I am a weird guy; I
get excited over predication. No, no, not the grammatical variety, but the
legal.
Finally, after more
than three years and multiple investigations by the CIA, the NSA, the DOJ, the
FBI, and multiple Congressional committees, someone in Washington has come up
with the clear and concise issue that has been staring us all in the face like
a grim spectre.
Attorney General
William Barr tells us that he is investigating whether the FBI had a 'proper
predicate' for opening and conducting an investigation against then candidate
Trump and his campaign way back in 2016, and/or perhaps as early as 2015. And
with simple clarity, a clarity in short supply these days in Washington, he
stated that he needs to know the predicate for the investigation because it is
an extraordinary fact that there was surreptitious surveillance (aka 'spying')
by the highest levels of the US government against the campaign of an opposing
party during a Presidential election contest.
This is not a
complicated issue. Presidential election or not, the government cannot
investigate anyone without an appropriate reason to believe a crime has been
committed. This is basic 4th Amendment jurisprudence, and not controversial in
any respect. But when the 'target' for an investigation is the candidate and
campaign of a Presidential election, then the standard becomes even more
stringent - because not only is the 4th Amendment in play, but also the
integrity of our fundamental system of government. This is why the DOJ has
numerous existing rules and regulations covering investigations and
prosecutions that might interfere with elections at all levels of government.
What has obscured
this otherwise obvious issue for the last 3 years (and counting)? It's
basically been a studied disambiguation in support of a particular narrative,
that Trump colluded with Russia. It was definitely a fact that Russia meddled
in our election; since the time of
Lenin, they always have and there was no particular reason they didn't this
time. But that is not evidence Trump or anyone colluded. Despite that, the FBI
et al commenced an investigation, and covered their tracks publicly, with media
complicity, by muddling Russian meddling with Trump collusion to give the
impression that they had reasonable grounds to investigate Trump, when all they
had were reasons to investigate Russia. And the fact that all of this was
designated national security allowed the FBI et al to insinuate they had
grounds to suspect Trump, but never have to actually show us anything.
But Mueller has now
spoken that there was no evidence of collusion, and the real, serious issue is
finally getting the hearing it deserves: what was the evidence that started the
investigation, and was it a proper ground for an extraordinary, secret investigation
of a Presidential campaign?
Here's hoping that
AG Barr is serious about all of this. If not, it won't be the first time we've
seen the Washington insiders deep six a matter of public importance. But let's
wait and see.
No comments:
Post a Comment