Partisan Residue

Among its many failings, the previous administration left a toxic legacy of hyper-politicization of government agencies. The most egregious (most of us thought) was the weaponization of the IRS against the administration's opponents. But over the past month we've learned that senior people in the justice department and the FBI were partisan hacks who, it appears, acted to assist one political candidate and undermine the other.

The Democrats love to talk about the mirage of Trump-Russia collusion, an evidence free allegation that led to a special prosecutor and no meaningful evidence of any kind. Now we learn that people on the special prosecutor's team were Clinton partisans who seem uninterested in growing evidence that the FBI used a sham document (the Fusion GPS dossier) as "evidence" to investigate (the term "wiretap" comes to mind) Trump and his campaign team. Funny, that's actual collusion between Democratic operatives, the Russians who they paid for phony information, and the FBI who took that phony evidence (possibly paying for it) and used it to get FISA warrants under false pretenses. All of this is exceedingly complex (the M.O. of Clinton/Democrat scandals) and most people simply tune it out. But despite efforts by Democratic politicians to stonewall, it's likely that more will come out, and it won't be good for the Dems.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal comment:

Democrats and the media are accusing anyone who criticizes special counsel Robert Mueller as Trumpian conspirators trying to undermine his probe. But who needs critics when Mr. Mueller’s team is doing so much to undermine its own credibility?

Wednesday’s revelations—they’re coming almost daily—include the Justice Department’s release of 2016 text messages to and from Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent whom Mr. Mueller demoted this summer. The texts, which he exchanged with senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, contain expletive-laced tirades against Mr. Trump. Such Trump hatred is no surprise and not by itself disqualifying. More troubling are texts that suggest that some FBI officials may have gone beyond antipathy to anti-Trump plotting.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Mr. Strzok wrote Ms. Page in an Aug. 15, 2016 text. He added: “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

What “policy” would that be? The “Andy” in question is Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director. FBI officials are allowed to have political opinions, but what kind of action were they discussing that would amount to anti-Trump “insurance”?

Leaping to defend the indefensible, the Dems whipped out a standard talking point.

"Everyone, even FBI agents, has a right to their personal political opinions," they declare sanctimoniously. Unfortunately, the Dems left out the part that says that the Hatch Act expressly forbids government employees from discussing politics and plotting political strategies at their place of work. That's what happened here, proven by the perpetrator's own words.

What's most concerning is that the Trump DoJ isn't acting more aggressively to get to the bottom of this. I suspect that's because the deep state bureaucrats at both DoJ and the FBI will do everything necessary to stop disclosure and everything possible to sidetrack the truth.

The poisonous partisan residue of the Obama years has weakened the DoJ and FBI. It's completely understandable to question the honesty and integrity of the unelected leaders of those agencies. The deep state is at work here, protecting itself at all cost.