Well, well, well.

Attorney General William Barr made a bombshell statement today, when he said that “spying did occur” on President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.  What a passive way to say that the federal government may have abused its surveillance powers against a citizen.

It reminds of a child, standing amongst a shattered vase, saying, “It broke.”

Barr testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee, saying he wasn’t sure that the government had reason to spy and that he’s developed a team to further into the matter.

“I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated — adequately predicated,” he said. “I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that. I think it’s my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane… I am not suggesting those rules were violated, but I think it is important to look at that. And I am not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.”

Then he added this, as if to emphasize the gravity of his accusation.  “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal — it’s a big deal.”

Well, yes.

This didn’t sit well with Democrats, who are perfectly fine with the heavy hand of government, as long as it is being raised against their political enemies. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wanted to soften this accusation.  He gently asked if Barr would like to rephrase his statement.  

“Do you wanna rephrase … I think the word ‘spying’ could cause people in the cable news ecosystem to freak out,” he said, showing a strange level of concern for those who are supposed to merely be reporting on the news.

“Unauthorized surveillance,” Barr said, accommodating the Democrat’s strange desire to protect the government.  “Is that more appropriate in your eyes?” 

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. It is totally unacceptable for any arm of the government to be used as a weapon against any citizen – President or dog catcher.  Yet, it seems like some in the federal government believe it is their duty to harass patriotic Americans on the other side of the aisle.  

Barr made it clear that he doesn’t want us to question our government overlords.  “This is not launching an investigation of the FBI,” he told the Senate panel. “To the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon, so I don’t like to hear attacks of the FBI.”

Okay, but remember when FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page exchanged anti-Trump text messages?  

Strzok’s 2016 text described the FBI’s Russia probe as an “insurance policy,” something to be used in case Trump beat Hillary Clinton. He also expressed concern that if Trump won, he might put unworthy and untrustworthy people into national security positions.  In which case, he said this about the Russia investigation: “we might need to protect America by finding out whether these allegations are accurate or not and making sure that the government, President Trump in that case, was making special — or appropriate decisions.”

At the very least, this should a totally inappropriate understanding of the role of the FBI.  And that, of course, is just some evidence of the anti-conservative bias that has long simmered beneath the surface in the government.

For example, in 2012, the Internal Revenue Service targeted people based on their political affiliation, making it harder for tea party (and other patriotic) groups to engage in political activity during a hotly contested political campaign year.  In that case, the IRS had to pay a settlement in litigation (brought by my organization Citizens for Self-Governance) of over $3.5 million.

And yet we are consistently told to move-along-there’s-nothing-to-see-here?  

We are constantly seeing that people in the government are completely ready to undermine Trump… using any means necessary.

And that “means” more and more frequently is the federal government itself.

Pitiful.

About The Author

Mark Meckler

Mark was a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, and served as the national coordinator. He left the organization to work more broadly on expanding the self-governance movement beyond the partisan divide. Mark appears regularly on television in outlets as diverse as MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox Business and the BBC. He’s highly sought after for the tea party perspective from print and electronic media outlets, from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Examiner, Politico and the The Hill. Mark blogs at MarkMeckler.com, and his opinion editorials regularly run in many of the leading political newspapers both on and offline. Mark has a BA in English from San Diego State University and graduated with honors from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1988. He practiced real estate and business law for almost a decade. For the last eleven years of his legal career he specialized in Internet advertising law. When not fighting for the future of our nation, Mark is an avid horseman, and lives in rural northern California with his wife Patty and two children.