For over a year, President Donald Trump has insisted that his campaign was purposely targeted, wiretapped and spied on by the Obama-era FBI, yet the mainstream media has largely scoffed at him.
Shockingly, it now looks like he may have been right all along — and the depth of the Department of Justice’s effort to undermine Trump before the election could be even deeper than anyone thought.
From Western Journal:
The New York Times, hardly an ally of the Trump team, has released a bombshell article that seems to confirm that FBI assets were embedded inside Trump’s early campaign staff.
If true, this would mean that the Obama administration purposely deployed “moles” to spy on the campaign of a political opponent… and could mark the most appalling abuse of power since Watergate.
That’s exactly the topic that the “Fox & Friends” hosts brought up to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Thursday, and the veteran attorney had strong words about the scandal.
Fox’s Steve Doocy summarized the claim for viewers. “Today, the New York Times has got a great big article about the operation that led to (Robert Mueller’s investigation),” the host explained.
“It was called ‘Operation Crossfire Hurricane’ and it sounds like the New York Times is confirming that the FBI essentially spied on the Trump campaign in the summer before the election, which would suggest they were out to frame him,” he continued.
Giuliani, who is now assisting the president with the legal aspects of the ongoing Mueller probe, held up The Times piece as evidence of serious corruption.
“Well it would change a lot of things,” the former mayor began.
“First of all, we’re going to have to look into it as a result of The Times’ article. Thank you New York Times — they usually don’t help us,” he said.
In Giuliani’s view, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane” could mean that the entire Mueller investigation against the Trump administration may have been founded on false pretenses.
“In this case, I think we’re going to have to look into whether we can challenge the legitimacy of the entire investigation,” he pointed out. “Maybe a special prosecutor, a special counsel, never should’ve been appointed.”