Was it proper for the FBI to surveil the Trump campaign and presidency? In early June 2018 Chris Christie, past governor of New Jersey, and another attorney appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" and argued it was perfectly in-bounds to do such thing. Christie said that the FBI is not going to tell people surveillance is going on. Those who follow the news know that the respected Trey Gowdy agrees with this appraisal. No problems. Period. End of Story. GMA had located a few Republicans prepared to defend spying on the Trump campaign. Typically, the GMA liberal spinning segment failed to offer much of the other side of the story.
Yet, is the explanation of spying of the Trump campaign and Administration as simple as the GMA says?
It is not that simple if one considers all the moving parts of what was going on.
The FBI Chris Christie remembers was most likely considered honest and above politics. The actions and decisions of past FBI Director James Comey proves the FBI under Obama was political, and this means the FBI cannot be trusted.
Based on the emails we have access to from the Obama Administration, we know for a fact, a plausible scenario is that the Obama Administration desired to give Hillary a lot of breaks and added help with her election, even illegal help. What better way to help Hillary, then to find out what is going on inside the Trump campaign. Later, after Trump won, the disgruntled losers continued the surveillance to make trouble for him and possibly even drum him out of office.
The Russian meddling in American politics was well-known, but Obama did little to stop it. Maybe from Obama’s point of view Russian meddling could be the excuse to begin surveilling and spying on Trump and his campaign. These dishonest officials could think: Who could criticize the Obama Government for monitoring the Russians? As it turned out, it was not going to be Chris Christie or Trey Gowdy criticizing the surveillance.
The problem for the Democratic political zealots inside the Obama Administration was they needed an excuse to begin the surveillance. Without recounting all of the details, it appears, with the help of the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, in conjunction with Russian involvement, bogus documents and sources were produced. It appears also that FBI “plants” may have mingled with the Trump supporters, hoping to “bait” or inspire signs of Russian connections with Trump. All of the Democratic players from the White House, the FBI, and other government spy agencies as well as key Senate Democratic contacts understood what was happening and the basis of the surveillance was dishonest, bogus, and illegal.
For those doubters of this scenario, let us turn to another moving part of the story. Since the FBI and spooky spy machines of the U.S. Government were aware that Hillary’s people were doing business with the Russians; why didn’t the FBI surveil Hillary and her campaign?
An easy answer is that Hillary’s involvement with the Russians was to draw in bogus documents to frame-up Trump.
In addition the FBI and other government officials, including the White House, were involved in the selling of 20 percent of the nation’s uranium supply to the Russians, and were aware of the $145 million or more paid to the Clintons to orchestrate the sale. Had the FBI opened up a real investigation regarding Hillary and the Democrats concerning Russia, the government would have been investigating itself.
Any reasonable person would look at this, and say there was corruption within a number of government agencies. The nations’ top law enforcement agency and spy agencies were in bed with the Democratic Party, and they were involved in illegal activities. The origins of the spying on Trump were illegitimate and based on dishonesty.
It is so obvious that the reason the Justice Department refuses to give up the 1.2 million documents Congress has a Constitutional right to see is because these documents would reveal more about the planning of the dishonesty. If even a few of these documents showed how the conspiracy was planned, there could be no more denial.
Finally, there was a time, most likely before the Obama Administration, when even if something was legal, there was an unwritten restraint on what should be done. Spying on a presidential campaign would under most circumstances have been beyond the pale, and certainly no sitting president before Obama would have permitted orchestrated bogus information to justify the spying.
Informed citizens are absolutely appalled and offended, and the question remains: will these political thugs get away with it?
John Havick has a Ph.D. in political science. He was a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology for many years, authored several books and a number of articles, including the widely cited "The Impact of the Internet on a Television-Based Society." His work has appeared in The New York Times, and his recent book, "The Ghosts of NASCAR: The Harlan Boys and the First Daytona 500," is available at ghostsofnascar.com. For more of his reports, Go Here Now.