Huh? FBI investigated the president for being a Russian agent after Comey firing

It's a "blockbuster," a "game-changer," it "proves collusion," it's...it's...

It's a nothingburger.

The New York Times published a story that's hard to comprehend.  After Trump fired FBI director James Comey, the bureau opened an investigation into the president to see if he was a Russian agent.

In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications.  Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security.  Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.

The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.

So let me get this straight.  Top-level FBI employees with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and hatred opened an investigation to see if the president of the United States was a paid Russian agent?  All because he fired an incompetent director whose own inspector general said, "'Insubordinate' Ex-FBI Director James Comey repeatedly violated policy and inaccurately described the legal situation surrounding Clinton's emails"?

The inspector general investigated all of the principles in this story for "anti-Trump bias."  And the New York Times – or anyone else – finds it surprising that their paranoid imaginings about Trump led to an official investigation?

Trump tweeted this morning:

Scott Johnson at Powerline:

The Times story exposes more than one scandal.  It exposes the overlapping scandals of which Trump is the victim, not the perpetrator.  They are the biggest scandals in American political history.

One does not need to be a clinician to get a handle on the madness that permeates the Times story.  There is an utter lack of self-awareness.  The actors here – the Times and their sources – share the understanding that the story reflects poorly on Trump.  As Paul puts it, however: "If it's true that the FBI undertook the investigation described by the Times, this tells us plenty about the FBI.  It tells us nothing about Trump."

Quotable quote: "The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days after F.B.I. officials opened it."

What it tells us about the FBI is that the agency was so besotted with Trump-hatred that it opened a treason inquiry into the actions of a sitting president.  The timing of the investigation suggests that it was a revenge investigation for firing the bureau's director. 

The fiction that FBI officials and agents who hated Trump did not let their bias color their "professional" behavior was debunked by the I.G. report on the Clinton email investigation.  There was bias, the I.G. reported it, and it clearly affected their judgment.

But that interferes with the narrative being pushed by the Times.  So it's conveniently forgotten.

It's a "blockbuster," a "game-changer," it "proves collusion," it's...it's...

It's a nothingburger.

The New York Times published a story that's hard to comprehend.  After Trump fired FBI director James Comey, the bureau opened an investigation into the president to see if he was a Russian agent.

In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications.  Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security.  Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.

The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.

So let me get this straight.  Top-level FBI employees with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and hatred opened an investigation to see if the president of the United States was a paid Russian agent?  All because he fired an incompetent director whose own inspector general said, "'Insubordinate' Ex-FBI Director James Comey repeatedly violated policy and inaccurately described the legal situation surrounding Clinton's emails"?

The inspector general investigated all of the principles in this story for "anti-Trump bias."  And the New York Times – or anyone else – finds it surprising that their paranoid imaginings about Trump led to an official investigation?

Trump tweeted this morning:

Scott Johnson at Powerline:

The Times story exposes more than one scandal.  It exposes the overlapping scandals of which Trump is the victim, not the perpetrator.  They are the biggest scandals in American political history.

One does not need to be a clinician to get a handle on the madness that permeates the Times story.  There is an utter lack of self-awareness.  The actors here – the Times and their sources – share the understanding that the story reflects poorly on Trump.  As Paul puts it, however: "If it's true that the FBI undertook the investigation described by the Times, this tells us plenty about the FBI.  It tells us nothing about Trump."

Quotable quote: "The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days after F.B.I. officials opened it."

What it tells us about the FBI is that the agency was so besotted with Trump-hatred that it opened a treason inquiry into the actions of a sitting president.  The timing of the investigation suggests that it was a revenge investigation for firing the bureau's director. 

The fiction that FBI officials and agents who hated Trump did not let their bias color their "professional" behavior was debunked by the I.G. report on the Clinton email investigation.  There was bias, the I.G. reported it, and it clearly affected their judgment.

But that interferes with the narrative being pushed by the Times.  So it's conveniently forgotten.