The FBI’s Smoking Gun

There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party's duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election.
There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party’s duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election.

To declassify or not to declassify? That is the question, when it comes to the FBI’s original evidence in the Russia collusion case.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI have tried to thwart President Trump on releasing the evidence, suggesting it will harm national security, make allies less willing to cooperate, or even leave him vulnerable to accusations that he is trying to obstruct the end of the Russia probe.

Before you judge the DOJ’s and FBI’s arguments — which are similar to those offered to stop the release of information in other major episodes of American history, from the Bay of Pigs to 9/11 — consider Footnote 43 on Page 57 of Chapter 3 of the House Intelligence Committee’s report earlier this year on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Until this past week, the footnote really had garnered no public intrigue, in part because the U.S. intelligence community blacked out the vast majority of its verbiage in the name of national security before the report was made public.

From the heavy redactions, all one could tell is that FBI general counsel James Baker met with an unnamed person who provided some information in September 2016 about Russia, email hacking and a possible link to the Trump campaign.

Not a reporter or policymaker would have batted an eyelash over such a revelation.

Then, last Wednesday, I broke the story that Baker admitted to Congress in an unclassified setting — repeat, in an unclassified setting — that he had met with a top lawyer at the firm representing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received allegations from that lawyer about Russia, Trump and possible hacking.

[Read It All]

See Also:

(1) Former FBI lawyer: Plot to record, remove Trump not a joke

(2) Rosenstein’s interview with Trump’s congressional allies postponed indefinitely

(3) Rod Rosenstein should immediately stop overseeing the Mueller ‘collusion’ investigation

(4) It’s James Baker’s turn to throw Rosenstein under a bus

(5) Time for a reckoning: Make Democrats pay for what they did by wiping them out in November

(6) Trump’s Kavanaugh Apology Showed True Presidential Leadership (Hemingway: Read it all)

(Visited 91 times, 91 visits today)
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
BTDT
Guest
BTDT

‘Redactions protected political embarrassment, not ‘national security’.’ Ah….. only partially correct. The redactions are more to do with concealing criminality than anything else. Thus the growing hysteria from the left as the midterms draw ever closer and they are not guaranteed a win and an end to all of the investigations currently ongoing. A fear that you can smell. If the GOP retain and even increase control after the midterms, like the bread crumbs leading Hansel & Gretel right to the witch’s door, the evidence will ultimately lead America right to another witch’s door. If Hillary ever does a perp… Read more »