On Friday night, the New York Times published what was plainly planned to be a hit report that, following the shooting of FBI director James Comey on May 9, 2017, the bureau officially opened an investigation of President Trump. However in fact, the only thing the story reveals is that the FBI, after over a year of investigation, just went overt about something that had held true from the very first. The investigation started throughout the 2016 campaign by the Obama administration– the Justice Department and the FBI– was always about Donald Trump.We have to

remember: The FBI thought the Steele dossier– the collection of faux intelligence reports put together by previous British spy Christopher Steele, who was eventually working for the Hillary Clinton project. The Justice Department on 4 events brought monitoring applications to the Foreign Intelligence Security Court (FISC), in which the FBI swore that it thought the dossier allegations.Ostensibly, the surveillance

application targeted Carter Page. However Page was simply a side issue. The file was primarily about Trump– not Page, not Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, or other Trump associates described by Steele. The dossier’s main allegation was that Trump remained in an espionage conspiracy with Russia to swing the election to Trump, after which Trump would do Putin’s bidding from the White Home. The FBI and the Obama Justice Department could not verify the file, but they unquestionably thought it.CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE RUSSIA EXAMINATION If you believe

the dossier, then obviously Trump is the primary focus of the probe.The FBI and DOJ understood this would be controversial– the incumbent administration spying on the opposition

campaign in the absence of corroborated evidence of a criminal offense. So, they designed the examination in a way that enabled them to concentrate on Trump without stating they were doing so. Prior to Trump was elected, they papered the files to show that they were focusing on the Trump project or people connected to it, like Page and Papadopoulos. By doing this, they might attempt to gather evidence about Trump without officially documenting that Trump was the target.After Trump was chosen, the FBI understood that Trump was quickly going to have access to government intelligence files. If they honestly told the president-elect that they had been examining his project in hope of making a case on him, they needed to be concerned that he would shut the examination down and clean home at the FBI and DOJ. So, they misleadingly informed him the examination had to do with Russia and a couple of roaming individuals in his project, but they guaranteed him he personally was not under investigation.Because the FBI did not have solid proof of a crime, they did it under counterintelligence authority rather than criminal authority– calculating that the cover of probing Russia’s interference in the 2016 election would enable them to keep investigating while they attempted to tighten up the obstruction case or find some other criminal offense. This was not real. The investigation was constantly wishing to discover something on Trump. That is why, for instance, when director Comey briefed then-President-elect Trump about the Steele file, he informed Trump only about the salacious allegation

including woman of the streets in a Moscow hotel; he did not inform the president-elect either that the main thrust of the dossier was Trump’s purported espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin, nor that the FBI had actually gone to the FISC to get monitoring warrants based upon the dossier. The FBI was informing the president-elect that the allegations were salacious and unverified, yet at that really moment they existed them to a federal court as details the judges might rely on to license spying.Later, though Comey consistently informed President Trump he was not a suspect, he gave House testament patently tailored to lead the general public and the media to think Trump was a suspect– which is precisely how the media reported it. In so doing, the FBI( and the Obama holdovers in the Justice Department who authorized Comey’s testimony) violated DOJ guidelines about openly validating the existence of an examination, and publicly recognizing a topic of an investigation: the Trump campaign, which Comey openly revealed was presumed of “collaborating” in the Kremlin’s extensively reported cyberespionage disturbance in the 2016 campaign.Comey’s firing on Might 9, 2017, was not the start of an investigation of Trump. It was the point when the FBI and Justice Department rashly figured out that they lastly had a criminal offense to pin on Trump– blockage. In their rush and overconfidence, they rationalized that( a) Comey’s shooting must have been planned to restrain the Russia investigation, and that they might pair this with;( b )the claim that Trump might have restrained the Flynn investigation– based on a memo Comey dripped to the New york city Times a few days after his firing.Legally, none of this was blockage. Yet, the FBI and Justice Department picked this novel and problematic legal theory: Even though the president has constitutional authority to fire subordinates and weigh in on examinations, he may in some way still be prosecuted for blockage if a prosecutor concludes that his motive was incorrect. Naturally, although he could have, Trump never ever

actually took any steps to interfere in the examinations of Russia( which is still continuing )or Flynn( who later on was prosecuted and pled guilty). Yet the FBI, hot-headed over the director’s termination, concluded that this blockage theory was a sound sufficient basis to go overt with the case on Trump they had really been attempting to make for many months.Remember, it is not simply that the FBI officially opened an investigative file on Trump. There was talk between Deputy Chief law officer Rod Rosenstein and acting FBI director Andrew McCabe of electrical wiring up versus the president– i.e., carrying out concealed surveillance to try to record Trump making harmful declarations. There was likewise talk of conjuring up the 25th Amendment– of declaring Trump was too incapacitated to perform his responsibilities.

And lastly, on May 17, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to pursue the Trump-Russia investigation.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP However all of these actions were simply a matter of finally being overt about something that had actually been true for over a year: The FBI was carrying out a probe to try to make a criminal case on Trump. Since they did not have solid evidence of a crime, they did it under counterintelligence authority instead of criminal authority– computing that the cover of probing Russia’s interference in the 2016 election would allow them to keep examining while they tried to tighten up the blockage case or discover some other criminal offense.Make no mistake, though: The examination was always about Donald Trump, from Day One.CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ANDREW MCCARTHY %%item_read_more_button %%.