On Wednesday, the New York Times published a blockbuster story that gave readers brand new insight into the opening days of the investigation into Donald Trump, Russia, and all the supposed collusion the two entities engaged in. In the story, we learned that the FBI code-named the early investigation “Crossfire Hurricane” – apparently even they knew that there would be serious trouble if the American people ever caught on to what they were doing.
The question many were left with after reading this 4,000-word article was: Why now? Why, after two years, are we finally getting down to the details of the Trump/Russia investigation and what factors conspired to initiate it?
Well, there are a few possible answers to that question. One, the Wall St. Journal’s Kimberley Strassel (to say nothing of House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes) has been asking some pointed questions about whether or not the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign. In other words, it was going to come out sooner rather than later that yes, they were. And the Times story confirms that fact. The FBI, reports the Times, used “at least one government informant” in an effort to get inside the campaign.
All based on…
The rambling of former Trump aide George Papadopoulos? Yeah, that’s the story we’re still supposed to believe in. And we might even believe it, because no matter what the real story is, we can’t imagine that the Obama DOJ will EVER be able to prove they truly had reasonable cause to begin spying on Obama’s chief political opponents in the middle of a divisive presidential election. They’ve got Papadopoulos and they’ve got the dossier and that’s about it.
Even now, two years later, that’s about it.
The gravity of the situation – the Obama administration using its (considerable) powers of surveillance against political opponents in an election year – is downplayed by the Times story and the many liberal blogs it spawned. We’re supposed to apparently just take it as a matter of course that the FBI and, perhaps, other federal agencies used spies to get inside the Trump campaign. Because, hell, the guy’s gotta be guilty of something, right? Come on, we ALL know that.
Well, no. We don’t. And we also know that powerful counterintelligence tools are not supposed to be used in the conduct of a criminal investigation. Which is what this ultimately was.
The Times and the rest of the Mueller supporters out there want us to forget all of this inconvenient, constitution-defying stuff. They want us to believe that since Russia “hacked the election” (or whatever), a counter-intelligence operation was wholly appropriate. We don’t deny that. What we deny is that this gave Obama the authority to spy on Donald Trump while he was running for President of the United States.
Russia may or may not have done some harm by hacking the DNC and flooding Facebook with a bunch of advertisements. But whatever harm Moscow did to our democracy, it pales in comparison to the harm Obama’s law enforcement goons did when they turned the powers of the State against a political enemy.