Why doesn’t anyone question how FBI heavies justified investigating Trump’s campaign in the first place?

We’re told Obama’s FBI opened a Trump-campaign investigation after getting news that a low-level campaign aide drunkenly mentioned Russia possibly having dirt on Hillary.

How exactly does that rise to the level of an FBI-worthy investigation?

If political party dirt-digging qualifies, the FBI would have no time for real crime.

That being said, why is there no outcry over the Nation’s law enforcement agency heavyweight partisan appointees weaponizing the FBI against opposition campaigns?

As noted in a salient article at the American Greatness blog

“When the FBI presented the so-called Steele dossier to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2016, there is no evidence that it was accompanied by a good faith evaluation or summary of its contents.” 

“Why does that matter? It goes to the question of whether Justice Department officials tried to pass off raw intelligence in support of a political agenda as the pretext for a bona fide national security investigation.”

“The FBI’s use of the Steele dossier fails every test for the proper handling of intelligence or evidence.” (emphasis added)

People – getting opposition research (even from foreign sources) isn’t a crime. Passing off dirt-digging opposition research as legitimate context for an investigation might be.

But if getting foreign opposition research was criminal, at this point…

…the only provable evidence of that type collusion is against Democrats.

Face it, folks, the only reason they did it was to torpedo the Trump campaign.

And the only chance they have of getting away with it is if they keep banging drums.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *