Did Senior Law Enforcement Officials Commit Crimes in Trying to Prevent Trump Presidency?

Like so many others, I stayed up late on November 8, 2016, anxiously waiting for the results of the presidential election. Was America going to elect someone worse than Barack Obama or would they elect someone who actually spoke more of the truth and was willing to try to turn America around for the better?

It wasn’t until after midnight, in the wee hours of November 9 that Donald Trump was declared the winner. Within minutes of the official announcements, many unhappy and frantic Democrats began plotting to find ways to either nullify the election of Donald Trump or remove him from office as soon as possible.

Many of those anti-Trump plots were verbalized in Congress by angry Democrats. Some Democratic members of Congress said they would do what they could to prevent any of the Donald Trump’s agenda and promises from becoming law, and this over two months before he was sworn in as America’s 45th President.

Although long suspect and frequently denied, we now know that a number of others within the federal government also began plotting to prevent a Trump presidency. Emails and documents are beginning the peel off the layers of secrecy behind secret groups within the government organized to undermine and destroy Donald Trump and his presidency.

In fact, we are also learning that the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee also conspired to destroy Donald Trump with the fake dossier prior to the election, even though they denied being responsible for over a year.

Trending: Omarosa Credibility Issues Date Back to Clinton Administration

But what about the anti-Trump secret societies within the FBI and DOJ that have recently been revealed? How far up the chain of command did those societies and their efforts travel and how far did they go in trying to carry out their devious plans? Did they break the law in trying to stop the Trump presidency?

Rasmussen Reports asked voters that same basic question:

“How likely is it that senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency?”

How would you respond to this question?

From the news of late, I would say that Special Counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI agent Peter Strzok and many of their colleagues did break the law in their efforts to protect Hillary Clinton and in their investigations of Donald Trump. For one thing, they are all guilty of conflict of interest and obstruction of justice.

However, that’s just my opinion, but what do American voters say?

Rasmussen reported their results as:

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it’s at least Somewhat Likely senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency, including 32% who think it’s Very Likely. Forty percent (40%) think it’s not likely these officials broke the law, with 25% who feel it’s Not At All Likely.”

“Like many questions involving Trump, there is a strong partisan divide. Sixty-six percent (66%) of Republicans think it’s likely senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent a Trump presidential victory, but only 38% of Democrats think that’s true. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Democrats don’t think it’s likely. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say likely while 43% say not likely.”

The tide is turning against these anti-Trump officials within the FBI and some in the DOJ and they should be busy obtaining attorneys for the defenses when charges are brought against them. They also should be ferreted out of their government positions.




Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.