Why is it that the Russian ambassador can attend the joint session of Congress, invited by a Democrat, and not an eyebrow raised, however if the same ambassador met with a Republican senator, it is treasonous?
We are now 90 days into the new administration, and congressional committees meet to probe twin questions: Did the Russians “hack the election” and install Donald Trump. Or, did someone in the previous administration seek a FISA warrant and authorize surveillance on the Republican candidate’s headquarters during the campaign and transition.
Thirteen months after Trump announced his candidacy, the Obama Justice Department authorized the FBI to open an investigation into an alleged Russian-Trump campaign link. Shortly thereafter the Clinton campaign raised the issue, primarily as a political counter to Trump’s desire of improved relations with Russia, until Nov. 8.
After frantic soul-searching of the election aftermath, a determination: the Russians did it. The stories began to flow out of our major media outlets, building a narrative of wiretapping, transcripts, electronic surveillance, clandestine meetings, leaked classified information, and daily accusations of Russian-Trump complicity.
Throw into this boiling cauldron of controversy President Barack Obama’s modified Executive Order 12333, a presidential tweet, testimony from James Comey and Adm. Mike Rogers, Rep. Devin Nunes’ addition of incidental collection and we have a muddled mess.
Those who argue the Obama Administration would not use the federal government's vast tools to surveil improperly, the Associated Press, James Rosen and his parents may differ — all confirmed as examples of the former administration’s abuse of surveillance authority.
As far as Trump and Russia, two words keep resurfacing: no evidence.