Investigation became ‘anti-Trump’ when evidence pointed to Democrats, but nothing was done

Andy McCarthy writes at NRO “Unlike fervent Trump supporters, I do not condemn the investigation of a presidential campaign in principle. To the contrary, I have repeatedly said that, if there was strong evidence on which to base suspicions of Trump–Russia collusion, the Obama administration would have been derelict not to investigate. I also do not see this as a pro- or anti-Trump issue.” (bold emphasis added)

There’s strong evidence a Party colluded with foreign agents…but not Trump’s Party.

With all due respect, Mr. McCarthy…it became an ‘anti-Trump’ issue when evidence is found that Democrats colluded with foreign agents, but no legal action’s been taken.

Acting Deputy AG Rosenstein’s authorization to Mueller specifically stated to follow up  ALL matters that arise from the foreign collusion investigation…not just ‘Trump matters’.

Mueller failing to do so – after it’s been revealed TO ALL that Democrats (including the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign) DID collude w-foreign agents to tamper…

…proves the WITCH-HUNT this investigation has become.

Legal experts miss a most important point about FISA warrant abuses

Amidst caterwauling back-&-forth of Democrat and Republican legal minds in the matter of Obama’s Justice Dept and FBI abusing FISA processes, there’s a missed point…

…a looming election meant the FISA court judges needed to put heavier emphasis on the ‘opposition’ research efforts substantiation, to avoid appearance of impropriety.

Sure, there are standard requirements to fulfill in requesting a FISA warrant…

…but to not expect more from a Party in power when seeking pre-election surveillance capability against the OTHER Party is not just incompetence…it’s extremely unethical.

This isn’t just about Democrat chicanery – it goes on every election cycle, and no doubt some in the Republican Party get nasty as well, but this is about a legal process that should see the writing on that wall…and put a stronger emphasis on burden of proof.

Sorry, but ‘trust me judge, we trust the source’ is NOT an acceptable criteria.

And ANY judge who doesn’t see that is not someone who deserves to be a judge…

...in ANY court.

PERIOD.

FULL.STOP.