In a new interview with NBC’s Pete Williams, AG William Barr goes against the conclusions of the IG report and says the basis for the investigation that found no evidence of collusion was “not sufficient.”
What questions will John Durham address that the IG didn’t?
Durham is looking at the whole waterfront. He is looking at the issue of how it got started. He’s looking at whether or not the narrative of Trump being involved in the Russia interference actually preceded July and was it, in fact, the precipitating trigger for the investigation. He’s also looking at the conduct of the investigation. There were some things done in the investigation that are not included in Horowitz’s report. He’s looking at those things. But also, a few weeks ago, I told him that he should spend just as much attention on the post-election period. I did that because of some of the stuff that Horowitz has uncovered, which, to me, inexplicable.
Their case collapsed after the election and they never told the court. They kept on getting renewals on these applications. There were documents falsified in order to get these renewals. There were all kinds of withholding of information from the court. The question really is: “What was the agenda after the election?” They kept on pressing ahead after their case collapsed. This is the President of the United States.
We have to remember, in today’s world, presidential campaigns are frequently in contact with foreign persons. And indeed, in most campaigns, there are signs of illegal foreign money coming in. And we don’t automatically assume that the campaigns are nefarious and traitors and acting illegal with foreign powers.
There has to be some basis before we use these very potent powers in our core First Amendment activity. And here, I felt this was very flimsy. Basically, I think the department has a rule of reason, which is at the end of the day, is what you’re relying on sufficiently powerful to justify the techniques you’re using.
And the question there is, how strong is the evidence? How sensitive is the activity you’re looking at? And what are the alternatives? And I think when you step back here and say, what was this all based on? It’s not sufficient.
Remember, there was and never has been any evidence of collusion. And yet this campaign and the president’s administration has been dominated by this investigation into what turns out to be completely baseless.
This article first appeared on TheConservativeOpinion.com