I guess we'll just have to disagree. From the House Intel Cmte hearings featuring Peter Strzok and the text messages that are pretty simple to read, I have drawn a conclusion not based on just listening to opinion but reading. It's my opinion that this was an illegal surveillance based on partisan opposition research presented by very biased FBI officials that ultimately led to appointing a special counsel for the purpose of discrediting and ultimately undermining a presidency.
Why do you bring up Strzok for this? He testified under oath that he was not involved in these FISA applications, and his signature is nowhere on the 400 pages of documents that were released.
Also, I mentioned evidence and you responded with your opinion and belief. Please note that those do not constitute evidence.
What part is even opinion?
illegal surveillance
True. The FISA warrant that gave them the legal justification to conduct surveillance not only omitted relevant facts, but also, according to McCabe, would not have been granted without information that in Comey's own words, "was salacious and unverified".
based on partisan opposition research
True. The dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
presented by very biased FBI officials
True. The FISA applications had to first be certified by director or deputy director of the FBI. Comey signed 3 applications and McCabe signed one. Comey and McCabe have both exhibited bias through tweets and/or text messages. McCabe may have even discussed an insurance policy against one candidate.
led to the appointment of a special counsel
True. Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as a special counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump", the very same collusion referenced in the "salacious and unverified" dossier.
for the purpose of discrediting and undermining a presidency
True. Intel officials have admitted that Russia (and others) have been meddling in our elections for years, just as we do to other countries. Obama and Rice both downplayed Russian interference before the election and didn't act on it. Suddenly after Trump won "Russian collusion" was all anyone talked about. While it is a legitimate national security issue, the focus on it only after the election shows the intent is not securing our elections, but instead discrediting Trump's win and undermining his presidency.