Spying for thee but not for me

Democrats are trying to spin the tale that if the FBI turned the entire national intelligence community against the Trump campaign that wasn't spying.  It was merely surveillance.

To show someone how patently absurd that is ask them if Bush had done the same thing to the Obama campaign what they would call it?

The reality is simple in common english usage spying is used when we're talking about people we don't like, say Russian agents, but not when we're talking about people we like, say a rogue FBI.

Democrats are cool with the FBI spying on Trump with no basis for believing a crime had occurred while Republicans, who still believe the 4th Amendment applies to all Americans not just criminals, are not.

What's interesting is how Democrats who are four square behind the principle that any legal technicality is sufficient to throw out surveillance data proving that a drug dealer was also raping children demand that Trump be "surveilled" just because.

The fact that the Democrats are in such a conniption fit is that they realize that if the American people break through the #FakeNews media wall of lies and discover that Obama spied on the Trump campaign to help Hillary win and that after Trump won the Deep State spied on Trump in an attempt to nullify the peoples vote in 2016 there will be hell to pay.

Look at how outraged we the people were when it came out that Nixon had tried to use the CIA to spy on his opponents but failed.  Can you imagine how people will feel if they find out that Obama succeeded in using the FBI/CIA/NSA to spy on the Republican Presidential candidate?

What we're seeing is just another example of leftists redefining words to suit their own purposes.  Would anyone get upset to hear that the FBI spied on drug kingpins?  Would anyone get upset upon learning that the FBI spied on terrorists?

The reason that Democrats are running from the word spying is that the people, unlike the Resistance, realizes that despite his faults Trump isn't a drug lord or a terrorist.  He's an American citizen and hence shouldn't be spied on without due cause.

And you see that's the kicker.  Barr said that spying would have been ok if there had been evidence to justify the spying.  Barr didn't say that what was done to Trump was wrong only that if it was done without a sufficient basis of facts to justify it then it was wrong; illegal in fact.

But Democrats know that there was no basis in fact for the FBI to spy on Trump.  Not only was the direct target of the spying, Carter Page, an American who had, just 3 years before, cooperated with the FBI in putting Russian spies away there was no credible evidence of his doing anything untoward.  We know that because Mueller never indicted Page on any charges.

In addition Democrats know that the only "evidence" to indicate any collusion by Trump was the Steele dossier. An unverified, according to Steele, document based on paid for "intelligence" from anonymous second and third hand Russians.  Comey admitted that the dossier hadn't been verified.  Even after Cohen began spewing his new found hatred of Trump he admitted that no he'd never been to Prague showing a key part of the Steele dossier is false.

What the Democrats are desperately trying to do is conceal the fact that there never was any reason to think that anyone in Trump's campaign, much less Trump himself, was colluding with the Russians. Further Democrats desperately want to avoid we the people suddenly realizing that someone did collude with the Russians both before and during the election; Hillary Clinton.

Hillary paid Russian sources for dirt on Trump. Trump never got dirt on Hillary from Russia.

When Hillary was Secretary of State and opposed sanctions on Russia her husband Bill was paid $500,000 for one speech by a Russian bank; Renaissance Capital.

Those are proven facts not speculations.  Perhaps getting a half a million dollars in no way impacted Hillary's actions but we all know if Trump's spouse had gotten paid that much for a speech by Russians Democrats would be screaming for blood.

It's time to tell your undecided friends that yes Trump was spied on.

That if there had been strong evidence to indicate that Trump was colluding with Russia then that spying would be justified.

But given that Mueller didn't find enough evidence to indict anyone it's unlikely that there was sufficient evidence to justify spying on Trump.

The Attorney General is currently investigating if there was enough evidence.  If he finds there wasn't, which we have good reason to believe is the case, then we'll know that the Democrats staged a failed coup against we the people and tried to nullify our votes in 2016.