On What Grounds Can the FBI Investigate the President as a Counterintelligence Threat?

Lawfare ^ | January 13, 2019 | Jack Goldsmith

[Rumierules]

The New York Times reported on Jan. 11 that the FBI “began investigating whether President Trump had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests” soon after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. In other words, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation on the president. *** If indeed the FBI took the unprecedented step of opening a counterintelligence investigation directed at the president premised on his threat to national security, I hope the bureau had much stronger evidence for doing so than the Times story provided—and I hope that something of investigative substance actually turned on it. Otherwise, the step strikes me as deeply imprudent.

[sparklite2]

Evidence of those early day “peek a boos” have surely been destroyed.

---

“Lack of evidence only proves the conspiracy is working!”

/s

[Nuc 1.1]

It is not imprudent it is a revolution. It is the modern democrat.

[Nuc 1.1]

No and it is why they must be held accountable.

[SkyDancer]

Well since they didn’t do it for 0bama then Trump is safe.

[Pravious]

Treason is indeed “DEEPLY IMPRUDENT”.

—

It is, indeed.
I have to wonder why the President is seemingly doing NOTHING to bring these people to justice. Nothing. Sessions was a disaster. The fill-in has done absolutely nothing, as far as I know, and Barr doesn’t look like he’s going to be any better. Hillary is still walking around, corrupt and free - as are all of the “Justice” department lackeys who let her off the hook and, while they were at it, set up a system to spy on the Republican candidate for President, and a backup system to cover for themselves and destroy him if they ever got caught doing so.

Every month this goes on without ANY kind of resolution on the side of good is another month that the fabric of our country is being irreparably harmed.

[Pravious]

Except George W disliked McCain immensely.

—

Well, at least I can think of one good thing about W, then.

[Alberta's Child]

Oddly enough, an FBI "investigation" of a sitting president doesn't bother me nearly as much as the illicit FISA surveillance from the 2016 campaign.

1. For one thing, a U.S. president would be the first one to tell anyone that he no longer has any personal life anyway. I imagine almost every form of communication he has is under electronic surveillance for any number of reasons.

2. When I read these reports of this FBI investigation in 2017, I go back and remember the part of Comey's testimony in June 2017 when he described a conversation with Trump from January of that year ... in which Trump told him he might ORDER Comey to have the FBI investigate him -- to vindicate him. It was Comey who told Trump that this would not be a good idea.

[Rumierules]

During that meeting: “The FBI was telling the president-elect that the allegations were salacious and unverified, yet at that very moment they were presenting them to a federal court as information the judges could rely on to authorize spying.” https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-fbi-russia-investigation-was-always-about-trump

[SaraJohnson]

A lot of if’s ands and buts in this analysis.

[Sacajaweau]

IIRC, it was at the last moment, just before he left office, that Obama said all agencies could share information.

What we will never know is how much information was shared BEFORE that time.

[Sacajaweau]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/12/obama-expands-the-nsas-ability-to-share-data-with-other-agencie/

[Retvet]

Anyone involved in the decision to do this investigation should be fired.

[Lagmeister]

I am currently trying not to think about it. Watching this mess languish on and on wears one out. When we were going to get all (or some) key documents declassified and then pulled back... that was it for me.

[Magnatron]

Because the president determines the U.S. national security interest and threats against it, at least for the executive branch, there is an argument that it makes no sense for the FBI to open a counterintelligence case against the president premised on his being a threat to the national security. The president defines what a national security threat is, and thus any action by him cannot be such a threat, at least not for purposes of opening a counterintelligence investigation.

Exactly...

[GOPJ]

FBI was run by a bunch of corrupt bullies who thought their job was to protect the power of liberal ‘elites’ and their pets.

Some of those thugs are still there...

[butlerweave]

If the FBI did it’s job and investigated Obama he would have never been President and be living in Kenya right now

[nikos1121]

I fail to see anyone asking the simple question:

If high ups at the FBI were concerned about treasonous activity in a president, any president, wouldn’t they at first go to the AG and bring the matter up, or to the VP or someone?

HOw do these people get the idea, that they have the right to go after anyone without impunity? I thought the days of J Edgar Hoover were over...

[DesertRhino]

The FBI secretly sitting in judgement of the president to decide if he is a threat to national security... as THEY define it. Banana republic.
And the next logical step - if they decide to, can they then lie to the president? Can they classify things away from him? Can they disobey his orders?
Trunp sets national policy, not the damned extraconstitional F troop. If a president decides better relations with Russia is where we are going, who the hell is the FBI to second guess him? The constitution CLEARLY gives that power to Congress an only Congress. Not to some obscure bureau.

[rawcatslyentist]

They shoulda opened that investigation about 10 years ago!

Proof of their treason against our Republic!

[Magnatron]

...as my Lawfare colleague Matt Tait noted, “[Y]ou’d much rather live in a country where elected branches are a check on the national security establishment than the other way around.”

This should be shouted from the rooftops...