What do they want hidden?

Whenever President Trump had the slightest unease to save his life by a special council with unlimited power, Democrats and the media wondered with suspicion: Well, what does he have to hide ?!

Now Attorney General William Barr says he wants to take a look at the spying of the 2016 Trump campaign by the Obama administration. And these same democrats call it a political hit.

Well, what do they have to hide ?!

During his hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee last week, Barr said he would "look at both the genesis and the behavior" of people involved in spying on Trump's campaign , which includes the FBI.

"Much of this has already been investigated and much of it has been investigated and is under investigation by the Office of the Inspector General. [Justice] Department, "he said." But one of the things I want to do is gather all the information from the various surveys that have been conducted, including on the hill and at the ministry, and see if there are any questions left. to solve."

Barr also indicated that he had "a foundation" to believe that espionage was taking place, but added that he only wished to be sure that he was safe. acted on a "motive" and that there was no abuse of power. Who could reasonably oppose this?

Democrats do it, but rather than saying it outright – perhaps because the government knows that the Trump campaign was secretly overseen by the government – they claim that Barr's use of the word "spying" is somehow inappropriate. Senator Brian Schatz, of Hawaii, at the hearing, asked Barr if he wished to "rephrase" because "the word espionage could make everyone panic in the ecosystem of the world." Cable news ".

Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Demanded that Barr "withdraw his unfounded and irresponsible demand."

House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Also called on Barr to "immediately withdraw his statement or produce specific evidence for support".

Specific evidence is that Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor, was literally tapped by the FBI. Specific evidence is that former professor Stefan Halper met with Trump's associates and, unbeknownst to the campaign, informed the FBI. In every sense of the word, Halper worked like a spy. The insistence of the media to be referred to as "informant" is a game of semantics.

An article in the Washington Post on Monday said Trump and his supporters "had trouble legitimizing their accusations that the FBI was conducting a political espionage campaign," even though he added that Page had been "secretly monitored" by the FBI.

The distinction that democrats make when they insist that there is a difference between "spying" and "surveillance" is not clear. If they order everyone to use a different word from "spying", they might not have had to choose an exact synonym.

The Barr investigation may reveal that no law has been violated. Spying can be legal. But as he said during his hearing, there are unresolved issues, such as: why was the Trump campaign not informed if the alleged Page authorities or anyone else could have unknown threat?

During his testimony, Barr acknowledged that it was possible for a prosecution to be initiated if an offense was discovered, but that it could simply be a matter of setting up safeguards within the Department of Justice. to ensure that any inappropriate incidents occur again.

He said that there might be some examples of abuse that might not reach the level of a crime but that people might think they are bad and want to put in place rules or prophylaxis against this crime ".

This is what the Democrats are raging against, even after their hysterical investigation of the collusion between Trump and Russia gives nothing.

What are they trying to hide?