If the Justice Department and FBI are, as we've been told incessantly over the past year, not merely patriots but consummate professionals incapable of being distracted by partisanship or petty Washington intrigues, why are President Donald Trump's antagonists freaking out over the fact that an inspector general will assess whether political motivation tainted an investigation into the president's campaign?
Surely anyone who alleges to be concerned about the sanctity of our institutions and rule of law would have some cursory curiosity about whether an investigation by the administration of one major party into the presidential campaign of another major party was grounded in direct evidence rather than fabulist rumormongering.
Although the Obama administration never tweeted nasty attacks on journalists, it did spy on and prosecute them.
It's completely plausible that those in the upper echelon of law enforcement saw Trump as a threat and then used wobbly evidence as the pretext to investigate his campaign.
A truly silly New York Times headline last week read, "FBI Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims." You can call it whatever makes you happy, but in the real world, the act of furtively gathering information about someone else is called spying.
Perhaps the competing narratives that have sprung up around Trump and Russia will end far less dramatically than either of their champions hope.
Most of those arguing that Trump is attacking the constitutional system by demanding the DOJ investigate its conduct know well that he has full authority to do so.
Is Trump pushing the issue for political reasons? Of course.
If special counsel Robert Mueller doesn't come back with any evidence of collusion-all the other indictments and criminality he has found matter, of course, but they have nothing to do with the impetus for the investigation-it will be all the more important to figure out what the previous administration was up to.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/05/25/did-the-obama-administration-spy-on-trump-using-flimsy-evidence-lets-find-out/
Surely anyone who alleges to be concerned about the sanctity of our institutions and rule of law would have some cursory curiosity about whether an investigation by the administration of one major party into the presidential campaign of another major party was grounded in direct evidence rather than fabulist rumormongering.
Although the Obama administration never tweeted nasty attacks on journalists, it did spy on and prosecute them.
It's completely plausible that those in the upper echelon of law enforcement saw Trump as a threat and then used wobbly evidence as the pretext to investigate his campaign.
A truly silly New York Times headline last week read, "FBI Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims." You can call it whatever makes you happy, but in the real world, the act of furtively gathering information about someone else is called spying.
Perhaps the competing narratives that have sprung up around Trump and Russia will end far less dramatically than either of their champions hope.
Most of those arguing that Trump is attacking the constitutional system by demanding the DOJ investigate its conduct know well that he has full authority to do so.
Is Trump pushing the issue for political reasons? Of course.
If special counsel Robert Mueller doesn't come back with any evidence of collusion-all the other indictments and criminality he has found matter, of course, but they have nothing to do with the impetus for the investigation-it will be all the more important to figure out what the previous administration was up to.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/05/25/did-the-obama-administration-spy-on-trump-using-flimsy-evidence-lets-find-out/
No comments:
Post a Comment