We already know of two reasons, Papadopolous and the Steel report.
First, Papadopolous seems to have occurred after the investigation began not before, and there's a substantial question about whether he was a set up. He only went to jail because he claimed not to have met a certain individual, as far as I know, there was no substantive crime involved in anything he did. How does that justify an investigation?
It's been suggested that Steele was involved in that set up. It's been shown that the FBI and DOJ were aware of Steele's severe anti-Trump bias, and acknowledged that the cut ties with him "officially" then maintained a back door to him. It's pretty clear -at this point - that the FISA warrant was issued on a questionable grounds, both with respect to the representations they made and with respect to its actual purpose.
Where does that leave us? You think unverified opposition research justifies a two year investigation that so far has only convicted Americans for lying about lawful conduct and, in the case of Manafort, for completely unrelated financial crimes.
I know you have already decided both of those are invalid, but if you have a former British MI6 officer reporting confidentially to the FBI that he suspects Trump is compromised and/or working with the Russians then that should be investigated.
Should it? Then why did they deceive the court about how reliable he may be? About his known anti-Trump animus? Why did they leak stories and then cite to them as additional support for the FISA warrant?
This has ALL the hallmarks of a manufactured case.
What if the Trump campaign through opposition research learned that Clinton was receiving aid from Chinese intelligence, should the FBI refuse to investigate?
Or you know, a charity run by Clinton received enormous contributions from foreign governments at the same time she in her role as a Secretary of State was deciding major issues on which they cared....
Or dual hatted staff members of Clinton's allowed major donors to the charity enhanced access to the candidate....
Or, you know, there were a history of actual illegal contributions from Chinese nationals to the campaign of her husband...
Or possibly her husband was receiving speaking fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign nationals...
I mean seriously, try to step out of your shell and look at it from the other side. I could buy a reasonable investigation - IF - there was any evidence that the rules applied to both sides. I don't see that evidence. Instead I see Republicans ruined financially and prosecuted on process crimes for trying to answer questions, while Democrats were granted
immunity prior to testifying and no charges ever came out of it. I see Democrats plead the fifth and everyone lets it slide.
I mean for goodness sake, you're decrying the idea that Trump received something of value from Russia as revealed by the Clinton campaign paying a
British spy for something of value from
Russia. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Or should they look into it while keeping the investigation secret to avoid the investigation being used for the political campaign while trying to protect the country.
On something like this is should have been done in public by a bipartisan committee that followed the facts where they led into both parties bad acts. The travesty was turning this into a political argument in the first place.
There actually evidence shows the Russians were seeking to disrupt our democracy not that they were working to put Trump in power. Clinton was the front runner and everyone thought she'd be President, the real efforts were in trying to discredit her as legitimate.
Please remember almost everyone who has been fired at the FBI was fired for leaking damaging things about Clinton (this was the official justification for firing both Comey and McCabe), the Trump investigation (and the dossier) stayed secret until after the election.
Well of course it stayed secret. If Obama had revealed he was investigating the Republican Presidential campaign it might have caused a revolution.
Comey was fired for a large number of reasons, and honestly that was great thing. Not since hoover has a head of the FBI more deserved to be fired.
McCabe's releases were self serving. He was fired for lack of Candor. You may be familiar with the concept, since that's the internal FBI/DOJ version of lying to federal agents with which they threaten the common people with decades in prison and financial ruin. Maybe ask yourself why you think Papadapolous deserved to go to jail, but McCabe didn't.
Both Comey and McCabe had something in common, they clearly believed they had a right to release governmental records for their own benefit.