My immediately assumption is that it’s just a Breitbart/Fox/Trump Administration talking point with no substance at all. They’re trying to present legitimate FBI investigations into the Trump campaign and its links with Russia, based on actual information, as something done for partisan campaign advantage.
Is there any evidence that suggests I’m wrong?
I think it’s an attempt to “both sides do it” away Trump ties to the KGB. Because, you know, KGB, FBI, they’re both equally bad, right?
With any other administration, we could assume there was a master plan behind this all.
But with Trump? Despite all the lying he does, he’s really bad at it. He just tells whatever lie has passed through his head within the last hour without thought to how it matches up with the lies he told yesterday. And he has no plan for what lies he will tell tomorrow.
He’s like a four year old trying to tell you he didn’t break the lamp.
There’s probably a guy who joined the campaign out of a legitimate belief that trump was a viable candidate who would make a good president. Said guy started seeing a bunch of freaky shit that not only made him question his original judgement but was sufficient to induce him to inform TPTB about what he saw. Said guy is now being portrayed has having been an FBI plant from the beginning.
No, which is why Rosenstein immediately agreed to let the Inspector General investigate it. The FBI was not trying to help Hillary. It is to laugh. The FBI has nothing to fear from this, assuming that they trust the IG, which they do.
So, sure, Donald - let’s get a second investigation looking into events around in your campaign. No way that can backfire on you, can it?
IG?
As a general rule, anytime there’s a White House scandal, just assume the administration is guilty. You’ll be right nearly every time. I’ve barely bothered to follow the Trump scandals because in his case, I’m 99% sure he’s guilty of everything he’s accused of. And plenty of things we don’t know about.
I have no problem with a policy of “guilty until proven innocent” when it comes to politicians. They serve us and we entrust them with great power. They must demonstrate to us that they have integrity, the burden isn’t on us to prove they don’t.
Inspector General, I imagine
I find that reading the HQ of Never Trumpism, National Review, gives you the most unbiased look at Trump:
1 is complete bullshit. 2 is TBD, but we know that the Trump campaign asked Russian spies to illegally help them, and then the spies did, and then the Trump campaign attempted to change policy to help Russia. So if that’s a pretty much ‘no’" then I don’t know what to say. 3 is accurate. 4 is accurate. 5 is accurate.
I disagree with 1, but I think 2 is accurate because as Lindsey Graham said, “trump couldn’t even collude with his own campaign”. But I also agree that the Trump-Russia narrative is “truthy” in the sense that Trump is very pro-Putin and there were contacts between members of his campaign and Russia. But none of it was probably illegal. Just scandalous. It’s more of a political question than a legal question. Is it right for campaigns to work with foreign governments, and under what circumstances is it wrong? Because foreign interference in our elections is not new nor is it unusual for us to interfere in foreign elections(including a Russian election).
In some ways, the Republicans may have already won. If Rosenstein is repeatedly bending to political pressure to reveal what the government has in an investigation of the party’s chief, then the Republicans have, to some degree, already succeeded in politicizing the justice department and casting doubt on its ability to function independently and objectively.
More like a guy who grew up in New York/New Jersey real estate where corruption is endemic. He’s used to not being held to account because everyone around him was also on the take. The rules are different in Washington - at a minimum the scrutiny is magnitudes higher - and he’s not be able to adapt to his new conditions.
In truth, he’s not the first person to go through something like this. That bullshit the Clinton’s pulled with the White House Travel Office right at the beginning was some bush league nonsense you could pull off in Little Rock. In Washington things went sideways on them. But they learned pretty quickly.
Obama implanted FBI informants into the Trump campaign to destroy his political opponent. He used similar third world tactics when he had Lois Lerner and IRS attack Tea Party groups. I hope this helps you understand this current matter.
They were not FBI informants, they were Lizard People who sought to control the precious bodily fluids of the healthiest man ever elected to the Presidency. Get your conspiracy theories right.
Now that is a dead argument that is resurrected many times… and it is still dead. 
If TRUMP did not personally conspire with Russians or other foreign adversaries, that doesn’t mean people in the Trump campaign didn’t.
I totally believe you! It makes perfect sense that Obama, who wasn’t running for office and was, in fact, about to exit public service, would consider Trump his “political opponent”. Now, where’s your evidence of this, so we can show the world?
I’m not agreeing with the “all politicians do this so it doesn’t matter who you vote for” line. I’ve noticed that Republican politicians commit a significantly larger share of political crimes.
Lovely discussion, but I don’t think anyone has actually bothered to answer the OP’s question yet.
Here goes:
During the campaign, the FBI became aware of Russian interference in the election, and the large number of Russian contacts that seemed to be part of the Trump campaign. As part of investigating this they had an English professor who was occasionally used by the FBI as an undercover informant talk to three members of the Trump campaign about possible ties to Russia.
Trump morphed this story to say that the Obama had ordered (false) the FBI to plant a spy in their campaign (also false) to leak campaign secrets to the Clintons (yet again false) and so this is bigger than Watergate (guess what, false).
Now he has asked the Justice department to publicly reveal the identity of the “spy” (presumably to make his life hell because Trump is a vindictive ass) and launch a full investigation (because Trump is desperate for anything to distract the Mueller investigation). Rosenstein went through the motions, but shoving it off to the Inspector General where it will get the cursory examination which is more than it deserves and come back with a verdict of “nothing to see here”. This probably won’t satisfy Trump and may be used as an excuse to launch a Saturday Night Massacre.
The obvious proof that this wasn’t political is that if Obama had really wanted to derail the Trump campaign he would have made all the allegations about Russian Interference public before Novemeber. Instead he got criticized for remaining silent precisely because he wanted to avoid interfering.