When Dan Rather no less (and there is no less), announced that the resignation of General Flynn might be a bigger scandal than Watergate, I dismissed it as a Rather raving.  Rather’s assessment may have been more right than he knows, but for the wrong reason.  As I wrote this, it was President’s Day, a national holiday which a significant number of our citizens  chose to celebrate as “Not My President’s Day.”  Just another opportunity to protest the lawful election of Donald Trump.  On February 17, President Trump held an unprecedented press conference in which he denounced segments of the Media as “fake news” and spoke out against the torrent of leaks of classified information which has marked his first weeks in office.  There has been plenty of fake news peddled by the Media as the truth.  For only a few examples, the Media has reported the following stories, all of them false:  Trump removed the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office; Trump’s Executive Orders included a religious test for immigrants; Trump threatened to invade Mexico;  Trump is planning to use 100,000 National Guard troops to round up illegal aliens.  Chuck Todd of NBC (the national Barack channel) even labelled any criticism of false news or the news outlets as un-American and unconstitutional.  Apparently he never actually read the First Amendment.  Hey Chuck, here’s how it works.  The third clause of the Amendment says you get to say whatever you want, but the second clause says we get to criticize it.  Then we have the leaks, of the contents of Trump’s calls to the Mexican President and the Australian Prime Minister, and of a portion of a wiretapped conversation between General Flynn and the Russian Ambassador.  As I wrote this, evidence was emerging which suggested that the persistent leaking of classified information indeed is a scandal that dwarfs Watergate, which was, at best, a third rate burglary, and a fourth rate coverup.  Constitutional lawyer Jay Sekulow has characterized the Flynn resignation as “a political assassination” which is part of “a soft coup.”  Former D.C. U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova went further, “What we have here is a coup d’état,” designed to result in Trump’s impeachment.  Journalist Piers Morgan has written that “there are traitors” in the U.S. intelligence services.  What happened with Flynn?  Well, he was named as Trump’s nominee for National Security Advisor on November 18, 2016.  In December 2016, Flynn spoke on the phone to the Russian Ambassador.  Some or all of that conversation was recorded and transcribed by the National Security Agency (NSA).  According to published accounts, the Russian mentioned the sanctions just imposed by Obama, and Flynn made a non-committal response.  In yet another leak, on February 15, 2017, an unnamed current U.S. intelligence official told NPR that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Flynn in the transcript.  Not to be outdone, the very next day, Chris Cuomo of CNN (or is it FNN?) reported that “we don’t know if Flynn’s call was wiretapped.”  Apparently Cuomo considers the February 9 New York Times report of the wiretap to be fake news.  And it looks like it was, because the Times, on March 8th, changed the headline from “wiretap” on Trump to “interception” on Russians.  How did these highly classified leaks happen.  Hold on to your hat!  Look no further than Il Duce Obama.  His eight years about to expire, Il Duce was determined to continue his community activism (a/k/a rabble rousing).  Armed with the 2012 election database he refused to give to Hillary for her campaign, and $40 million in contributions to his group Organizing for America (OFA), Obama has set up his shadow government headquarters in Washington, in the building of the World Wildlife Fund, not far from the White House.  OFA has joined a George Soros group dedicated to the disruption of the Trump Administration.  Obama sowed the seeds of disruption in his final days as President.  We are now learning that, on January 3, 2017, Obama issued an Executive Order to the NSA, which undid a Reagan era Order, and which required the NSA to release raw intelligence data it collected to 16 other government agencies.  Before Obama’s Order, the NSA controlled the flow of intelligence data.  By sending the raw data to 16 agencies, largely staffed by Obama’s appointees, Il Duce made the leaking of anti-Trump information a virtual certainty.  And so it came to pass, that a large number of disgruntled bureaucrats, just after hearing President Trump’s pledge to reduce the federal workforce by 20%, came into possession of classified wiretap information which could be used to damage Trump, and lo and behold, 9 days after the Obama NSA Order, the Washington Post published the leaked information.  The release of this information violated a number of laws.  Simply put, there is no scenario under which the release of the Flynn conversation could be legal, nor was the leak an unintended consequence of Obama’s Order; it was part of the plan.  The possibilities?     1) Obama was wiretapping Trump supporters, including Flynn, during the campaign and continued after the election.  That would be hard to explain, especially to Democrats who like to complain about threats to democracy.    2) If the wiretaps were ordered by the FISA court, or another court, the results could be released only by Court Order.  There is no such Court Order, so the release was a crime.  3) If the wiretaps were not court authorized, then the recording itself was illegal wiretapping.  That’s a crime.       4) If the target of the wiretap or NSA surveillance was the Russian Ambassador, and General Flynn simply got caught in that net, then somebody needs to explain why, and on what authority it was decided  that the chance to damage Trump justified disclosing to the Russians that their phones were being monitored, thereby putting them on the alert and compromising national security.  I’ve heard Democrats use the word “treason” regarding Flynn’s call.  Whoever sacrificed an important intelligence source for political purposes would seem to better fit the label of “traitor” than the good General.  That Obama’s fingerprints are on these leaks is plain, but the Republican establishment is not blameless.  Both sides are at war with Trump, and are trying to depose him.   The fact is that segments of both Parties are violating the law in an attempt to remove a duly elected President from office.  Watergate pales by comparison.  Coups d’etat are routine in banana republics.  No real American should countenance a coup attempt.  Putin is still laughing.