To be honest, I am not arguing or really attempting to "explain" that or anything else.
However, that comes up in paragraph three:
-----------------------------------------------------
While more context is necessary to understand the meaning of the text and what transpired in the meeting in McCabe’s office, the message raises the possibility that top bureau officials were infecting investigations with their personal political views. This would be a concern in any circumstance, but especially in this one. The FBI’s Clinton-email and Trump-Russia investigations have been extremely fraught politically — with the latter morphing into Mueller’s Russia probe, which conceivably could result in an impeachment referral.
----------------------------------------------------
Then the article delves into possible conflicts of interest.
---------------------------------------------------
Around the time of Strzok’s message, the FBI and the Obama Justice Department had come into possession of the anti-Trump “dossier” compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. The dossier was opposition research commissioned by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, through their lawyers. They had retained a research company, Fusion GPS, which hired Steele, who evidently paid Russian sources for what appears to be dodgy information.
We now know that one of Fusion’s point people on the project was a Russia analyst named Nellie Ohr, the wife of Bruce Ohr, the Obama Justice Department’s associate deputy attorney general. He was the right hand of Sally Yates, the famously anti-Trump deputy AG who was eventually — and justifiably — fired by Trump for insubordination (when she was his inherited acting AG). Bruce Ohr held meetings with Steele and Fusion founder Glenn Simpson (and has now been demoted over them). During the summer of 2016, the Justice Department and the bureau sought a warrant from a secret federal court to conduct surveillance of a Trump-campaign official. It is reported that agents used information from the dossier to obtain the warrant, even though, as recently as March 2017, then-director Comey dismissed Steele’s work as “salacious and unverified” in congressional testimony.
(Something that would seem to stand out among the irregularities
For months, the House Intelligence Committee has been pressing for answers about whether and how this Clinton-campaign document was used to obtain the authority for the surveillance; the Justice Department and the FBI won’t answer and refuse to produce the warrant.
--------------------------------------
It goes on and on like this, but also worth considering:
We believe that Russia’s interference in the election is worth investigating and that dismissing Robert Mueller would be a mistake, both politically and on the merits.
--------------------------------------
Which is the only reason I entered this thread.
Hit-N-Run's thesis is seriously flawed or completely invalid in multiple ways.
1. National Review is not an anti-Trump puppet, they are generally speaking against Trump.
2. The reasons for having some caution about Muller are not coming from only insane or juvenile voices on the right.
