So now the memo is out, and much like a teenager who just lost his virginity the entire country is walking around wondering if they feel any different. Meanwhile, the media are out spinning in one direction or the other, depending on which side of the political fence they're on, while the pro-Trumpers and #NeverTrumpers do battle on the mean streets of Twitter like the Jets and the Sharks hashtagging for control of their turf.
But what's it all mean?
Well, the answer to that is--or at least should be--apolitical. Because once you clear away all of the posturing, excuse making and just plain hackery coming from different sides of the debate, the questions all boil down to one: Is it true that the FBI and the DOJ misrepresented themselves to the FISA court so they could obtain a warrant to surveil an American citizen?
Based on what the memo says, the answer appears to be yes.
There's your money quote: "While the FISA application relied on Steele's past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."
In other words, the FBI and DOJ lied to the court to get a warrant. That's the kind of stuff that undermines not only the letter of our rights under Constitution, but their spirit.
I believe every word of what the memo says about this as well, because disproving it could be done by simply releasing--or leaking--the full text of the FISA warrant application. Adam Schiff and the rest of his Democrat cohorts on the House Intelligence Committee won't do that, of course, because they all know that the application would only prove what the memo says--and that's the last thing in the world they want. In fact, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they fought the release of the underlying materials that the memo summarizes.
That won't stop them from trying, though--and in the meanwhile, the spin is approaching a velocity that makes NASA's vomit comet look like the Dumbo ride at Disney World. My particular favorite is seizing upon a single word in the assertion that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information." Would, you see, doesn't mean could, which means that there had to be other evidence that Trump colluded with Russia which could have been used to get the warrant.
I suppose that's true--there probably was other supporting evidence that the DOJ presented to the FISA court. But if such evidence was so compelling, why would the DOJ take the huge risk of lying to a judge just to get the Steele dossier included? The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't, and that they needed to lard up their application with tales of golden showers and Russian KOMPROMAT to get a judge to sign off on it.
In other words, no dossier, no warrant. That was always the bottom line. So what if the DOJ had to crack a few eggs to make that omelette? Hell, it wasn't any worse than what they'd done during Fast and Furious. Besides, if it kept Donald Trump away from the presidency it was worth it. And, if that didn't work out, it could be used to hobble his administration and drive him from office. Who gives a damn what the voters want?
That folks, is the very definition of the Deep State--but don't worry, because it's totally for your own good:
Yep, it's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge. Is that really the America that Evan McMullin wanted to defend from Donald Trump?
I shudder to think.