White House

Did the Obama Administration Spy on Trump Using Flimsy Evidence?

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the White House, May 29, 2015. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
It’s completely reasonable to find out.

If the Justice Department and FBI are, as we’ve been told incessantly over the past year, not merely patriots but consummate professionals incapable of being distracted by partisanship or petty Washington intrigues, why are Donald Trump’s antagonists freaking out over the fact that an inspector general will assess whether political motivation tainted an investigation into the president’s campaign? The American people should get a full accounting of what transpired during 2016. Isn’t that what we’ve been hearing since the election?

You believe President Trump is corrupt. We get it. But surely anyone who alleges to be concerned about the sanctity of our institutions and rule of law would have some cursory curiosity about whether an investigation by the administration of one major party into the presidential campaign of another major party was grounded in direct evidence rather than fabulist rumormongering. Otherwise any administration, including Trump’s, could initiate an investigation for whatever cooked-up superficial reason it wants. Then, when a constitutionally empowered oversight committee demands information about that investigation, the DOJ could accuse it of “extortion” and stonewall for years.

I don’t know if there’s a big conspiracy by the deep state. I doubt it, in fact. But it’s pretty obvious to me that leaders of our institutions aren’t above spying. Then–CIA director John Brennan spied on the legislative branch and lied about it to the American people. Then–director of national intelligence James Clapper spied on the American people through a domestic surveillance program and lied about it to Congress. Although the Obama administration never tweeted nasty attacks on journalists, it did spy on and prosecute them. It’s completely plausible that those in the upper echelon of law enforcement saw Trump as a threat and then used wobbly evidence as the pretext to investigate his campaign. If not, it’ll be good to clear their names.

A truly silly New York Times headline last week read “FBI Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.” You can call it whatever makes you happy, but in the real world, the act of furtively gathering information about someone else is called spying.

Perhaps all of this will lead to nothing exciting. Perhaps the competing narratives that have sprung up around Trump and Russia will end far less dramatically than their champions hope. But when rule-of-law enthusiasts keep arguing that the DOJ is independent of the president and then turn around and argue that a congressional oversight committee shouldn’t have the right to ask the executive branch for documents pertaining to its inquiry, one begins to suspect that perhaps some of the hyperbolic rhetoric we’ve been hearing over the past two years has been little more than partisanship.

Most of those arguing that Trump is attacking the constitutional system by demanding the DOJ investigate its conduct know full well that he has full authority to do so. Many sat quietly for eight years of executive abuse. It’s not as if the president instructed the DOJ to stop following the law, after all. He had as much ammunition to ask for an investigation as Democrats had when asking for a special counsel.

Perhaps Mueller will bring the goods at some point. But to this point, there has not been any evidence to back up the hysteria that followed 2016.

Presidents ask the DOJ to do all kinds of things all the time. If the attorney general doesn’t like it, he can resign. If the folks running the DOJ or FBI don’t like it, they can quit. If Congress doesn’t like it, it can impeach the president. That’s the constitutional system under which every president, including Trump, functions.

Is Trump pushing the issue for political reasons? Of course. If special counsel Robert Mueller doesn’t come back with any evidence of collusion — all the other indictments and criminality he has found matter, of course, but they have nothing to do with the impetus for the investigation — it will be all the more important to figure out what the previous administration was up to. Precedent and history matter.

The New York Times recently ran a 4,000-word ostensible overview of the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, which fed the impression that investigators were tougher on a hapless Hillary Clinton — whose accidental blunders and honest mistakes ruined her chances of election — but ignored Trump’s nefarious ties to a foreign power. The problem with this tale, as it stands now, is that there was an abundance of evidence suggesting that Clinton was engaged in criminal activity — sending numerous classified and top-secret documents via unsecured servers, destroying evidence, etc. Perhaps Mueller will bring the goods at some point. But to this point, there has not been any evidence to back up the hysteria that followed 2016. It’s completely reasonable to find out what prompted it.

If, as I’ve been assured by numerous smart people, the FBI and DOJ would never ever engage in such partisanship or recklessness — or maybe ineptitude — then a methodical accounting of events leading up to the special counsel investigation would help them.

© 2018 Creators.com

David Harsanyi is a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today

Most Popular


Put Up or Shut Up on These Accusations, Hillary

Look, one 2016 candidate being prone to wild and baseless accusations is enough. Appearing on Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s podcast, Hillary Clinton suggested that 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a “Russian asset,” that Republicans and Russians were promoting the Green Party, and ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Elizabeth Warren Is Not Honest

If you want to run for office, political consultants will hammer away at one point: Tell stories. People respond to stories. We’ve been a story-telling species since our fur-clad ancestors gathered around campfires. Don’t cite statistics. No one can remember statistics. Make it human. Make it relatable. ... Read More
National Review


Today is my last day at National Review. It's an incredibly bittersweet moment. While I've only worked full-time since May, 2015, I've contributed posts and pieces for over fifteen years. NR was the first national platform to publish my work, and now -- thousands of posts and more than a million words later -- I ... Read More

Feminists Have Turned on Pornography

Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the feminist movement has sought to condemn traditional sexual ethics as repressive, misogynistic, and intolerant. As the 2010s come to a close, it might be fair to say that mainstream culture has reached the logical endpoint of this philosophy. Whereas older Americans ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Defense That Doesn’t Work

If we’ve learned anything from the last couple of weeks, it’s that the “perfect phone call” defense of Trump and Ukraine doesn’t work. As Andy and I discussed on his podcast this week, the “perfect” defense allows the Democrats to score easy points by establishing that people in the administration ... Read More
Economy & Business

Andrew Yang, Snake Oil Salesman

Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur and gadfly, has definitely cleared the bar for a successful cause candidate. Not only has he exceeded expectations for his polling and fundraising, not only has he developed a cult following, not only has he got people talking about his signature idea, the universal basic ... Read More

Democrats Think They Can Win without You

A  few days ago, Ericka Anderson, an old friend of National Review, popped up in the pages of the New York Times lamenting that “the Democratic presidential field neglects abundant pools of potential Democrat converts, leaving persuadable audiences — like independents and Trump-averse, anti-abortion ... Read More
PC Culture

Defiant Dave Chappelle

When Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special Sticks & Stones came out in August, the overwhelming response from critics was that it was offensive, unacceptable garbage. Inkoo Kang of Slate declared that Chappelle’s “jokes make you wince.” Garrett Martin, in the online magazine Paste, maintained that the ... Read More