WSJ: The FBI Hid A Mole In The Trump Campaign

On Wednesday we reported on an intense battle playing out between House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), the Department of Justice, and the Mueller investigation concerning a cache of intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refuses to hand over - a request he equated to "extortion."

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that Nunes was denied access to the information on the grounds that it "could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI."

After the White House caved to Rosenstein and Nunes was barred from seeing the documents, it also emerged that this same intelligence had already been shared with Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his investigation into alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 US election.

On Wednesday afternoon, however, news emerged that Nunes and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) would receive a classified Thursday briefing at the DOJ on the documents. This is, to put it lightly, incredibly significant.

Why? Because it appears that the FBI may have had a mole embedded in the Trump campaign

In a bombshell op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel shares a few key insights about recent developments. Perhaps we should start with the ending and let you take it from there. Needless to say Strassel's claims, if true, would have wide ranging implications for the CIA, FBI, DOJ and former Obama administration officials.

Strassel concludes: 

"I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it."

Authored by Kimberley Strassel, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal,

About That FBI ‘Source’

Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?
And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.

We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.


ThaBigPerm ZENDOG Fri, 05/11/2018 - 08:01 Permalink

I'm opening the betting windows that it's Carter Page.  First, it was revealed he was the one they used the "dossier" to obtain a Title I FISA warrant on.  That turns the target into a walking, talking wire tap complete with Midas touch - they can listen in on anyone that target makes any contact with, and it spreads out from there.  Then it was revealed Carter is an FBI informant.  So the cherry on top would be if he was also the informant planted by the FBI - plant him in there, cook up a phony dossier, then cry to the FISA court they need a Title I warrant on their own guy embedded in the campaign.

In reply to by ZENDOG

Joe Davola HockeyFool Fri, 05/11/2018 - 09:10 Permalink

As the article speculates, will be interesting to see the timeline.  I would bet a lot that the Papadopolous stuff was cooked up as cover after the fact.  As Perm states - they already had their guy in place to use as the FISA raison d'etre.  Shady as fuck - how did this not get exposed?  I would suspect enough DOJ/FBI people knew, and apparently all of them were willing to trample the law.

The quote from Stalin/one of his henchmen about picking the man then coming up with the crime is so appropriate here.

In reply to by HockeyFool

Joe Davola CatInTheHat Fri, 05/11/2018 - 09:49 Permalink

Pretty soon we should start to see the articles that the co-conspirators in this Watergate++ crime be spun as just average Joe's trying to get ahead by doing what they think the higher ups want them to (a la Lois Lerner).

I see 2 reasons the White House would side with DOJ on the release to congress:

1.  They want to be able to do the same thing.

2.  DOJ lied to them on what went on an the risk of exposing it.

Neither option is a comforting thought.

In reply to by CatInTheHat

MarsInScorpio revolla Fri, 05/11/2018 - 09:22 Permalink

Meet revolla, the newest AI TrollBot.

Same algo template as beepbop, same Bot Net infected file to drag you into their criminal BotNet.

Meanwhile,  the Tylers do as much about this criminal enterprise as does Sessions about the DOJ/FBI franchise.

If you're hot to get your computer infected, click on the end-of-comment link.


In reply to by revolla

Tarzan ThaBigPerm Fri, 05/11/2018 - 16:41 Permalink

It makes sense to me, with all his Russian friends.  He'd be the perfect double agent to tempt Trump with a Russian honey pot, or any scheme involving his many Russian Business contacts.

If they can prove Page was on the FBI payroll before the election, pretending to work on behalf of Trump's campaign while spying on him, and worse, attempting to entrap him, and still yet this coup continues, Trump will have no option but to fire every last one of them, Mueller, Rosenstein, and Sessions. And hopefully fires all three at the same time, live before the American people, at high noon, "YOUR FIRED". 

He should appoint Gowdy over DOJ.  Then abandon the Haspel nomination, and appoint Nunes as the new director of CIA.

Then, to begin weeding out in earnest, he should openly and independently audit every dime every agency of the US Government spends. 

Simply follow the money trail!

In reply to by ThaBigPerm

Vilfredo Pareto ThaBigPerm Fri, 05/11/2018 - 17:50 Permalink

Names please.  We need the name.  I no longer believe the bullshit it puts lives in danger.  Not in this case.  Stefan Halper or carter page would be perfectly safe.  If it is stefan halper then the british government colluded in trump surveillance or entrapment or both.   I doubt anybody else believes bullshit spewing and manipulative agencies trying to hide the stuff they have  on trump campaign surveillance either when they say "lives are at stake" in this case

In reply to by ThaBigPerm

Vilfredo Pareto Tarzan Fri, 05/11/2018 - 18:03 Permalink

Lavoy could have lived if he wanted to.  You don't yell "shoot me" several times and fail to cooperate then turn on a guy coming behind you with your hand hidden unless you have a death wish lol.  


I don't excuse some of their other stuff from the 90's though.  That is why I was ready to rumble if there had been a Bundy ranch match #2 lol.  But Lavoy caused his incident.

In reply to by Tarzan

techpriest Tarzan Fri, 05/11/2018 - 18:08 Permalink

More to the point, given the video evidence, he likely knew either that 1) Someone had to die, and better him than anyone else in the car, or 2) that most Americans would not care about what the BLM does unless it caused someone to die in a very public way, and again, he figured it was better him than anyone else in that crazy operation.

In reply to by Tarzan

bchbum ZENDOG Fri, 05/11/2018 - 14:43 Permalink

The FBI and CIA are tools of the Oligarchs used to rule over the people and keep these families in power.  Carroll Quigley admitted America is an Oligarchy in his 1300 page tome, "Tragedy and Hope".  Families like the: Rockefeller, DuPont, Morgan, Mellon, Ford, etc.  David Rockefeller left most of his money to Rothschild, as did JP Morgan and Cecil Rhodes.  That gives you an idea of who really runs things. (I believer there are a group of families behind the Rothschilds).  There is your NWO.  The people don't matter.  All that matters is that these people stay in power, forever.  They consider themselves a breakaway civilization.

In reply to by ZENDOG