The Democrats and their allies in the mainstream press remain determined to manufacture some scandal they can use bring down the Trump administration. This demonstrates just what a threat he represents to liberal interests and objectives.
The theory that Russia intervened in the election to promote the Trump candidacy is getting old. It’s also is a bit short on facts. What, specifically, did the Russians do? Say bad things about Hillary? Pour money into advertising? Surely if this were that big of a deal, there would be some real evidence by now. Instead it just sort of hangs there on the end of a limb waiting to drop off the tree and get buried.
Now we learn that the FBI Director wanted to go public with an op-ed about these allegations months before anyone had heard of them. This raises all sorts of questions, not the least of which is why a law enforcement agency, if it found illegal activity, would run a newspaper story rather than arresting people. But this is a highly politicized FBI we’re dealing with here, so perhaps that’s not much of a surprise.
Newsweek reports that “FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election. Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek. Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement. Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House’s situation room in June or July.”
To ask the obvious questions again, why the White House meeting? What’s with the op-ed proposal? If someone broke the law, then the thing for the FBI to do is charge people or seek indictments, right? It’s job is law enforcement, not journalism.
The bigger question is why the Obama administration blocked Comey. After all, this could have created problems for the Trump campaign. Are we to believe that Mr. Obama and his team were overcome with a sense integrity?
Newsweek continues: “He [Comey] had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward, what do people think of this?’ says a source with knowledge of the meeting. It included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson and the national security adviser Susan Rice. The other national security officials didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. ‘An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature, it comes from one person.'”
The theory is that truth should stand on its own, it’s the lie that needs propping up. What is missing from this story is a straightforward answer with evidence to the obvious question, “did this offense occur?”
Could the White House’s reluctance to move forward have been motivated by what might have been uncovered about Hillary or the DNC and Russian interests? After all, once an investigation gets started, it can take some interesting and unexpected turns.
We’ll likely never get the entire story. Unless, of course, WikiLeaks is sitting on something we don’t know about. It is something to consider when a hacking group such as WikiLeaks has equal or greater credibility among a sizable part of the country than does the director of the FBI.
Source: Louder with Crowder