By Dan Calabrese
I know this is going to be widely scoffed at by the political class and the punditry, but I know exactly where he’s going with it because it’s what we’ve been saying here for a long time.
I suspect Giuliani is correct on the facts and on the law. What I’m not so sure about is that the public will ever come to understand it that way, because the media and the Beltway crowd will remain determined to obfuscate and explain away what really happened.
Here’s the gist of it: A. There was no collusion with Russia or any other underlying crime. B. The investigators have basically known this from the outset, just as Patrick Fitzgerald knew from day one that Richard Armitage exposed Valerie Plame, yet he spent two years pretending to be trying to find out. C. The maneuvers deployed in the quest for something actionable have been far more scandalous than what they want you to think the Trump campaign might have done.
That certainly includes the use of the Clinton-financed Steele dossier to justify a FISA-approved wiretap on Carter Page, and that’s just what we know about. It probably also includes much we still don’t know about Peter Strzok’s actions, as it’s clear from his texts (his protests to the contrary notwithstanding) that he saw the investigation nicknamed Crossfire Hurricane as an imperative to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.
Is there more that we’re still going to learn? Rudy is clearly hinting their is, and Hannity intimates that he knows what some of it is:
I’ve explained the Watergate comparison many times, but I don’t think it can be done often enough:
Watergate was the campaign committee of a sitting Republican president sending burglars to plant listening devices in the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex. Indefensible, any way you look at it.
What we’re dealing with here is the Obama Justice Department and FBI misusing their authority as federal law enforcement to dishonestly obtain wiretap authority against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, all under the guise of investigating a crime they had no legitimate basis for believing had happened.
In both cases you have an administration of one party using listening devices to spy on the other party’s candidate. The first case deployed two-bit criminals to get it done. The second case abused the authority of federal law enforcement to get it done.
The first case is bad. The second case is worse.
The Obama DOJ did a decent enough job of checking the legally required boxes that those determined to defend them have been able to maintain their position without being laughed out of town. If you look deeply enough you’ll see how much is wrong with what they did – particularly the fact that they never informed the FISA court who paid for the dossier, and that they used a Yahoo news story that used Christopher Steele as its source to supposedly verify the information they got from . . . Christopher Steele, and didn’t tell the court about that either.
Also, the didn’t tell the FISA court they had parted ways with Steele because he kept blabbing to the media after they told him not to.
Once you know all this, you realize the FBI pulled a fast one on the FISA court. And once you realize how thin the basis for the “collusion” business was in the first place, it doesn’t take a genius to realize they concocted this whole thing for political purposes.
The only thing that’s missing is proof that they did it all on orders from Barack Obama. Yet whose idea do you think all this was?
Remember, Richard Nixon didn’t order the burglary. His downfall came because he tried to cover it up once he found out about it. Do you really think it was James Comey’s idea to do all this? Do you really think it was Loretta Lynch’s idea to do all this?
I don’t. But up until now, we haven’t seen evidence that the word came down from Obama.
Unless that’s what Rudy has. Hmmmmmmm.
Dan writes Christian spiritual warfare novels and does all kinds of other weird things too. Follow all his activity by liking him on Facebook!