truth out of foreign governments about their involvement in nefarious activities in the U.S., the Democrats scream, "Impeachment!"

The Wall Street Journal editors got this exactly right:

Democrats want to impeach Donald Trump for inviting Ukraine to investigate 2020 election rival Joe Biden. But then why are they opposed to investigating whether Democrats used Russian disinformation to get the FBI to investigate Donald Trump in 2016?

That’s the double standard now on gaudy public display over multiple news reports that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the origins of the Russian fiasco of 2016 has become a criminal probe. Attorney General William Barr this year appointed Mr. Durham, a highly regarded and veteran prosecutor, to examine this part of the Russia tale that special counsel Robert Mueller chose to ignore.

Nothing less than the American republic is at stake here. It's time for every American patriot to rally around the president. Some of my neo-conservative ex-friends are cheering for the wrong side. Shame on them.

For the record, I don't care whether there was quid pro quo with Ukraine or not. If President Trump used military aid as a bargaining chip to persuade the government of Ukraine to investigate foreign subversion of our political system, he was doing his job as commander-in-chief to protect this country from its external enemies. The parade of striped-pants cookie-pushers from the State Department feeding information to closed-door Democratic Party kangaroo courts in the House of Representatives is irrelevant. Trump is fighting a mutiny by the U.S. intelligence community. If the mutineers succeed, it will be the end of the republic. If a cabal of bureaucrats nestling in the bowls of our $80 billion a year intelligence bureaucracy can bring down an elected president of the United States, the republic is finished.

There is no reasonable argument that can justify what Clinton, the DNC, the FBI and the intelligence agencies did. They colluded with an adversary that is known to interfere in our elections, and did so to "fix" the 2016 election. When that failed, they regrouped and then attempted to destroy a presidency.

And there is certainly no reasonable argument that can justify the Beria Model, the approach that is being used by the likes Adam Schiff and his sidekick Jerald Nadler, who lie with impunity in the hope of destroying Trump and seizing power. Aided and abetted by their trained hamsters in the mainstream media, they are the enemy of anyone who believes that American voters—not the media, or the deep state, or the FBI or the CIA or even establishment Democrats or Republicans—should chose the president of the United States.