Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Mark Meadows, a former White House aide, have continued to assert that the Trump-Russia collusion investigation was based on false information. During a discussion on the Hannity show, they claimed that the Obama administration had orchestrated the inquiry in an attempt to undermine former President Donald Trump’s reputation. Jordan stated that the investigation was ‘a complete waste of time’ and that the evidence presented was not credible.
Meadows, who was a key advisor to Trump during the 2016 campaign, suggested that the referral of the case to the Department of Justice by DNI Tulsi Gabbard is a direct result of these ‘manufactured’ allegations. Gabbard, who previously served as a senior official under President Obama, is now leading a review of the case. Meadows argued that this referral is not a sign of an independent investigation but rather a continuation of political bias against Trump. Jordan added that the entire process was a ‘political witch hunt’ designed to smear the former president.
Some experts have expressed skepticism about these claims, noting that the DOJ has a standard process for handling such referrals. However, the continued push by Jordan and Meadows to label the investigation as biased has sparked renewed debate over the integrity of the legal process. Critics argue that such statements could undermine public trust in the judicial system. Despite the controversy, both Jordan and Meadows remain steadfast in their belief that the investigation was based on ‘garbage’ and that the Obama administration played a key role in manufacturing the allegations.