A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in my column, “Watergate analogies apply to Obama, not Trump,” that President Obama’s Justice Department planted a spy in the Trump campaign. I said I used the term “spy” because this was a counter-intelligence operation, not a criminal investigation, where the term informant would have been proper.

That statement has been brought into question as unsourced except as a tweet by Trump himself. This is what happens when I try to show that the beloved Obama went Nixon, but further. One must try to discredit the author because they cannot discredit the facts. The source of the story was The New York Times on May 16: “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation” (nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html).

Quite frankly, I get tired of seeing these letters published without comment from my editors who know, after all these years, I do not make up facts and even though they are not published, sources are included in submitted columns. When I re-post the columns on my blog, I include the links to the sources used. I have nothing to gain by making stuff up. I have everything to lose if I do, namely my credibility. People are free to disagree with my conclusions, but they should not be free to discredit me without proof and when there is proof otherwise.

Sign Up for E-News

In the story, The New York Times reports that the FBI ran at least one government informant against the Trump campaign. Informant is their word, though as I explained above, it is incorrect. Also in the story was this nugget: The New York Times also admits they didn’t have a crime. So, all of this has happened absent a crime. They admit there isn’t any evidence that Russia was working with Trump like they have admitted in every story they’ve run, usually in the last paragraph. This is why, after the story broke, both CIA Director John Brennan and National Security Adviser James Clapper under Obama went on the Sunday talk shows to change the narrative from a criminal investigation to a counter-intelligence operation.

I have tried to stay away from a deep discussion of this topic because I have wanted to concentrate on the New York election this November and I really did not have much to add. Apparently, I am wrong and a discussion is called for. It’s been over a year now that this attempt to get rid of Donald Trump has been going on. So, to begin, let’s not forget the original premise. It serves as the narrative of this entire 4,100-word New York Times piece. The narrative as well as the premise is that Hillary Clinton was going to win. Up until 8 p.m. election night, polls showed a slam-dunk for her and everybody knew it. However, according to this narrative, the Russians decided they didn’t want her to win. So, the Russians decided to interfere in our elections to make sure Hillary Clinton didn’t win. This, even though weeks before the election, Obama said this was not possible and he was right. Also, as Hillary was going to win, he did not want that win to be tainted.

However, Trump won and so the new narrative was the Russians worked with Donald Trump or members of his team to ensure Hillary’s defeat. So, to get to this point, the FBI planted a spy in the campaign (this is in the story) and this FBI informant and a friend of his planted that information that the Russians had the 30,000 emails Hillary deleted from her server in the ear of the Trump peripheral campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who was in England to sit on a symposium on elections. At the time, the peripheral Trump campaign aide had no idea of this; he had to be told. He was told by agents of the FBI they had hired. A while later, the Australian ambassador takes the guy out, gets him liquored up at a bar in London. Now inebriated, this minor aide, trying to show he was a bigger player than he was in reality, repeats what he’s been told, and tells the ambassador, “Guess what? The Russians have 30,000 emails.” The Australian ambassador, who just so happens to be a Clinton donor, goes back to the FBI and says, “I got a Trump aide who I had dinner with last night, couple of drinks, and he tells me the Trump campaign knows that the Russians have thousands of Hillary emails.” The New York Times’ story has admitted that.

This is where I draw my conclusion that because Trump won, the Justice Department, with the willing help of the media, had to cover up what they had done. So, now we get this counter-intelligence investigation. This is the investigation that permits all of these never-ending stories from unnamed sources, saying that agents from the Trump campaign were seen talking with agents from Russia. They built this whole myth of things that never happened with the ultimate aim to drive Trump’s post-election numbers and his presidential approval numbers down, hoping either for impeachment or to force Trump to resign. That was the overall objective.

Eat that, you doubters of my credibility.

This is what I say. What say you?