"The Stakes Here Go Beyond Trump's Future" WSJ Editors Demand Truth About FBI Spying

Amid all the liberal media's meltdown over President Trump's "interference" in the 'investigation' by "hereby demanding" that potential crimes by Obama's FBI be investigated - and The Deep State's insistence that any exposure of the already-leaked name of the Trump campaign spy would damage national security - The Wall Street Journal refuses to back off its intense pressure to get to the truth.

President Trump dropped a three-tweet quote this morning...

John Brennan is panicking. He has disgraced himself, he has disgraced the Country, he has disgraced the entire Intelligence Community. He is the one man who is largely responsible for the destruction of American’s faith in the Intelligence Community and in some people at the...

...top of the FBI. Brennan started this entire debacle about President Trump. We now know that Brennan had detailed knowledge of the (phony) Dossier...he knows about the Dossier, he denies knowledge of the Dossier, he briefs the Gang of 8 on the Hill about the Dossier, which...

...they then used to start an investigation about Trump. It is that simple. This guy is the genesis of this whole Debacle. This was a Political hit job, this was not an Intelligence Investigation. Brennan has disgraced himself, he’s worried about staying out of Jail.”

- Dan Bongino

And WSJ appears to be doing just that - trying to get to the root of all this evil, which has time and again led to Brennan.

This "odd" action of actual news reporting comes as a shock to many as The Editorial Board asks some very awkward questions of various messianic people and institutions as reporter Kimberley Strassel's findings are proved correct and the truth is demanded...

Well, what do you know. The Federal Bureau of Investigation really did task an “informant” to insinuate himself with Trump campaign advisers in 2016. Our Kimberley Strassel reported this two weeks ago without disclosing a name.

We now have all but official confirmation thanks to “current and former government officials” who contributed to apologias last week in the New York Times and Washington Post. And please don’t call the informant a “spy.” A headline on one of the Times’ stories says the “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”

We’ll let readers parse that casuistic distinction, which is part of a campaign by the FBI and Justice Department to justify their refusal to turn over to the House Intelligence Committee documents related to the informant. Justice and the FBI claim this Capitol Hill oversight would blow the cover of this non-spy and even endanger his life. Yet these same stories have disclosed so many specific details about the informant whom we dare not call a spy that you can discover the name of the likeliest suspect in a single Google search.

We now know, for example, that the informant is “an American academic who teaches in Britain” who “served in previous Republican administrations.” He has worked as a “longtime U.S. intelligence source” for the FBI and the CIA.

The stories provide the names of the three Trump campaign officials who the informant sought to court— Carter Page, Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos —as well as specific dates and details of the encounters. He met with Mr. Page at a symposium at a “British university” in “mid-July,” and stayed in touch with him for more than year. He met with Mr. Clovis at a “hotel café in Crystal City,” Virginia, on “either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1.”

The informant didn’t previously know the three men but offered to help with the campaign. He also threw money at Mr. Papadopoulos, and the stories even report the exact language of the message the informant sent to Mr. Papadopoulos offering him a $3,000 honorarium to write a research paper and a paid trip to London. Media accounts differ about whether the informant asked the three men what they knew about Russia. But this sure sounds like a classic attempt to make friends for intelligence-gathering purposes.

This ought to disturb anyone who wants law enforcement and U.S. intelligence services to stay out of partisan politics. We can’t recall a similar case, even in the J. Edgar Hoover days, when the FBI decided it needed to snoop on a presidential campaign. Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Chairman, is seeking documents to learn exactly what happened, what triggered this FBI action, and how it was justified. This is precisely the kind of oversight that Congress should provide to assure Americans that their government isn’t spying illegally.

Yet now the same people who lionized Edward Snowden for stealing secrets about metadata—which collected phone numbers, not names—claim the FBI informant is no big deal. James Clapper, Barack Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, claims it was even a “good thing” that the FBI was monitoring the campaign for Russian influence.

Forgive us if we don’t trust Mr. Clapper, who leaked details related to the notorious Steele dossier to the press, as a proper judge of such snooping. Would he and the press corps be so blasé if the FBI under George W. Bush had sought to insinuate sources with Obama supporters like Rev. Jeremiah Wright or radical Bill Ayers during the 2008 campaign?

Incredibly, Democrats and their media friends are painting Mr. Nunes as the villain for daring even to ask about all this. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is making the rounds warning that “the first thing any new” committee member “learns is the critical importance of protecting sources and methods.”

Sure, but as far as we know Mr. Nunes hasn’t disclosed the source’s name—certainly not to us—even as anonymous Justice officials all but paint a neon path of details to the informant’s door. Justice and the FBI have disclosed more to their media Boswells than they have to the people’s representatives in Congress.

*  *  *

As is his habit, President Trump belly-flopped into this debate over the weekend with demands that Justice investigate whether his campaign was spied on. Justice officials quickly asked the Inspector General to investigate, and this will polarize the political debate even further.

But the stakes here go beyond Mr. Trump’s political future. The public deserves to know who tasked the informant to seek out Trump campaign officials, what his orders were, what the justification was for doing so, and who was aware of it. Was the knowledge limited to the FBI, or did it run into the Obama White House?

As important, what are the standards for the future? Could a Trump FBI task agents to look into the foreign ties of advisers to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2020? Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein need to clear the air by sharing what they and the FBI know with the House. This is bigger than blowing a source whose identity Justice leakers have already blown. This is about public trust in the FBI and Justice.

*  *  *

As President Trump tweeted "The Wall Street Journal asks, “WHERE IN THE WORLD WAS BARACK OBAMA?” A very good question!"

Where, indeed?


hedgeless_horseman LordWillingly Mon, 05/21/2018 - 12:01 Permalink


Trust the FBI?

The same FBI which...

...released the, "Five Dancing Israelis," that were arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around in a van that tested positive for explosives.  These were admitted Mossad agents working undercover in the USA.


Trust the FBI?

Not a chance.


In reply to by LordWillingly

strannick FireBrander Mon, 05/21/2018 - 12:03 Permalink

Dear tedious wsj legacy media. 

While your getting all uppity about truth n stuff;

How about you "demand" mr wikileaks goes free or at least gets back his internet, sos then we can at least get some interesting news

Or expose gold manipulation..


In reply to by FireBrander

techpriest GunnyG Mon, 05/21/2018 - 14:08 Permalink

The stories provide the names of the three Trump campaign officials who the informant sought to court— Carter Page, Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos

I remember Sam Clovis - he was running for Senator in Iowa, when he made a deal (mediated by the governor, Terry Branstad) in which he would drop out of the campaign and back Joni Ernst, and he would get State Treasurer and promises of future goodies for playing ball. And now it looks like he's out of Iowa and playing in Team Trump's big league. There was one other smaller player in that deal... wish I remembered his name because I wonder what he got out of it.

Also, one benefit of actually getting involved in a party is meeting these seemingly nice country folks who morph into swamp creatures. I don't know if he became this way or if he always was like this, and playing the locals.

In reply to by GunnyG

Joe Davola FireBrander Mon, 05/21/2018 - 12:20 Permalink

Since this clearly was run out of 1600 PA Ave, you address a good question - what was in it for Barry at this point?  He'd already put up with her for 4 years as Sec of State to payback her clearing the way for him in 2008.  She's certainly cultivated the bitch-to-be-reckoned-with persona, but is that enough for him to orchestrate/passively acquiesce many years later?  That doesn't add up for me - I'm more inclined to figure she had something on him, but what could that be when he was shuffling off into the sunset.

In reply to by FireBrander

SDShack DjangoCat Mon, 05/21/2018 - 14:23 Permalink

^^This. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. 0zer0 and Moochell are just like the Clintons in that all they care about is their own enrichment. What better way to stay on the ultimate gravy train then to replace the Clintons as the "New" power of the Democrat Party. I have always believed that 0zer0, Moochell and their power pullers like Valerie Jarret would be happy to see the Clintons destroyed and all that juicy Clinton Crime Family Foundation money being usurped to the New 0zer0 Community Organizer Fund. Like everything in the swamp... follow the money. This was all threatened by Trumps election because it could unmask the corruption. Hitlery was right about "we all have nooses around our necks if he wins", hence the need to destroy Trump, even after the fact. But by trying, the blowback is exposing the real truth. All so very Trump like, the criminals have been given enough rope to hang themselves, and their sociopathic nature is forcing them to do just that. Irony is not a strong enough word.

In reply to by DjangoCat

VideoEng_NC SDShack Mon, 05/21/2018 - 14:41 Permalink

Agreed, and this is why I keep harping on PDJT eventually needing to send in troops because nobody will be giving up easily.  Look at what people are saying today, they are literally losing their minds & making threats.  Combine this with other "false" narratives going on & the snapping point is reached even quicker.

In reply to by SDShack

Arctic Frost SDShack Mon, 05/21/2018 - 18:05 Permalink


Trumpderhang: (verb) :

  1. To supply rope in abundant proportions for the express purpose of exposing sociopathic natures. “Brennan was trumpderhanged when no one stopped him from talking.”
  2. Sitting back and allowing your enemies to bring their crimes to bare. “Comey’s book tour trumpderhung himself when he didn’t think to review his congressional testimony.  
  3. Manipulating an egomaniac through insults to cause toxic reaction. “Maxine Waters’ foot was left trumpderhanging from her mouth when she realized not one single Democrat got elected because of her impeachment rants.” 


In reply to by SDShack

chubbar strannick Mon, 05/21/2018 - 12:38 Permalink

What did Obama know and when did he know it? Why aren't any of the so called "MEDIA" asking this important question? Because they are complicit in trying to maintain a narrative that Trump is overstepping his authority and trying to intervene in the Russian Collusion investigation (which is a nothing burger).

Everyone of those assholes in the MSM should be charged with sedition along with the owners and editors of those companies. It's likely we'll have widespread civil unrest thanks to those assholes refusing to allow the truth to seep out to the morons who watch and believe the fake news they spread.

This is nothing short of a conspiracy to remove a sitting president. Everyone involved should be facing the death penalty and a military tribunal.

In reply to by strannick