Yes, the FBI was SO frantic about the DNC’s servers … that it didn’t bother examining them itself. I repeat: The FBI never touched the DNC’s servers.
https://www.takimag.com/article/22461/
This column will explain the impeachment farce in two minutes. By the end, you will thank the media for demanding the release of Trump’s phone calls with the leaders of Ukraine and Australia.
What the phone transcripts demonstrate is that — unlike the typical Republican — Trump is not a let-bygones-be-bygones sort. He intends to find out who turned the FBI into a Hillary super PAC, using the powers of the nation’s “premiere law enforcement agency” (according to them) to take out a presidential candidate, and then a president.
The whole picture becomes clear when you have the timeline.
Instead of the FBI just admitting that it launched the Russia probe to help elect Hillary, the agency has given us a scrolling series of excuses for this partisan attack.
The FBI’s first claim was that it was merely investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email servers. As part of that effort, it was, naturally, obligated to spy on the Trump campaign.
Then we found out that the John le Carre theory of Hillary’s defeat was based exclusively on the word of a single cybersecurity firm. Yes, the FBI was SO frantic about the DNC’s servers … that it didn’t bother examining them itself. I repeat: The FBI never touched the DNC’s servers.
And who did? CrowdStrike. Who was CrowdStrike? A Ukrainian-backed cybersecurity firm.
That’s why Trump asked the Ukrainian president about CrowdStrike — the company behind the first of the FBI’s many excuses for spying on Trump.
On Jan. 10, 2017 — before Trump was even inaugurated — FBI Director James Comey breathed new life into the Russian collusion story by leaking news about the infamous Russian “dossier.”
Hurray! The media were ecstatic. For the next 10 months, we got breathless reports about how this very important, totally credible, deeply concerning dossier might force Trump out of the White House!
E.g.:
— “I remember pretty distinctly that you supported President Trump’s criticism of this dossier … Do you want to dial back that criticism now?” — CNN’s Kate Bolduan to former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, April 19, 2017
— “If the dossier is now about to be publicly defended and explained and backed up, I mean, that’s conceivably the whole ball game.” — MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Aug. 23, 2017
After carrying on about the dossier for nearly all of 2017, on Oct. 24 of that year, we finally found out who had paid for it: the Hillary Clinton campaign. (And you wonder why they don’t want to give us the whistleblower’s name.)
This rather important datum was coughed up not by the media, but only in response to a court order. Good work, “watchdog media”! Nothing gets past you guys.
Suddenly the dossier wasn’t important at all. Where did Republicans get that idea?
At this point, the FBI had to scramble to come up with an all-new explanation for why the bureau had put more than 100 agents — according to NBC News’ Ken Dilanian — on an investigation of a presidential candidate. (Luckily, the bureau had lots of time, having already vanquished international terrorism.)
Within a matter of days, on Oct. 30, the media was bristling with the news that the real reason the FBI put G-Men on the Trump campaign was: George Papadopoulos.
(Don’t stop reading! The sun is about come out and all will be clear.) Read the rest of this entry »
