Despite what you say it is a very high legal bar. I would point out that you go way beyond the facts. For example assuming Bill cut some deal with Loretta. She recused herself to avoid the appearance of anything fishy. The raid on Trump's fixer required several high hurdles being met and not just within the FBI. What I take from the fact that they were able to do the raid I suspect Cohen is screwed. And given that he was running around during the election paying off women hush money for Trump it's not looking good for Spanky either.
My point in my last post is that all along, we have
trusted that there was a high legal bar at every stage. And at every stage, Comey, Rosenstein, Meuller, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Yates, Lynch and the rest have AT EVERY STAGE demonstrated their ability to abuse the law to fit their own politics and self-interest.
Which further makes me highly skeptical that a "high bar" was held at this stage. It would be the first time in over a year of this witch-hunt that a high bar was actually held!
Involving the Southern District of New York, utilizing state attorney's office in a dominantly liberal state makes me wonder whether the federal Deep State operatives simply enlisted like-minded NY state Deep State Hillary-voter operatives.
I've read multiple articles,
most recently in The Hill, quoting legal sources saying "Oh, for the Southern District of New York to raid Michael Cohen's office, they would have met a very high bar of evidence."
Really?
So where is it?
Why is it not publicly stated what the evidence was to make the raid? We're not talking about top secret national security issues that would endanger anyone. If there is evidence that warranted the raid, the raid has been done, so SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!
I think it entirely possible that the "high bar" was no higher than when Comey and Rosenstein submitted the false Russia Dossier as evidence to a judge, FOUR TIMES, to do FISA surveillance on Carter Page.
The same "high bar" that allowed Meuller to fill his special investigation with 13 Democrats, 11 of whom donated to the Hillary and Obama campaigns, and 9 of whom donated $100 or more, some of them thousands, in blatant partisanship for which they should recuse themselves. Some of whom worked directly legally representing the Clinton Foundation or Hillary Clinton.
We are supposed to trust that because they represent federal law enforcement they are above board and neutral and set a "high bar". But at every stage, THEY HAVE NOT.
There is absolutely no reason to trust that this time they finally did.
Show us the evidence, or it's just another deception.
