Staff Reports
The Federal Bureau of Investigations has been on a multiple-year mission that can only be described as a soap opera for the ages. A new revelation surrounding the origins of the infamous Russiagate investigation has emerged, and it raises questions about the integrity of the FBI and its motivations. After Donald Trump audaciously fired then-FBI Director James Comey for not playing along with the political witch hunt, the bureau retaliated by launching what can only be described as a thorough investigation into the sitting president, relying on claims more outlandish than a plot twist on daytime television.
The FBI took a leap of faith, asserting its belief that Trump was acting as a Russian agent. One must wonder: on what earth-shattering evidence did they base this claim? Apparently, the answer remains ensconced in a mystery wrapped in red tape—and redacted documents. This investigation wasn’t the first rodeo for the FBI; the first investigation centered on Trump associates Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, seeking to unearth “links” to the Russian government. But this time around, the FBI set its crosshairs squarely on the president himself.
Why Did the FBI Redact the Origins of the Russiagate Investigation of Trump?https://t.co/1lidL2ilCQ
— PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) January 8, 2025
Fast forward to a few months into Trump’s presidency, and the FBI trotted out an “articulable factual basis”—a term so vague that it could apply to a conspiracy theory shared over coffee. They claimed Trump might be acting—whether knowingly or unknowingly—in the interests of the Russian government. This grand conclusion, reportedly unearthed by the New York Times from the depths of the bureau’s smokescreen, ignited a firestorm leading to a formal investigation. A Freedom of Information Act request by RealClear Investigations uncovered a treasure trove of six pages, so heavily redacted that it resembles a DIY art project gone wrong.
The mastermind behind this bold FBI move was none other than acting director Andrew McCabe, a man with a penchant for extravagant conclusions that seem to mirror the wishes of the political elite. Approval came from a cast of characters, including Bill Priestap, who had previously overseen the investigation into Trump. The story gets murky here, as these key players were tied not just to the FBI’s reputational dilemma but also to the Clinton campaign’s infamous Steele Dossier—the dubious collection of fabrications that Nixon may have envied.
Listeners at home might want to grab their popcorn for this one. Visualize this: the FBI re-engaging Christopher Steele, the very architect of the discredited dossier, just before launching their new assault on Trump, while still clinging to the discredited information they’d used as a foundation for prior investigations. The FBI’s head-scratching reliance on Steele’s “sources,” even after acknowledging his dubious history, smells of desperation, politically motivated espionage, and a willingness to sacrifice integrity on the altar of partisan politics.
By the time the dust settled, the supposed “articulable factual basis” for these dramatic allegations was built on nothing more than hearsay and drunken bar talk. The foundation was shaky at best, fueled by the thirst for scandal rather than sound investigation. The implication is clear: the FBI’s actions have rattled the cage of public trust. As Trump reemerges, vowing to unveil the truth behind these dubious actions, Democrats may shun it as ancient history. Yet, history proves that the truth has a knack for rising to the top—like cream, or perhaps just the facts.
