By John Solomon

Opinion Contributor

Every president faces moments where the risks and rewards are uncertain. Perhaps public sentiments are fuzzy, advisers are risk-adverse, or the enemy seems poised to pounce.

In those moments, a president is left to rely on gut instinct.

Ronald Reagan did it at the Berlin Wall. Bill Clinton William (Bill) Jefferson ClintonAnxious Democrats amp up pressure for vote on COVID-19 aid Barr's Russia investigator has put some focus on Clinton Foundation: report Epstein podcast host says he affiliated with elites from 'both sides of the aisle' MORE did it with the Rose Garden handshake between the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and Israel’s Yitzhak Rabin. And George W. Bush did it when he grabbed the bullhorn and mounted the smoking pile of rubble at Ground Zero.

Donald Trump Donald John TrumpSteele Dossier sub-source was subject of FBI counterintelligence probe Pelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It 'isn't worth the paper it's signed on' Trump 'no longer angry' at Romney because of Supreme Court stance MORE faces such a decision: whether to declassify the documents showing what the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) really did to start and then sustain the Russia collusion investigation two years ago.

The president’s instinct, as he told me in an Oval Office interview last week, is to side with transparency and release documents he admits he has not been allowed to read.

Some of his Justice Department advisers are dead-set against a release. And so, too, are a couple of allies — Britain and Australia, to be specific — who seem to fear what the documents might say about them.

When the Russia scandal started, it was fairly certain that Moscow had engaged in a digitally centered counterintelligence operation — particularly hacking and psy-ops through Facebook ads — to influence the 2016 election.

The prevailing question was whether Trump and his campaign conspired to help them ensure victory over Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonFox News poll: Biden ahead of Trump in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Ohio Trump, Biden court Black business owners in final election sprint The power of incumbency: How Trump is using the Oval Office to win reelection MORE. At the time, the lame-duck Obama administration’s intelligence community assured the public there was good reason to investigate.

Now, two years and millions of dollars later, we know the core evidence that drove the collusion investigation was a piece of uncorroborated political opposition research written by a Trump-hating British ex-spy whose employer was paid by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party to harm Trump’s election prospects.

We also know the FBI agent and lawyer who drove the probe were Trump-haters too, who contemplated using the powers of their jobs to “stop” the Republican nominee and discussed an “insurance” policy to ensure such an outcome.

And, most importantly, those FBI employees acknowledged to Congress recently that, after nine months of using the intelligence community’s most potent tools, they couldn’t prove any collusion.

Finally, we know multiple FBI and DOJ officials — disgraced FBI Director James Comey James Brien ComeySteele Dossier sub-source was subject of FBI counterintelligence probe Judge will not dismiss McCabe's case against DOJ Democrats fear Russia interference could spoil bid to retake Senate MORE and his fired deputy, Andrew McCabe Andrew George McCabeJudge will not dismiss McCabe's case against DOJ Graham: Comey to testify about FBI's Russia probe, Mueller declined invitation Barr criticizes DOJ in speech declaring all agency power 'is invested in the attorney general' MORE, among them — engaged in media leaks to create a collusion narrative that exceeded the actual evidence. Some did so because they wanted to get a special prosecutor to extend the probe.

So far, that prosecutor, Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) MuellerCNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill's 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE, has secured just one prison sentence for a person whose conduct directly involved the Trump campaign. George PapadopoulosGeorge Demetrios PapadopoulosTale of two FBI cases: Clinton got warned, Trump got investigated Trump says he would consider pardons for those implicated in Mueller investigation New FBI document confirms the Trump campaign was investigated without justification MORE got a whopping 14 days in jail for lying in a case that offered no proof of collusion.

Mueller’s most impressive conviction so far — that of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort Paul John ManafortOur Constitution is under attack by Attorney General William Barr Bannon trial date set in alleged border wall scam Conspicuous by their absence from the Republican Convention MORE — had nothing to do with the election and involved old lobbying crimes that the FBI knew about since 2014.

And Mueller’s most convincing indictments — those of the Russians who stole Clinton’s emails and used Facebook for psy ops — go out of their way to say no Americans were willingly involved.

The House Intelligence Committee also has reported it found no Trump-Russia collusion after an exhaustive search.

Thus, today’s prevailing question is far less about a still unproven alliance between Moscow and Trump. Rather, it is whether Trump-hating bureaucrats inside the U.S. intelligence community abused their position to mislead the nation’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in an effort to negate Trump’s election victory.

As one senator who has read most of the classified documents told me last week, “the real question we must now answer is did U.S. intel conspire with a foreign spy, a Democratic campaign and a few foreign allies to attempt a soft coup against the man Americans chose as president?”

That’s a little provocative, but the question of FISA abuses is real.

So, Mr. President, as you weigh whether to go with your gut instinct or trust those allies and bureaucrats with heartburn, consider these facts.

House Speaker Paul Ryan Paul Davis RyanKenosha will be a good bellwether in 2020 At indoor rally, Pence says election runs through Wisconsin Juan Williams: Breaking down the debates MORE (R-Wis.) — a member of Congress’s “Gang of Eight” that was briefed more than anyone else about the inadequacies of the Russia evidence — believes you should declassify. His office told me so today.

"Upon redaction of sources and methods, the speaker supports the president’s decision to declassify the documents to bring about more transparency regarding potential FISA abuses," he said.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), long a respected voice inside your party on issues of law enforcement and security, promises the documents will prove that the FBI and DOJ committed a fraud upon the FISA court.

“I urge the president to release them. I believe what it will show is that the FBI and the DOJ held back important information from the FISA court and that some of the information they gave turned out to be misleading,” King told Hill.TV’s Alison Spann. He added that “there is nothing there that would really hurt any foreign government.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes Devin Gerald NunesOvernight Defense: Stopgap spending measure awaits Senate vote | Trump nominates former Nunes aide for intelligence community watchdog | Trump extends ban on racial discrimination training to contractors, military Trump nominates former Nunes aide to serve as intel community inspector general Sunday shows preview: Justice Ginsburg dies, sparking partisan battle over vacancy before election MORE (R-Calif.) insists the documents will prove the FBI and the DOJ signed applications for FISA warrants to surveil the Trump campaign that omitted essential derogatory information about the sources and exculpatory information about the accused.

Rep. Trey Gowdy Harold (Trey) Watson GowdySunday shows preview: Election integrity dominates as Nov. 3 nears Tim Scott invokes Breonna Taylor, George Floyd in Trump convention speech Sunday shows preview: Republicans gear up for national convention, USPS debate continues in Washington MORE (R-S.C.), a lawmaker whom the president’s party has entrusted with high-profile investigations in the past and who has read much of the classified evidence present, goes further. He not only advocates releasing the documents, he provocatively suggests it may raise questions about former CIA Director John Brennan John Owen BrennanJournalism or partisanship? The media's mistakes of 2016 continue in 2020 Comey on Clinton tweet: 'I regret only being involved in the 2016 election' Ex-CIA Director Brennan questioned for 8 hours in Durham review of Russia probe MORE’s conduct.

Reps. Mark Meadows Mark Randall MeadowsAnxious Democrats amp up pressure for vote on COVID-19 aid Pelosi hopeful COVID-19 relief talks resume 'soon' The Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by Facebook - GOP closes ranks to fill SCOTUS vacancy by November MORE (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan James (Jim) Daniel JordanHouse panel pulls Powell into partisan battles over pandemic Sunday shows preview: Justice Ginsburg dies, sparking partisan battle over vacancy before election House passes resolution condemning anti-Asian discrimination relating to coronavirus MORE (R-Ohio), two more Republicans who are deep into the evidence, are certain that the evidence will prove the FBI used its “crushing” investigative powers just to further flimsy political opposition research.

Such revelations from political leaders in the know should be weighed against the protestations of those intelligence bureaucrats who argue against the release. It is reasonable to wonder if they have more to lose in reputation than in sources and methods.

Likewise, the Democrats who once cheered every media story that leaked classified and sensitive law enforcement information that built a narrative of collusion now have an allergy to the continued release of such information. Such hypocrisy must further weigh into a declassification decision.

Finally, there are those two nervous allies, Australia and Great Britain. Their continued collaboration undoubtedly remains important to the United States. But, in this case, the American public deserves to know why two foreign countries — no matter how friendly or well intentioned — were involved in an American domestic matter such as a democratic election.

Furthermore, why would the FBI need their assistance if, as it represented to a federal court, the FISA evidence was corroborated and reliable?

A political opposition dossier bought by an opponent, submitted as evidence against a presidential candidate, hardly qualifies as credible on its own — and even less so when FBI agents, nine months later, have been unable to prove its allegation.

Sometimes, the American interest in resolving a domestic question as important as the integrity of our law enforcement and intelligence outweighs an ally’s discomfort.

Right now, the opposition to declassification feels more like a political Berlin Wall than legitimate national security risk. I say, tear it down.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.