It comes in the form of a commentary found at ChicagoTribune.com, to wit: If the FBI used an informant, it wasn't to go after Trump.
The investigation started out as a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal one. And relying on a covert source rather than a more intrusive method of gathering information suggests that the FBI may have been acting cautiously – perhaps too cautiously – to protect the campaign, not undermine it.
As a former FBI counterintelligence agent, I know what Trump apparently does not: Counterintelligence investigations have a different purpose than their criminal counterparts. Rather than trying to find evidence of a crime, the FBI's counterintelligence goal is to identify, monitor and neutralize foreign intelligence activity in the United States. In short, this entails identifying foreign intelligence officers and their network of agents; uncovering their motives and methods; and ultimately rendering their operations ineffective - either by clandestinely thwarting them (say, by feeding back misinformation or "flipping" their sources into double agents) or by exposing them.
Nice try. Comey and team Mueller, et al, have been so underhanded in this whole affair they've lost more credibility than you can rebuild with this clumsy attempt. For starters, it might help if they would quit stonewalling the documents Devin Nunes subpoenaed.
------
3:20 PM 5/19/2018
Comments