If an article in today's Wall Street Journal is correct, the FBI may have been spying on the Trump campaign - illegally - for months before the 2016 presidential election. It may even have been manipulated by the Obama administration into doing so.
The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.
Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.
. . .
This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI ... Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.
This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting.
. . .
I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.
There's more at the link. Please, click over there and read the entire article. It's potentially very important indeed.
If this report proves to be correct, it will mean - in so many words - that the FBI, the USA's premier law enforcement agency, was suborned and taken over for partisan political purposes by the Obama administration. That will be catastrophic for the FBI's reputation, so much so that the agency may not survive in its present form. It would join the IRS as being irreparably harmed by the taint of corruption for political purposes.
One way or another, this must be addressed and unmasked completely. Only with full disclosure can the nation as a whole decide whether the FBI is trustworthy, or whether it should be abolished and replaced by something more trustworthy. At present, in the absence of full disclosure - not to mention the FBI's dogged, determined battle to obstruct and prevent it ever happening - suspicion must tend towards the latter option.
Peter
"Replaced by something more trustworthy".
ReplyDeleteCombined with the theory of absolute power and absolute corruption... can such an organization exist?
No.
DeleteMalfeasance in the FBI in regard to the current problem MUST be rewarded with life terms in Leavenworth, or meeting with a hangman. Nothing less will have any impact on future considerations toward this type of power play. Included in this should be all politicians and bureaucrats that were involved, up to and including Obama.
ReplyDelete(Frankly, the noose would be preferable, since prison terms can be altered by future politicians.)
This is not a minor incident. It should be considered to be a coup attempt, and the hammer of doom should be swung with great energy.
Well, unfortunately, the IRS appears to be humming along just fine, despite the many documented instances of abuse of power and deliberate, disgusting acts of political suppression, etc during the prior administration... The IRS is just as terrifyingly powerful as it was before Lerner and her ilk. Consequences are for little people and scapegoats, it seems. I hope I'm wrong, though.
ReplyDelete