12.05.2019 0

Just b/c FISA court rubberstamped spying on Trump in 2016 doesn’t mean it was adequately predicated

Was spying on the Trump campaign in 2016 adequately predicated? That’s for Attorney General Barr to decide.

There were tons of red flags that could have and should have been raised about the DNC-funded Steele dossier and the false allegations against President Donald Trump and his campaign that they were Russian agents, which was ultimately debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. And yet, perhaps the worst possible outcome now would be a self-serving conclusion from the inspector general is that FISA was not violated, and that the investigation was well-grounded, even though the allegations into Trump were made up by his political opponents, was based on false information and produced nothing. That would mean that it is the law itself that is broken. On the other hand, we know that in October that the investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham has been expanded into a criminal probe. So, there’s a contradiction, and perhaps a disagreement within the Justice Department over the conduct by the Obama administration in its last few months, when it obtained court-ordered spying on the Trump campaign, the opposition party, in an election year. That is why, here, the inspector general’s opinion is interesting, but not the final word on this question. It is the Attorney General ultimately who will make the determination. Were laws broken or not? If this spying based on false allegations was not prohibited by FISA, it needs to be, or else FISA shouldn’t be reauthorized. If nobody goes to jail for putting the country through this nightmare, it will happen again. What do you think?

Copyright © 2008-2022 Americans for Limited Government