For over a year now, Democrats and their liberal media allies have incessantly crowed about baseless and unproven allegations of “collusion” between then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.
Those still-unverified allegations spurred numerous different investigations into the matter dating back to 2016. Now, as the media-driven narrative continues to crumble by the day, it has been revealed that the FBI under the Obama administration may have planted an informant in the campaign to find collusion-related dirt on Trump.
That story was part of a discussion Tuesday morning on “Fox & Friends” with House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes, who once again reiterated that there remains no credible evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia.
Nunes began the conversation by noting that Glenn Simpson — founder of Fusion GPS, the political opposition research firm hired by Democrats to compile the anti-Trump dossier — had testified under oath to the committee, and later confirmed, that he was aware of a “source” within the campaign.
Nunes was asked what it would mean if there had indeed been a “spy” embedded in the campaign, to which he replied, “It will look badly on the Department of Justice and FBI on how they conducted this investigation.”
Co-host Steve Doocy pointed out that if the entire investigation had stemmed from information provided by a “secret source” embedded in the campaign, that would call into question the entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative and the resulting investigation.
“I think if the campaign was somehow set up, I think that would be a problem,” Nunes responded. “If there were somehow meetings that occurred and all this was a setup, because we have yet to see any credible evidence or intelligence that led to the opening of this investigation.”
Doocy remarked that it sounded an awful lot like what Nunes described would mean that Trump had been “framed,” an assessment Nunes didn’t necessarily dismiss or disagree with.
“First of all, I believe (the FBI) never should have opened a counterintelligence investigation into a political party,” Nunes stated. “Counterintelligence investigations are — very rarely do they happen, and when they do happen, you have to be very careful because you are using the tools of our intelligence services and relationships with other countries in order to spy on a political campaign … probably not a good idea.”
The conversation then shifted to a meeting Nunes and House Oversight Committee chair Trey Gowdy recently held with top DOJ officials in regard to sensitive information the committees were seeking about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, as well as an upcoming follow-up meeting on the same topic.
Recall that Nunes had to resort to a threatened impeachment of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in order to even facilitate that meeting, much less actually see the sensitive documents that had been requested.
Nunes made it clear that there weren’t any hard feelings on his part toward Rosenstein and suggested the deputy attorney general had a chance to clear up a lot of the confusion about how the whole investigation was started without revealing sensitive sources and methods.
Co-host Brian Kilmeade then noted that Trump had been “hamstrung by a process” for nearly two years. This process is preventing Trump from moving forward as president with his agenda, Kilmeade said.
Nunes replied, “Well, if they never had any evidence of colluding with Russians then you have to ask yourself why did they open this investigation in the first place.”
Once again, for the umpteenth time, it has been publicly stated that after nearly two years of investigations, no evidence has been found to support the allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia.
The only logical explanation left means the entire Trump-Russia investigation was a political hit job by Democrats to try and keep their opponent out of office, or get him impeached once he was actually elected.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.