Presidential Spying

I'm not sure why people are surprised.  Bil Clinton had the FBI files of his political enemies sent over to the White House so he could look at them.  When challenged, he claimed it was for things like seating arrangements at dinner parties.  The dominant media at the time said "Oh, no problem, then" and dropped the issue. I don't know of a political-opponent spying story from the Bush WH, and I admit I would be disappointed.  I'm not sure I would be shocked - though I imagine it would have come out at this point, so maybe I would be shocked.

So, the scandal-free administration, which started off immediately by refusing to release the information of contact between Michelle Obama and the later-convicted Kevin Johnson from the 2008 campaign. (And thank you Chuck Grassley for the long, boring task of requesting information over and over again on a dozen scandals, rebuffed each time because of "presidential discretion.") Yes, I'm sure there were huge national security issues on the Michelle-KJ front.  Fate of the free world and all that.

My working estimate on every news story that comes down:  The Republicans mislead 50% of the time.  They are wrong, they lie, they are biased, it totals about half.  Trump may have that to 75%.  The Democrats mislead 90% of the time.  I believe nothing they say, though acknowledge they do get some things right - usually about Republican dishonesty.

You may tell me that there are many nice, earnest Democrats who mean only good for the poor and downtrodden, even if they are perhaps too willing to believe their politicians.  I would like to think so.  But I go along for a quite some time shrugging at these nice people, when some stunning bigotry and falsehood suddenly drops from their lips. It is then not entirely clear what all of the previous comments have meant.