Trump represents the flouting of rules by one man, but the origins of Russiagate represent the potential flouting of rules by many people. If the FBI and the intelligence community can overstep their bounds in pursuit of a president many of us hate today, they can do so against a president we like tomorrow.
I just read that whole thing but can’t find the part where it says which rules were flouted and by who. Perhaps you could quote it for me.I spent several months investigating the claim that the Trump campaign was set up. But after interviewing George Papadopoulos and dozens of sources from around the world, I uncovered a more prosaic truth.www.vanityfair.com
I quoted it there where he points out that 'the FBI and intelligence community' may have overstepped their bounds acting in a partisan way. He points to a few things that got the investigation rolling that were problematic.I just read that whole thing but can’t find the part where it says which rules were flouted and by who. Perhaps you could quote it for me.
Much of the mess we’re seeing is due to a collision of two narratives that have been dominating Washington, DC: one of a president abusing his power versus another of a president falling prey to deep-state abuses of power. (Here, I’m using the term “deep state” to mean partisan factions within law enforcement and intelligence, not something more elaborate.) Because Trump’s enemies believe the former and his supporters believe the latter, there has been a recursive quality to the resulting conflicts.
At the same time, those who view investigations of the origin of Russiagate as nothing more than partisan attempts to discredit the work of honorable civil servants may want to brace themselves for unsavory findings. Even looking only narrowly at one element of Russiagate, the case of Papadopoulos, we can see questionable behavior by his prosecutors, notwithstanding his guilt.
The prosecution edited this exchange in order to make it look much more sinister. They described it as the culmination of “several weeks of further communications regarding a potential ‘off the record’ meeting with Russian officials” and quoted Clovis as saying that Papadopoulos should “make the trip, if it is feasible.” In other words, the original suggests a series of London-based workshops that might include Russians, while the prosecution’s version suggests a concerted effort to link up with Russian officials and taking a trip to make it happen.
More broadly, we all have a stake in finding out whether U.S. authorities proceeded by the book when they began to investigate the campaign of Donald Trump in 2016. The FBI had a FISA warrant on Trump advisor Carter Page that lasted for months and kept being renewed, yet we know it relied in part on the infamous “pee-tape” dossier that had been put together by someone who was paid by the Clinton campaign. That this dossier’s author, Christopher Steele, was working with the wife of a Justice Department official connected to the investigation was, at the very least, a glaring conflict of interest.