FBI possibly put a spy in Trump campaign

The source for this is an Op ED in the Wall st journal, but its behind a pay wall so I linked a different source.

Some of the sources are anonymous and as always should be taken with a grain of salt, and it is an op ed, but the implications if this is true are staggering.

(I am quoting a lot, but I feel the everything I am quoting is relevant material.)

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

www.zerohedge.com...

If this is true, it is a major development.

This is more than wiretapping, or unmasking, or any of the other things we have seen so far.

This would be the FBI sending in a spy on their payroll to spy on the trump campaign. This would be a level of abuse so egregious that it would be unheard of.

The repercussions of this would be astounding. The threshold for the FBI to have a human spy in a Presidential campaign should have to be so extremely high that it would be almost impossible. I cant even imagine a scenario when this should happen.

And as the article says, if their was a spy, when was he planted? Was it based off of just the george Papdoulus story, or the dossier? Or was it before then?

And as usual, the FBI and DOJ claim they cant give congress the info because it will hurt national security. It was the same thing they said about the memos, which was a blatant lie.

Congress needs to get access to this stuff immediately.

Everyday more evidence comes out making the intel community and the FBI look bad, and if there is any truth to this story, it would be by far the biggest development so far.

Well, here is my surprised face..



Thanks for sharing tho.

Washington would have had them shot

a reply to: Grambler


Thanks for posting.. If true (and I believe it is given some people involved in this were already identified as FBI sources in other investigations) then people must be prosecuted.

The FBI and other alphabet agencies need to be completely gutted and started over.

The level of corruption and politicization has gone to far.

The name that is surfacing from educated folks is Carter Page.

He was an FBI informant, as we learned last year. Another
point is he has not been charged with anything.

originally posted by: burntheships
The name that is surfacing from educated folks is Carter Page.

He was an FBI informant, as we learned last year. Another
point is he has not been charged with anything.

But why would they then need a fisa warrant to spy on him?

Strassel says in the op ed she thinks she knows who it is, but wont release a name without confirmation.

She does seem to imply it is someone foriegn though, so Page wouldnt fit that bill.

Either way, this needs to come public if true.

The people deserve to know if the FBI put a spy in trumps campaign.

This entire investigation into Trump and the way the Obama admin / SC acted has eerie parallels to Oswald and the JFK assassination.

a reply to: Grambler

Oh I must have misunderstood then.

I was reading this part of the WSJ article that said
this person was a U.S. Citizen.

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.

www.wsj.com...

But in any case, this is beyond words, and this should not
be allowed to be covered up any further. I still think we
need someone to investgate these crimes, a second special
counsel. I know Sessions has appointed someone but can
we trust any of this? I think Congressional oversight should
be imperative at this point.

His name should be made public, whoever it is.

originally posted by: Grambler
But why would they then need a fisa warrant to spy on him?

The term you are looking for is parallel construction.

a law enforcement process of building a parallel—or separate—evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to conceal how an investigation actually began.

A person (civilian) acting on their own (in general) with no ties to law enforcement are not subject to the same legal constraints an official informant is while acting under the direction of law enforcement. An official informant who is used in court proceedings has to have a history of established reliability. That history needs to be documented (usually via reports / report notes - redacted). If an informant is directed to take an action it can run into the issues of coercion or entrapment.

Foreign assets would be able to avoid legal process to appear in court or it could be argued that using them would compromise national security operations, with the inclination being to accept and admit the testimony in one form or another without having the person present in court.

Either way the way the Obama admin acted is a disgrace and an affront to our Republic...

a reply to: burntheships

You could be right it might be Page, I have heard this elsewhere.

Here is the part from the article in the OP mentioning foriegn.

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.

And here is the author saying she thinks she knows who it is, but like a good journalist, wont publish a name until she has confirmation.

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

She also says Nunes and Gowdy were able to dig up a name, implying they know who this person is as well.

originally posted by: Grambler

She also says Nunes and Gowdy were able to dig up a name, implying they know who this person is as well.

Interesting, well whomever it is....

I think Nunes will get to the bottom of it. He certainly has the right to
inform the President, if he hasn't already.

ETA: I also agree with her, Trump should declassify everything, rip the thing open.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Grambler

She also says Nunes and Gowdy were able to dig up a name, implying they know who this person is as well.

Interesting, well whomever it is....

I think Nunes will get to the bottom of it. He certainly has the right to
inform the President, if he hasn't already.

It seems you are right about her thinking its a US citizen.

Who on trumps campaign in a US citizen that might be abroad and have ties to foreign intel services?

Does page fit that criteria?

Nvm.

a reply to: Grambler

I dont think its Carter Page. He has already been outed as an FBI informant and his name is already out there. I think it is someone else OR its a ploy to try and salvage this sham of an investigation by claiming someone new and unknown is reporting the same evidence as others.


We Were Right=> Rep. Devin Nunes: Carter Page Worked for FBI as Informant – Cooperated with FBI in 2013 (VIDEO)

It is right up there with Adam Schiff constantly claiming they have new evidence every time one of their talking points gets debunked.

a reply to: Grambler

Page is definitely a U.S. Citizen. He has been abroad,
though I do not know if he actually resided abroad.

He was only on Trump's campaign for a very short time,
a few months I believe.

It is clear that the FBI was turned into a political police force, commonly used in Socialist States to hold onto power.

The Obama people would have no problem employing secret political police, as they were sympathetic socialists themselves evidenced by their policies.

It's scary how close Obama was to transforming America, into a Socialist regime.

a reply to: Grambler

I don't think it says the person is a foreigner though:

This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both.

It just says that they are overseas and may have ties to foreign intelligence, not that they are foreign intelligence.

If it's Page that explains A LOT. The idea has been tossed around some by those following the details closely.

If these imperious bastards think they are going to get away with this like they are accustomed to getting away with stuff...I think they got another think coming this time.

They better hope it's from honest prosecutors and not a ticked-off public with pitchforks.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler

I don't think it says the person is a foreigner though:

This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both.

It just says that they are overseas and may have ties to foreign intelligence, not that they are foreign intelligence.

Maybe someone who worked for Steele?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler

I don't think it says the person is a foreigner though:

This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both.

It just says that they are overseas and may have ties to foreign intelligence, not that they are foreign intelligence.

Yep you are correct.

I have no idea who it could be.

Page may fit that bill, as george papadopoulos may as well.

Or ot could be a lesser known person.