The same liberal politicians and media figures who told us Trump was crazy when he said he’d win the Presidential race (he did), and that he was crazy when he said Trump Tower was wiretapped (it was), and that he was lying about not colluding with Russia (he didn’t) are now claiming that Attorney General Barr is crazy for saying it’s possible that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
I’ve written about the hysterical “methinks they doth protest too much” responses from several anti-Trump stalwarts such as Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler and James Clapper elsewhere today, but here’s a late entry into the Denial Sweepstakes:
Eric Holder (the only Attorney General ever held in contempt of Congress over his stonewalling of the Fast and Furious scandal) tweeted that Barr’s comment was “outrageous.” He called the idea of the Obama DOJ spying on the Trump campaign a “rightwing conspiracy theory” for which there is “zero evidence” (as long as you ignore the mountains of evidence, and those are just the personal text messages sent on government time.) He also lectured Barr, who hardly needs any Law 101 lessons from Eric Holder, that "when there is a predicate, a legitimate basis, it’s called 'investigating,' not 'spying.'”
Okay, but what is it called when there is no legitimate basis, but you lie to FISA judges to get warrants to do it anyway? The word “felony” comes to mind.
There was also an excellent point brought up in an online comment thread that I read. These panicked Democrats are right; “spying” is the wrong term because spying is a passive action. It implies that they were merely monitoring the opposition campaign inappropriately, not taking actions to influence events. A more accurate term for what appears to have happened would be “sabotage” or “entrapment.”
If they’d like to agree to some bipartisan compromise, I promise not to call what happened to the Trump campaign “spying” if they’ll agree to start calling it “sabotage” and “entrapment.” Deal?