To counter the Susan Rice story the dial has been turned up on the Trump and Russia connection. The latest partisan defense claims that Susan Rice is just a distraction from the ‘real story.’ However, her actions raise questions about the origin of this ‘real’ story. Comey’s testimony was not particularly enlightening, but I previously mentioned that his admission that the investigation began in July was ‘interesting.’ Why? The investigation’s timeline is in conflict with reports of FISA warrant requested on Trump’s team. According to both the BBC and HeatSt.com a FISA warrant targeting associates of Trump was denied in June with BBC reporting that another one was rejected in July. The Guardian also reported that a FISA warrant targeting members of Trump’s team was turned down last summer. Comey refused to discuss FISA warrants during his public appearance, except to attack Trump’s tweets, but this contradiction raises many questions. Is Comey lying? Are the reports incorrect? Is it possible that both are true? In his testimony Comey revealed without prompting that the investigation ‘began in late July.’ What investigation exactly, he lays it out clearly,

‘I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.’

Notice, he is clear that he is discussing a ‘counterintelligence mission,’ not a criminal one. This is an extremely important distinction. It means that they did not need a criminal basis for opening the investigation. It’s aim is to not to prove a crime, but to gather intelligence, typically over long periods of time and in a very broad manner. An even more direct contradiction of Comey’s testimony came from McClatchy, which reported that the investigation began last spring. So how can we explain this discrepancy?

Importantly Comey never denied opening any other investigations. It seems entirely possible that there was a criminal probe responsible for earlier the FISA warrant requests. If so, the FBI then shut it down to open a far more open ended ‘counterintelligence mission’ to monitor Trump’s team. The spring start time coincides with Fox’s timeline on Susan Rice. She was reportedly monitoring communications of and about identifiable Americans connected to impending targets of a federal investigation. It needs to be absolutely clear that the White House was not involved in prompting the FBI investigation with information gleaned from abusing national intelligence.

An investigation typically reflects poorly on the target, but it seems more apparent by the day that the investigation itself should be called into question. Denial of FISA warrants by the courts is extraordinarily rare, indicating an overly aggressive investigation. Further, in an era of non stop leaks, there has been zero evidence of criminality made public. On the other hand, we’ve seen regular leaks from government officials floating stories about loose connections between Trump and Russia. Rather than show any actual evidence of wrongdoing, the probe has been used to find and disseminate politically damaging innuendo to the press.

The Clinton investigation made clear that the FBI works in concert with the DOJ and their actions are heavily influenced by Obama’s political appointees at the department. Paired with the White House using indirect methods to surveil Trump, it creates the perception of an organized attempt to undermine and destroy the incoming administration. The FBI buckled under pressure when it released its investigation report from the Clinton investigation and it made clear just how politicized the process was. The FBI needs to do the same in this case so the public can understand the extent of politicization behind this open-ended, evidence free investigation.