What is the canary’s purpose in life? Why, to sing, of course — at least from the human’s point-of-view. What is the canary trap? Why, to catch humans who are singing like canaries.
The latest occult dish served up by Democratic Party spirit cookers in the impeachment ritual is the release of “bombshell” news leaked to The New York Times late Sunday from a new book by Mr. Trump’s erstwhile National Security Advisor, John Bolton, purporting verbal evidence of a quid pro quo in the Ukraine aid-for-investigations allegation. Better hold the premature ejaculations on that one.
The canary trap is a venerable ploy of intelligence tradecraft for flushing out info-leakers. You send slightly different versions of an info package to suspected leakers in a leaky agency, and when the info materializes somewhere like The New York Times, you can tell exactly which canary crooned the melody. In this case, the agency was the White House National Security Council, the notorious nest of intriguers lately the haunts of impeachment stars Col. Alexander Vindman and alleged “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella (on loan from the CIA, and now back there). Another bird in that nest is Alexander Vindman’s twin brother Col. Eugene (Yevgeny) Vindman, a military lawyer posted as chief ethics counsel for the NSC, of all things.
The info-package in this case was the manuscript of John Bolton’s book, The Room Where It Happened, relating his brief and tumultuous misadventures in Trumpland, slated for release March 17. Someone in the White House chain of command ordered a security review of the manuscript by the NSC — a curious detail. Why there, of all places, given the recent exploits of Ciaramella, Vindman & Vindman, Sean Misko, Abigail Grace, current or former NSC employees now in the service of Adam Schiff’s House Intel Committee, which kicked off the latest mega-distraction from the nation’s business? Why not give the manuscript to the Attorney General’s counsel, or some other referee to determine what in the book might qualify as privileged communication between a president and a top national security advisor?
Well, before you go tripping off on a tear about the suspect loyalties of William Barr, consider that the chief byproduct of the entire three-year RussiaGate flimflam and all its subsequent offshoots by the Lawfare Resistance has been to completely undermine Americans’ faith in federal institutions, including the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA. Perhaps what we’re seeing is the convergence of two perfect setups.
Surely Adam Schiff thinks that testimony from John Bolton was his ace-in-the-hole to corroborate the House’s impeachment case. Maybe his staff (of former NSC moles) had a hand in orchestrating the leaks from the NSC to The New York Times at exactly the right moment — hours before Mr. Trump’s lawyers would begin to argue the main body of his defense in the Senate, to produce an orgasmic gotcha. But what if Mr. Trump’s lawyers and confidents were ahead of the scheme and knew exactly when and how Mr. Schiff would call the play?
It’s actually inconceivable that that Mr. Trump’s team did not know this play was coming. Do you suppose they didn’t know that Mr. Bolton had written a book on contract for Simon & Schuster, and much more? After all, a president has access to information that even a sedulous bottom-feeder like Mr. Schiff just doesn’t command. Maybe the canary trap is only the prelude to a booby trap — and remember, boobies are much larger birds than canaries. Maybe, despite prior protestations about not calling witnesses, the Bolton ploy will actually be an excuse for Mr. Trump’s defense team to run the switcheroo play and accede to the calling of witnesses.
Perhaps they are not afraid of what Mr. Bolton might have to say in the ‘splainin’ seat. Perhaps what he has to say turns out to be, at least, the proverbial nothingburger with mayo and onion, or, at worst, a perfidious prevarication motivated by ill-will against the employer who sacked him ignominiously. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s lawyers are longing for the chance to haul in some witnesses of their own, for instance the “whistleblower.” It is also inconceivable that the actual progenitor of this mighty hot mess would not be called to account in the very forum that his ploy was aimed to convoke.
And from the unmasked “whistleblower,” the spectacle would proceed straightaway to Adam Schiff himself in the witness chair. That will be an elongated moment of personal self-disfigurement not seen in American history since William Jennings Bryan was left blubbering in the courtroom at Dayton, Tennessee, 1925, after he spearheaded the malicious prosecution of John Scopes for teaching evolution in a high school biology class… or the moment of national wonder and nausea in June 1954 when Army Chief Counsel Joseph Welch rose from his chair and asked witch-hunting Senator Joseph McCarthy, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
In a deeply imperfect world, California’s 28th congressional district has produced a true marvel: the perfect scoundrel. Adam Schiff has been hurling false accusations and retailing mendacious narratives for three years. He deserves the most public disgrace that can possibly be arranged, on nationwide television, with all his many media enablers at CNN and MSNBC having to call the play-by-play. Then the nation needs to expel him from the House of Representatives. And then, maybe, the USA can get on with other business.
