National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was dismissed amid a torrent of mainstream-media reporting and disgraceful government leaks (but I repeat myself). Among the most intriguing was a New York Times report the morning after Flynn’s resignation, explaining that the former three-star Army general and head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was “grilled” by FBI agents “about a phone call he had had with Russia’s ambassador.”
No fewer than seven veteran Times reporters contributed to the story, the Gray Lady having dedicated more resources to undermining the Trump administration than the Republican Congress has to advancing Trump’s agenda. Remarkably, none of the able journalists appears to have asked a screamingly obvious question - a question that would have been driving press coverage had an Obama administration operative been in the Bureau’s hot seat.
"On what basis was the FBI investigating General Flynn?"
You can read the rest @
FBI does not appear to have had any legal basis for investigating Flynn. He was attacked as a means to weaken Trump - and the strategy worked.
By the way, I don't believe that ANY congressional investigation since that of the Church Committee in 1975 has resulted in meaningful reforms in the intelligence community, and NONE have resulted in lasting reforms. So why bother having more investigations now?