At the very least, memo raises major Russia probe issues

When we get past all the commentary that surrounded it, what did we learn from the Republican-composed congressional memo created and released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday regarding the investigation of President Trump’s presidential campaign?

• The investigation was based and triggered, significantly if not entirely, on a probe by a former British spy paid for by Trump’s political foes.

• The anti-Trump, highly-suspect research was the heart of warrant that allowed court-approved surveillance of a Trump campaign associate that are the basis of an investigation by a special counsel that has gone on for nearly a year.

• Key players in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as expressed in phone texts, had a white-hot hatred of Trump that blurred their objectivity.

• The memo is not an indictment of 99 percent of the FBI, only the actors involved who betrayed the agency with their actions.

As expected, Democrats roundly dismissed the memo, saying it does nothing to clear Trump or his campaign and the FBI called the memo inaccurate and incomplete.

What we know is this:

The basis of our justice system is individual liberty that requires an investigation to be buttressed by objectively, legally-collected evidence.

Most of the media – the nation’s foremost bastian of public transparency – actively challenged and criticized the release of this memo, the first time we can remember that happening.

If the figures involved were reversed and Republicans were found to be paying for a loosely manufactured memo, with faulty sourcing and information, to delegitimize the campaign and presidency of Hillary Clinton, the media would be calling it a fatal stain on the entire investigation.

After all the spin of Trump’s opponents and major media types with a clear bias, those are the realities surrounding this memo.

Only time will tell if this memo critically impairs the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller, but it certainly raises serious questions that beg for a strict, objective evaluation of what comes forward from the special counsel’s work.

COMMENTS