Posted on 05/25/2018 6:37:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
"F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims," read the headline on a lengthy New York Times story May 18. "The Justice Department used a suspected informant to probe whether Trump campaign aides were making improper contacts with Russia in 2016," read a story in the May 21 edition of The Wall Street Journal.
So much for those who dismissed charges of Obama administration infiltration of Donald Trump's campaign as paranoid fantasy. Defenders of the Obama intelligence and law enforcement apparat have had to fall back on the argument that this infiltration was for Trump's -- and the nation's -- own good.
It's an argument that evidently didn't occur to Richard Nixon's defenders when it became clear that Nixon operatives had burglarized and wiretapped the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in June 1972.
Until 2016, just about everyone agreed that it was a bad thing for government intelligence or law enforcement agencies to spy -- er, use informants -- on a political campaign, especially one of the opposition party. Liberals were especially suspicious of the FBI and the CIA. Nowadays they say that anyone questioning their good faith is unpatriotic.
The crime at the root of Watergate was an attempt at surveillance of the DNC after George McGovern seemed about to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, just as the government misconduct in Russiagate was an attempt at surveillance of the Republican Party's national campaign after Trump clinched its nomination.
In both cases, the incumbent administration regarded the opposition's unorthodox nominee as undermining the nation's long-standing foreign policy and therefore dangerous to the country. McGovern renounced the Democrats' traditional Cold War policy. Trump expressed skepticism about George W. Bush and Obama administration policies on NATO, Mexico, Iran and (forgetting Barack Obama's ridicule of Mitt Romney on the subject) Russia.
The incumbents' qualms had some rational basis. But their attempts at surveillance were misbegotten. Back in 1972, my brief experience in campaigns left me skeptical that you could learn anything useful by wiretapping the opposition. If you were reasonably smart, you should be able to figure out what a reasonably smart opposition would do and respond accordingly. Subsequent experience has confirmed that view. It's a different story if you face irrational opposition. It's hard to figure out what stupid people are going to do.
Similarly, it's hard to figure out what the Obama law enforcement and intelligence folks had to gain by spying. Candidate Trump's bizarre refusals to criticize Vladimir Putin and Russia were already a political liability, criticized aptly and often by Hillary Clinton and mainstream media.
But neither the Obama informant/spy nor Robert Mueller's investigation has presented additional evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. None of Mueller's indictments points in that direction, and Trump's foreign policy over 16 months has been far less favorable to Russia than Obama's.
Both the Watergate wiretap and the Obama appointees' investigator/spy infiltration were initially inspired amid fears that the upstart opposition might win. The Watergate burglary was planned when Nixon's re-election was far from assured. A May 1972 Harris Poll showed him with only 48 percent against McGovern. It was only after the Haiphong harbor bombing and Moscow summit in early June made clear that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was ending that Nixon's numbers surged -- just before the June 17 burglary.
In March 2016, it was conventional wisdom that Trump couldn't be elected president. But his surprising and persistent strength in the Republican primaries left some doubtful, including the FBI lovebirds who instant messaged their desire for an "insurance policy" against that dreaded eventuality.
Their unease may have owed something to their knowledge of how the Obama Justice Department and FBI had fixed the Hillary Clinton emails case. Clinton wasn't indicted but was left with a disastrously low 32 percent of voters confident of her honesty and trustworthiness.
There are two obvious differences between Watergate and the Obama administration's infiltration. The Watergate burglars were arrested in flagrante delicto, and their wiretaps never functioned. And neither the FBI nor the CIA fully cooperated with the postelection cover-up.
That's quite a contrast with the Obama law enforcement and intelligence appointees' promotion of Christopher Steele's Clinton campaign-financed dodgy dossier and feeding the mainstream media's insatiable hunger for Russia collusion stories.
Has an outgoing administration ever worked to delegitimize and dislodge its successor like this? We hear many complaints, some justified, about Donald Trump's departure from standard political norms. But the greater and more dangerous departure from norms may be that of the Obama officials seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 election.
It was a departure from what’s legal. No wonder it doesn’t look normal.
But neither the Obama informant/spy nor Robert Mueller’s investigation has presented additional evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.
...
What does ding-a-ling mean by additional evidence? There was no evidence whatsoever.
is it a departure from norms for democrats to weaponize the federal government and use it against normal Americans? I thought that was standard procedure.
Yep, Trump took the heat for that in order to do setup for someone he knew he'd have to be dealing with later. People don't get what a strategic thinker and what great intuition for future deals Trump has.
I guess it’s ok for Trump to use this method in 2020 & 2024, if there is a credible threat to National Security...
“Departure From Norms”
More like ‘felonies’!
It reads like Comey’s exoneration of Cankles. One word missing: felonies.
The Clinton Foundation (a money laundering scheme) took over 175 million dollars from Russian companies and oligarchs. This money was laundered through a Canadian company.
But, the FBI does not think this is worth of investigation!
a champion race horse!
;)@PlanetWTF?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah...how do you like that mealy, mush mouthed term “departure from norms”? No damn wonder we love Trump’s style.
“But the greater and more dangerous departure from norms may be that of the Obama officials seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 election.”
MAY?!!! Understatement is one thing, Michael. But this is in a whole other league!
The only way this illegality stops is for prosecutions of all involved. Lacking that, the media will continue to defend this as normal and the agencies involved will thing this is OK to do in the future. Punishment is a deterrence.
“Yep, Trump took the heat for that in order to do setup for someone he knew he’d have to be dealing with later.”
That and he didn’t want to give in to the classic leftist tactic of of putting their words in your mouth. That is also a set up. They’ve been very successful at setting up the normal limp-wrist, weak-kneed Republican by basically choreographing what the Republican says. Trump wasn’t going to fall for that. Then they could pivot on a dime and paint him as they wanted to: as crazy, outrageous, unstable kook who would get us all killed in a nuclear war. That’s why they were so peeved when he wouldnt go after Putin...it screwed up their favored plan of attack.
Barone is a bit too dim and a bit too set in his Establishment fog to see this clearly, as he should if he really knew what he was talking about. But he’s getting a little clearer than he has been before...unlike the truly odious George Will. It’s progress.
Dems claim it’s not “normal” for a POTUS to fight back when the DOJ and FBI use their power to support a coup.
I believe those people are motivated by MAGA and will be pursuaded by reason. Any admission that some reform is needed will be a huge step towards the realization that nonpartisan oversight is critical. The Republicans have vigorously pursued oversight but it is properly described as partisan, now mixing the separate issues of the Hillary non-investigation whitewash and the spying on the Trump campaign. The former is not fatal to the republic, unlike the latter.
President Trump and his campaign beat Hillary, her Foundation, the DNC, the MSM, Soros, Hollywood, the DOJ, FBI, CIA, the DNI and the elite RINOs, combined.
Not bad Mr. President.
5.56mm
Judicial process and punishment is a deterrence. Revenge just produces more revenge. Many people rant about Hillary's "treason" by latching on to theories that her insecure server was used to sell secrets. There's no evidence of that in any reports I have read. Hillary's crimes are most about allowing and perhaps promoting megligent handling. The judicial process and ultimately deterrence can't take place without a review of the real evidence.
“Spying on Trump a Departure From Norms?”....
Not on your life! Demodummies, perhaps repubs as well, have all spied on their opponents. I do see that as a show stopper, just more of the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
