The Democrats’ absurd impeachment push is crumbling.
Polls show Americans are not in favor of the coup attempt against Donald Trump.
Now Democrats are panicking about one William Barr report that will ruin them.
The impeachment nonsense of Trump’s Ukrainian phone call is petering out.
Democrats for sure thought they finally had enough rope to hang Trump, but their slate of witnesses didn’t do much beyond blowing up their existing narratives.
Some of their star witnesses had either never met Trump or got explicit directives from Trump that he didn’t want any quid pro quo from Ukraine.
But the latest coup attempt against Trump pales in comparison to the Democrats’ ultimate move against Trump.
Democrats want everyone to forget about their three-year witch hunt of attempting to tie Trump to colluding with Russia.
But Attorney General William Barr won’t forget.
After special counsel Robert Mueller’s report showed that Trump did not collude with Russia, Barr said he would be looking into the origins of collusion hoax.
As soon as Barr said that, he magically became a target of the left, when he had prior been lauded as an honorable civil servant.
And while Barr’s investigation into the genesis of the Russian collusion nonsense is still ongoing, the appetizer before Barr’s main course is about to be released.
Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon release his report on the foundation of the Russian collision narrative, and it will be damaging for Democrats.
So much so that the New York Times is preemptively striking against it.
In a piece by reporter Adam Goldman, the Times is trying to soften the blow for its readership.
Goldman constantly uses words and phrases like “debunks” and “undercuts conservatives’ claims” about FBI spying to describe what will be in the IG report.
However, Goldman himself admits that FBI informants solicited information from people who worked for the Trump campaign.
While that doesn’t mean FBI agents were secretly photographing files or stealing microfilm from Trump’s campaign office, most people would still consider that the definition of spying.
The purpose of the Times piece is to shield what the Obama administration was doing to the Trump campaign.
Obama and his deep state allies were willing to do anything to stop Donald Trump from becoming president.
In fact, disgraced FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page admitted as much via text messages during their extramarital affair.
Even if the IG report doesn’t recommend prosecutions, Horowitz’s previous report on the conduct of the FBI was already scathing.
He condemned the actions of Strzok, Page, and former FBI director James Comey.
Also, the IG report was narrower in scope than Barr’s investigation, which caused intelligence community operatives to start lawyering up.
It’s becoming clearer each day that the Obama administration did indeed spy on the Trump campaign, a fact Democrats aren’t prepared to deal with.
That’s why they’re playing semantic games to change the definition of the word “spying.”
But a slew of New York Times pieces won’t be able to obscure the truth forever.