Opinion

DOJ spied on Congress during ‘Russiagate’ investigation


All opinions expressed in this article are solely the opinions of the contributors.

A report from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General reveals that, during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term, DOJ personnel misled courts to obtain gag orders, preventing federal employees from knowing they were under surveillance in the “Russiagate” investigation. The report concluded that seeking the records of congressional staffers did not violate any DOJ policies at the time, but “creat[es], at a minimum, the appearance of inappropriate interference by the executive branch in legitimate oversight activity by the legislative branch.”

Among those under surveillance then was current FBI Director nominee Kash Patel.

Watch the video above as Straight Arrow News contributor Ben Weingarten provides background on the report and argues that Patel and Attorney General-designate Pam Bondi face a steep challenge in reforming what he sees as a credibility-damaged FBI and DOJ.

QR code for SAN app download Headshot of Ben Weingarten

Be the first to know when Ben Weingarten publishes a new commentary every Tuesday!

Download the Straight Arrow News app and follow Ben to receive push notifications.

The following is an excerpt from the above video:

Among those targeted was House Intel Committee investigator for the then-Republican Representative Devin Nunes’s-led Committee Kash Patel — the man slated to become FBI Director, and who repeatedly bumped up against DOJ leaders in his dogged investigation of the Russiagate investigators. Foster and Patel didn’t even know their records had been subpoenaed until the Biden years, when the communications companies were allowed to disclose the subpoenas had been sought.

To make things more perverse, the DOJ, in its applications for the NDOs (non-disclosure orders) did not disclose that the subpoenas sought records from members of congress or staffers, and, according to the IG, “relied on general assertions about the need for non-disclosure rather than on case-specific justifications. Department policy at the time did not require including information in applications about whose records are at issue.”

Daily Newsletter

Start your day with fact-based news

Start your day with fact-based news

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.