A couple of months ago, I wrote an article identifying the Mueller Special Counsel as the Democrat “insurance policy” in the event of a Trump election. The contention still holds, and even more so. However, there is another and quite disturbing aspect of the “insurance policy”, and this article raises a fundamental question about a wider definition of that policy.
The FISA Court judges gave approval for a massive investigation of the Trump campaign. It has now been established that the evidence for said approval was superficial and speculative. The fundamental question is how did a number of FISA Court judges so easily allow investigative approval when it would obviously impact an ongoing presidential campaign. (Not only was the initial investigative approval based on innuendo and outright nonsense, but the initial approval was subsequently used to continue and expand a variety of investigations presumably associated with Russia collusion on behalf of Trump campaign and presidency.)
The media and a number of government officials have said that the standard and carefully guarded FISA Court approval process was used – and, by the way, the judges involved had been appointed by a Republican president. In other words, nothing here so no reason to look. Really? (What concerns me the most here is confirmation bias based on the assumption that Hillary was going to win the presidency so why bother to be thorough with the judicial analysis of the FBI/DOJ information.)
To be more specific, we know that the Bushes have no love for Donald Trump, and it is likely that the FISA judges appointed by President George W. Bush share a similar distaste. The amount of animosity by individuals at the highest levels of the DOJ, FBI and intelligence organizations is not a secret. Logically, why would the Bush appointed FISA judges be somehow immune from the impact of the rampant political abuses of the Obama administration and the constant assaults by Republican leaders opposed to Donald Trump. (The weaponization of the federal government during the presidential campaign season favored Hillary Clinton, opposed Donald Trump, and continues to this day.)
Until the FISA judges are called to account for their rather sloppy decisions and disordered investigative approval process, the hint of scandal hangs over their heads. And it should. Significantly, hundreds of pages of FISA documents have been released with redactions so numerous as to make said documents nearly indecipherable. Who other than the obvious culprits are being protected? Was judge shopping involved to get a friendly judge? Was the FISA request timed to ensure that such a judge was available? I can understand the subsequent investigative approvals of other judges because the precedent had been set, but there are simply too many unknowns here to give the judiciary a pass.
The pebble in the pond creates small ripples that spread quietly onto the shore. However, these are not pebbles but boulders that shake the very foundation of the American republic. So far, the spotlight has been horribly and deliberately misdirected and distorted thanks to the Special Counsel. But there are yet to be boulders thrown to protect the Constitution, and those boulders involve the judiciary as well as the past administration’s executive departments and agencies.
