Leaking a confidential report by the Department of Justice Inspector General [IG] Michael Horowitz due for release Dec. 9, the New York Times tried to preempt any findings that could embarrass the media and Democrat Party. Trump claims he was “spied” on by the FBI during his run for the president, meaning the FBI engaged in a counterintelligence investigation on his campaign. When asked about “spying,” former FBI Director James Comey rejected the allegation, saying the FBI had every right to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. Whether the Times gets the story right or not, Comey expressed the FBI view that it was proper for him to investigate the Trump campaign based on credible allegations, especially its alleged ties to Moscow. Spying is used when there’s no legitimate probable cause to wiretap Trump and his campaign.
Trump’s backers have complained about how a presidential campaign could be subject to an ongoing counterintelligence investigation based on former Secretary of State and Democrat nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s paid opposition reseach. Hillary accused Trump during the last presidential debate in Las Vegas of being a “Putin puppet,” telling voters before the Nov. 4, 2016 election that Trump could not be trusted. Where semantics breaks down is over the word “spying” and legitimate counterintelligence investigation. Comey acted incredulous when asked about spying because he thinks he had probable cause to investigate Trump and his campaign. Comey went to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] court to obtain a warrant to wiretap Trump foreign policy aid Carter Page, who was never charged with spying or anything else.
Leaking the IG’s report two weeks before its release, the New York Times hopes to preempt Trump’s defense against any upcoming impeachment. If Horowitz found that the FBI acted improperly investigating the Trump campaign, it could undercut Democrats attempt at impeachment. Whether the New York Times is factual or not is anyone’s guess. What’s known for sure is that Comey denied that the FBI acted improperly investigating Trump. Horowitz could find that he saw nothing improper about the counterintelligence investigation, despite the fact that Comey relied heavily on Hillary’s paid opposition research AKA “the dossier.” If the FBI used Hillary’s dossier to justify wiretapping Trump’s campaign, it’s hard to imagine that was not improper. Democrats and the mainstream press are quick to point out that the FBI did nothing improper investigating Trump.
Both the New York Times and Washington Post are committed to validating the legitimacy FBI’s counterintelligence investigation against Trump. You’d think Horowitz would not accept the FBI explanation for investigating the Trump campaign. Calling White House concerns a “conspiracy theory” does nothing to justify a government agency investigating a presidential campaign. When you consider that Special Counsel Robert Mueller spent 22-moths and $45 million investigating Trump’s alleged ties to Moscow, you’d think the FBI would have more probable cause than Hillary’s “dossier.” FBI officials did not justify to FISA court judges the evidence needed to receive a warrant to wiretap Trump’s campaign. When the press says the Trump “baselessly” claims his campaign was spied on, it makes you wonder what the FBI used to justify the FISA court warrants.
In reporting that the IG will exonerate the FBI, the New York Times hopes to undercut Trump’s claims of improper behavior. If DOJ officials, including former Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch, authorized Comey to investigate the Trump campaign, it’s only logical it was approved by former President Barack Obama. While that’s beyond the IG’s pay grade, it’s inconceivable that Lynch and Comey ran a rogue operation underneath Obama’s nose. Horowitz will most likely only look at whether or not the FBI had appropriate probable cause to investigate Trump or anyone in his campaign. But the real question the IG should answer is whether or not Comey used Hillary’s paid opposition research AKA “the dossier” to dupe the FISA court into issuing warrants to wiretap the Trump campaign. New York Time and Washington Post seek to validate the FBI’s conduct.
When the IG’s report comes out Dec. 9, it’s going to raise a lot of eyebrows, especially if Horowitz insists the FBI did nothing wrong investigating the Trump campaign. Simply saying the FBI had “probable cause”to launch a counterintelligence investigation won’t be enough to satisfy Trump or his GOP backers on Capitol Hill. New York Times and Washington Post reject Trump’s assertions that former President Barack Obama tapped his phones. If Lynch and Comey were neck deep investigating Trump and his campaign, then who, other than Obama, could have authorized it? Trump calls the FBI’s counterintelligence operation “Spygate,” to underscore that there was no real probable cause other than Hillary’s paid dossier. If the IG’s report verifies improper activity at the FBI in the 2016 campaign, it’s going to undercut House Democrats impeachment proceedings against Trump.
