Reader's View: Suspicions of collusion anything but 'silly'
A letter Dec. 17 was headlined, "Trump-Russia collusion just plain silly." However, Lawfare (lawfareblog.com/irony-nunes-memo) explains why suspicions of collusion are completely credible. The much-talked-of FISA application did not even mention Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee, the blog pointed out. But it did recount that former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele ("Steele dossier") was approached by and hired by American Glen Simpson. Simpson informed Steele he had been hired by a U.S. law firm to conduct research on then-candidate Donald Trump and possible ties to Russia. The FBI originally speculated that Simpson was trying to discredit Trump's campaign.
Lawfare's David Kris, who has examined FISA applications, rejected claims this application suggesting misbehavior on the part of the government was hidden in a footnote. That's because footnotes are commonly read by FISA judges.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John G. Roberts nominated FISA justices, and 10 of 11 court justices selected by Roberts were also appointed by Republican presidents. So Republicans who possibly conspired with the government (according to Trump) now include former FBI director James Comey, members of the FISA Court, and several U.S. presidents, along with other Intelligence agencies and Justice Department officials (who are unlikely to scheme for partisan purposes) — while those who theoretically wanted to hurt Clinton were (not) Democrats!
The letter left out very important facts, including that the emails released by Wikileaks were directed at harming Clinton and the DNC — much to the pleasure of Trump, whose chances then only increased. Since the Nunes memo was supposedly used to imply that the collusion scandal was invented by Democrats, then Democrats must have wanted to shoot their own campaign in the foot and make Clinton the brunt of derogatory emails distributed by Russia?
Peter W. Johnson