CNN Suggests Reputation Of Prosecutor Tapped To Investigate Origins Of Trump-Russia Probe Is On The Line. We Know What They Mean.

CNN must be pretty worried about the investigation into the origins of the FBI’s probe into whether President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election.

CNN, like many mainstream media outlets, peddled the idea that Trump and his campaign worked with Russia to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming president. The network offered one-sided coverage and analysis that kept the American people thinking their president had committed treason.

But after Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion and Trump and his new attorney general, William Barr, called for an investigation into the investigators, CNN now is trying to muddy the waters surrounding the new probe.

In an article published Tuesday and headlined, “US attorney’s ‘apolitical’ reputation on the line as he helps Barr review the Russia probe,” CNN’s Marshall Cohen makes it clear the network has one idea for how John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, could keep his “apolitical” reputation.

Beyond the headline, the article quotes a lot of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle praising Durham’s credentials, but underneath it all is the suggestion that Durham will only keep his reputation if he determines the Trump-Russia probe was started in earnest. For starters, Cohen calls Barr’s investigation into the suspicious origins of the probe “controversial.” The probe was controversial, as it was based on circular reporting involving documents paid for and compiled by Hillary Clinton operatives and what appears to be entrapment by the Obama administration and FBI. Those origins need to be investigated and the American people need to know that they were duped by the left-wing media and liberal government agencies.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) praised Durham in a statement to CNN, calling him “apolitical,” yet also called Barr’s investigation into how the Russia probe was started “a political hit-job,” and said he hopes Durham “is taking it on with a desire to get to the truth and get there quickly.”

We all hope that Durham gets to the truth and gets it quickly, but we all know what “truth” Murphy wants Durham to find.

While Democrats are currently “cautiously optimistic,” as Cohen wrote, about Durham, we know that will switch in an instant if and when he determines the Russia-collusion narrative was a DNC, anti-Trump hoax.

As I wrote previously, we can only hope that Durham’s investigation succeeds where Mueller’s — who was known to despise Trump — failed: Highlighting how the probe was started and supported by Democrat opposition research used to justify spying on U.S. citizens.

Former congressman Trey Gowdy said Tuesday night that he had seen an FBI spreadsheet citing news articles (which were based on information from ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele) and information from Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal to corroborate the infamous Steele Dossier. Such a document would prove that circular reporting was used to justify the probe. Essentially, Steele briefed media outlets and government officials who then spoke to media outlets, the media outlets wrote up the information as if Steele wasn’t the source, and those articles were used to corroborate Steele’s dossier, which was the only source of the information in the first place.