On April 18, the findings of Robert Mueller’s investigation of potential Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, as well as potentially “collusive activity” between Russian government actors and the Trump campaign, were released in their entirety. At the discretion of Attorney General William Barr, the 448 pages of evidence compiled by the Special Counsel’s office became public record, with minimal material kept hidden or redacted. To the disappointment of a myriad of media outlets and the Democratic officials who propagated the notion that the President Trump’s rhetoric and policy prescriptions reflected the desire of Vladimir Putin due to an underlying allegiance, no conspiracy was found to have transpired. Moreover, the Mueller team was unable to amass sufficient evidence to bring forth an obstruction charge against the President.
Unable to cope with the inevitability of defeat on this front, Democrats and their media counterparts have directed their pique towards the Attorney General of the United States. In recent days, the House Judiciary Committee has threatened to hold the Justice Department head in contempt of Congress for refusing to disclose grand jury material subject to redacting under existing regulations. This is a marked departure from the attitudes many of these individuals expressed during the Ken Starr investigation— when it was emphasized that necessary precautions should be taken that would shield this information (and copious portions of the report’s content) from the public eye.
It is imperative to note that the motivations undergirding this round of scrutiny the Attorney General has faced transcend mere partisan bickering. A scandal lurks beneath the surface which has largely evaded discussion due to the lingering presence of an unassailable Special Counsel, namely the abuse of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Apparatus under the Obama administration to spy on President Trump’s campaign, including conspicuous violations of the Woods Procedure of 2001.
The employment of the discredited Steele dossier by the FBI in obtaining warrants from FISA Courts, as well as the utilization of “informants” Stefan Halper and Azra Turk to elicit details from Trump campaign advisers regarding Russian connections, is one of the most notable instances of governmental malfeasance in contemporary American politics. Additionally, the increasingly questionable connections of purported Russian plenipotentiary Joseph Mifsud (who it is claimed triggered the initial investigation into the Trump team due to his meeting in London with staffer George Papadopoulos), remain a subject of disinterest for many of those who have maintained that the probe of the President’s campaign was conducted in accordance with standard procedure.
The ire of the Democratic Party leadership has been aimed at Attorney General Barr in recent weeks not merely due to their dissatisfaction with the lack of further indictments by the Special Counsel, but because they are aware of what a glance at the corruption surrounding the initiation of the probe into the Trump team would expose.
The very people who have insisted that the biggest scandal of the Obama administration was the former President sporting a tan suit would be forced to face the fact that executive agencies relied upon information ginned up by Russian firm Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign to illicitly procure FISA warrants on Trump adviser Carter Page. They would also be compelled to admit that the salacious and unverified accusations contained within the Steele dossier acted as a pretext for further investigation.
Attorney General Barr has demonstrated his willingness to explore the possibility of unlawful activity on this front which, above all, is why House Democrats have made clear their intent to hector him. These officials have devoted themselves to making an investigation into the investigators a Sisyphean task— because they are sickened by the notion that justice will be fairly applied.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.