Ex-FBI Lawyer’s Testimony Is Hugely Damaging to Media’s ‘There Was No Deep State Spying’ Narrative
Former FBI lawyer James Baker gave two testimonies to the House Judiciary Committee that are extremely damaging to the establishment media’s narrative that the deep state didn’t spy on President Donald Trump’s campaign.
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ex-fbi...bJHoG0saHo
(04-11-2019, 05:39 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Ex-FBI Lawyer’s Testimony Is Hugely Damaging to Media’s ‘There Was No Deep State Spying’ Narrative
Former FBI lawyer James Baker gave two testimonies to the House Judiciary Committee that are extremely damaging to the establishment media’s narrative that the deep state didn’t spy on President Donald Trump’s campaign.
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ex-fbi...bJHoG0saHo
From reading the article you cite, it really doesn't say much except the guy's lawyer kept telling him not to answer certain questions. There could be a million different reasons why. I don't see how it's "hugely damaging" at all.
If there was reasonable suspicion that people involved in the Trump campaign were committing federal crimes, then the FBI could reasonably "spy" on them, except they would call it investigating. It's still gathering information about a target without the target being aware.
The only thing that would be improper is if they allowed a political opponent of Trump to find out some confidential information.
There's no indication that anything from the Trump investigation was shared with Hillary, and there's no indication that Obama asked for anything more then a summary of what laws may have been broken. If Obama had asked Comey to tell him what the Trump campaign was planning to talk about at their next rally, that would be a big problem. If Obama just asked Comey things like, "do you need more time or more people to prevent future hacking or investigate hacking that already took place?" that would be fine.
It's never even been alleged that team Trump was in on the hacking.
Trump campaign officials were SOLICITED by us and British intelligence assets. Those solicitations constitute targetti g on the absence of reasonable cause. How do we know? Because all previous evidence to support the investigations was based on those interactions!