(National Sentinel) Criminals: Anyone who’s been following the “Spygate” scandal knows it was an Obama administration set-up of the Trump campaign from the outset, but details surrounding the absolute criminality behind the scandal continue to emerge (download a free timeline of the scandal here).

Followers of this scandal also know that there have only been a handful of investigative reporters dedicated to uncovering every last detail.

One of them is The Hill‘s John Solomon, who dropped yet another bombshell Monday.

As reported Sunday, it’s been confirmed that a top Democratic lawyer, Michael Sussman, met with a top lawyer from the FBI — James Baker — in which a copy of the unsubstantiated “Russia dossier” was given to the bureau by the DNC and, by default, the Hillary Clinton campaign, which paid for it via a cutout, the law firm Perkins Coie.

Now, Solomon writes that a little-noticed and heavily redacted passage in the House Intelligence Committee report on Spygate issued earlier this year indicates the clearest evidence yet that the dossier was misused intentionally by James Comey’s FBI to justify a FISA court warrant to spy on a rival presidential campaign:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI have tried to thwart President Trump on releasing the evidence, suggesting it will harm national security, make allies less willing to cooperate, or even leave him vulnerable to accusations that he is trying to obstruct the end of the Russia probe.

This is a paragraph of content.

Before you judge the DOJ’s and FBI’s arguments — which are similar to those offered to stop the release of information in other major episodes of American history, from the Bay of Pigs to 9/11 — consider Footnote 43 on Page 57 of Chapter 3 of the House Intelligence Committee’s report earlier this year on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Until this past week, the footnote really had garnered no public intrigue, in part because the U.S. intelligence community blacked out the vast majority of its verbiage in the name of national security before the report was made public.

From the heavy redactions, all one could tell is that FBI general counsel James Baker met with an unnamed person who provided some information in September 2016 about Russia, email hacking and a possible link to the Trump campaign.

Solomon then notes that the redactions were made to hide Baker’s meeting with the FBI to pass along the dossier and ‘concerns’ about Trump campaign officials ‘colluding’ with Mother Russia:

And it was, in turns out, the same meeting that was so heavily censored by the intel agencies from Footnote 43 in the House report — treated, in other words, as some big national security secret.

What makes this so extraordinary is that the FBI and the DOJ would have Americans believe that a contact with a lawyer for a political party during the middle of the election is somehow a matter of national security that should be hidden from the public.

Well, that argument was proven to be a lie by the very way the interview with Baker played out last Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Baker was not interviewed in a “SCIF” — a “sensitive compartmented information facility” routinely used to discuss super-secret, highly sensitive information. There was no claim of classification over any information he provided Congress that day.

So we can now say with some authority that the earlier redaction in Footnote 43 was done in the name of a national security concern that did not exist.

In other words, it was done over political concerns, not “national security.”

There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party’s duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election,” writes Solomon.

“And when, nine months later, the FBI could not prove the allegation of collusion between Trump and Russia, unverified evidence was leaked to the media to try to sustain public support for a continued investigation.

“That means the redaction of Footnote 43 had more to do with political embarrassment than with national security. And that should concern us all,” he notes.

No more BS. This clears the way for POTUS Trump to not only order the FISA warrant applications and other relevant documents declassified and released, but he should ensure that his Justice Department is well on its way into an investigation to hold anyone and everyone associated with this criminal act — misrepresenting evidence before the FISA court — accountable.

Never miss a story! Sign up for our daily email newsletter — Click here!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x