Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

I took the title from the NYT article out today about the FBI counterintelligence investigation that was launched following the sharing of information about the Papadopoulos meeting.

It's rather lengthy but buried in there I believe are some new details and perhaps some context. I'll excerpt the interesting bits:

The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.

So the first thing we learn is that the investigation was named Crossfire Hurricane (a reference to the Stones' lyric "I was born in a crossfire hurricane") and that directly after it was opened, a pair of FBI agents flew to London and interviewed Australian Amb. Alexander Downer. Next we learn how closely held to the vest the investigation was — only five DOJ people knew about it.

They were fearful of leaks and of exposing the existence of the investigation so they considered and rejected the idea of interviewing key Trump campaign officials. This is out of sequence with the article but Strzok was apparently one of the agents who interviewed Downer and he didn't seem too keen on the investigation upon returning:

“I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,” Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.

The FBI were focused on four Trump campaign members in the early months (Flynn, Manafort, Page and Papadopoulos):

The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. Each was scrutinized because of his obvious or suspected Russian ties.

This is relevant to the latest pro-Trump narrative about "a mole" in the Trump campaign. Sources also make reference to something that I've never heard of.

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.

There's this bit to add possible context to the "insurance policy" text message from Strzok to Page:

But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.

Mr. Strzok had similarly argued for a more aggressive path during the Clinton investigation, according to four current and former officials. He opposed the Justice Department’s decision to offer Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers immunity and negotiate access to her hard drives, the officials said. Mr. Strzok favored using search warrants or subpoenas instead.

In both cases, his argument lost.

What's being said here is that in McCabe's office, Page advocated for keeping the investigation minimal. In the larger context as laid out in the article, the team knew that they weren't going to get to any resolution before the election (investigation started 100 days prior to Election Day) and apparently Page argued that Trump wasn't going to win so there was no need to go big and risk exposing the investigation's existence. Strzok on the other hand is said to have advocated for a more aggressive approach. According to sources he did the same with Clinton. Speaking of which:

Mr. Strzok had similarly argued for a more aggressive path during the Clinton investigation, according to four current and former officials. He opposed the Justice Department’s decision to offer Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers immunity and negotiate access to her hard drives, the officials said. Mr. Strzok favored using search warrants or subpoenas instead.

Other things of note are that Sally Yates signed the first FISA warrant application for Carter Page:

Ms. Yates, the deputy attorney general under President Barack Obama, signed the first warrant application. But subsequent filings were approved by members of Mr. Trump’s own administration: the acting attorney general, Dana J. Boente, and then Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.

The FBI got more serious about the investigation after Brennan shared intel about the hacking with Comey:

The F.B.I.’s thinking crystallized by mid-August, after the C.I.A. director at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election. Intelligence agencies began collaborating to investigate that operation. The Crossfire Hurricane team was part of that group but largely operated independently, three officials said.

Finally we have Marco Rubio saying he's seen no evidence that the political motivation was behind the opening of the investigation:

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.

“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”

Mr. Rubio, who has reviewed many of the texts and case files, said he saw no signs that the F.B.I. wanted to undermine Mr. Trump. “There might have been individual agents that had views that, in hindsight, have been problematic for those agents,” Mr. Rubio said. “But whether that was a systemic effort, I’ve seen no evidence of it.”

I'm sure I missed some things, the article is fairly long.

So about this national security letter. Basically, they're subpoenas that aren't approved by a judge that can be used for national security investigations. Even though they cannot request the content of communications (actual recorded calls, emails, etc), they get call logs and transactions, that sure as hell sounds unconstitutional.

Wikipedia - National Security Letter

A national security letter (NSL) is an administrative subpoena issued by the United States government to gather information for national security purposes.[citation needed] NSLs do not require prior approval from a judge. The Stored Communications Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Right to Financial Privacy Act authorize the United States government to seek such information that is "relevant" to authorized national security investigations. By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails.[1]

NSLs typically contain a nondisclosure requirement forbidding the recipient of an NSL from disclosing that the FBI had requested the information.[2] The nondisclosure provision must be authorized by the Director of the FBI, and only after he or she certifies "that otherwise there may result a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person."[3] Even then, the recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court.[4]

It looks like this is something that is issued directly by the Director of the FBI. I suppose an argument could be made that congressional committee chairs have more or less unfettered ability to issue subpoenas as well. Since the 1930s, contempt of Congress is referred to the DOJ for prosecution. I imagine that similarly, if the subpoena is refused, the DOJ could take the recipient to federal court.

I can't wait to hear the other version of this. You know, the one that explains how there was a spy in the campaign headquarters and they had been wiretapping the entire Trump staff. I'm sure it will be legitimized and hand waved away, but it's always nice to have a few version of the truth floating around.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The New York Times.

That says all I need to know about this story.


Third day in a row Ante. How's does it feel having a Trump tower in your head?

It was actually a "dirty up" operation with spies and sources inserted into the campaign that had alleged ties to Russia.

The FBI knew that Carter Page wasn't dirty because he had gone undercover and helped them convict a Russian by having a notebook he was carrying "wired."

Papadopolous was dirtied up when Stefan Halper contacted him and Downer (a Clinton ally) was used to engage Papa in a conversation.

Deripaska and Manafort---where do I begin?

Natalia Veselnitskaya was working with Fusion GPS and met Glenn Simpson apparently before and after the Trump Tower meeting.

So far it doesn't appear there was any official 5-Eyes info used and no information that would validate a counter-intelligence operation against a Presidential candidate.

The only real Russian Collusion was between Steele and whomever he allegedly paid money to for the unverified stories. If Russia wanted to cause disruption in our election process---there ya' go.

a reply to: RickinVa

After you post, I realized I hadn't been posting enough about Trump so I stepped it up.

a reply to: The GUT

No Gut the conspiracy is to use Trump as a flack and then get rid of him.

He already has littered his administration with the very conspirators who elected him for this purpose—the neocons.


When this crooked, I don’t even know what to call Trump, now a politician, gets tossed out, then they will come back strong and Trump will have just about destroyed things so much they’ll be welcome!



Why would the Russians want to dirty up anybody unless blackmail was behind it?

It’s a strange idea the FBI wanted to get Trump because the FBI is with the very conspirators who elected Trump.

Also, Comey virtually elected Trump with his public statement that Hillary was still under investigation.

a reply to: network dude

I'm sure Nunes is cooking up a memo now. The entire Trump staff was wiretapped? And you're getting that from...? "Spy in the campaign headquarters?" That's quite hyperbolic. What it says is that a government informant met with Papadopoulos and Carter Page on multiple occasions.

But hey, maybe they should have made the whole thing as public and high profile as possible. They could have hauled in the whole lot of them right then and there and interviewed them. Then leaked details. Comey could have announced the opening of the investigation and hell — given weekly status reports.

You know, to make the handling of sensitive FBI investigations during the election "fair" for both candidates.

The fact of the matter is that given everything, the FBI counterintelligence investigation was more than appropriate. Trump should probably personally thank them for not blowing up his campaign.

Adam Goldman was just being interviewed and what he said of the informant:

"There was an individual who had ties to the FBI who was tasked after the investigation opened who made contact with Papadopoulos" and "had frequent contact with Carter Page. Repeatedly throughout 2017 in the Virginia metro area."

This would suggest that it wasn't a "spy in the campaign headquarters" at all.

but it's always nice to have a few version of the truth floating around.

And that's always ironic coming from the mouth of a Trump supporter. When it comes to Dear Leader, there's always the first lie, the follow up lie, Donald Trump (usually) blowing up both lies and then a bunch of different conflicting narratives to paint the lying as not-lying until the news cycle moves on.

originally posted by: theantediluvian


Finally we have Marco Rubio saying he's seen no evidence that the political motivation was behind the opening of the investigation:

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.

And this tickles me. Given all the news and stories that have been released about the Never Trump movement and the text messages between high level FBI folks, involving the head of the FBI, the past Head of the FBI, and some other previous leaders of the IC, to think that this wasn't politically motivated would be idiotic. Marco, you lost the plot a good while back.

I honestly don't think Trump is taking these people who oppose him seriously enough. They have been actively involved in a coup attempt, and in quite a few countries, they would be executed for that. Here, we give them jobs at #ing CNN.




ETA, the formatting sucks ass today. YAA!

edit on 16-5-2018 by network dude because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

I'm sure Nunes is cooking up a memo now. The entire Trump staff was wiretapped? And you're getting that from...? "Spy in the campaign headquarters?" That's quite hyperbolic. What it says is that a government informant met with Papadopoulos and Carter Page on multiple occasions.

But hey, maybe they should have made the whole thing as public and high profile as possible. They could have hauled in the whole lot of them right then and there and interviewed them. Then leaked details. Comey could have announced the opening of the investigation and hell — given weekly status reports.

You know, to make the handling of sensitive FBI investigations during the election "fair" for both candidates.

The fact of the matter is that given everything, the FBI counterintelligence investigation was more than appropriate. Trump should probably personally thank them for not blowing up his campaign.

Adam Goldman was just being interviewed and what he said of the informant:

"There was an individual who had ties to the FBI who was tasked after the investigation opened who made contact with Papadopoulos" and "had frequent contact with Carter Page. Repeatedly throughout 2017 in the Virginia metro area."

This would suggest that it wasn't a "spy in the campaign headquarters" at all.

but it's always nice to have a few version of the truth floating around.

And that's always ironic coming from the mouth of a Trump supporter. When it comes to Dear Leader, there's always the first lie, the follow up lie, Donald Trump (usually) blowing up both lies and then a bunch of different conflicting narratives to paint the lying as not-lying until the news cycle moves on.

I think it will be fun to revisit this post in a few months. One of us will look foolish, I believe. But I don't think repeating the theory that Indeed the entire Trump organization was wiretapped, (how else would they be able to unmask those who they wanted to indict?) is too far of a stretch. It just hasn't been verified......yet.

And to throw in that last jab? LOL, coming form a poster with TDS such as yourself, it makes me smile. I don't really do as much supporting as I do defending. But when things go well, it does make me happy. It must be hell to have to find a way to be angry with things happen that are good for everyone involved. Remember to take that blood pressure medicine. I'd hate for you to have issues from your TDS.

a reply to: The GUT

This hypothesis doesn't look good on its face. It was a "dirty up operation" that started in May, anticipated the DNC hack, and wasn't actually used to "dirty up" Trump throughout the election.

Remarkably, they also counted on Trump hiring Manafort, Don Jr taking that meeting with Veselnitskaya, Carter Page page flying to Moscow in July, etc.

I mean that's what you're saying right? That "they" (the DNC/Deep State/Clinton campaign/Reptilian overlords/NWO/FBI/DOJ/MSM/establishment/RINOs/Globalists/whatever) somehow anticipated all these events, perfectly orchestrated events to entrap all these people, etc — all in the name of "dirtying up" Trump (I guess that's slightly more specific than the always popular "hurt Trump").

And yet, they didn't actually use it to "dirty up" Trump during the election (I bet they also hacked his teleprompter and made him fawn over Putin too those bastards) and then, these ultimate puppeteers, these 4,000-D chess playing ethically bankrupt masters of the universe couldn't manage to fake some actionable evidence to accomplish the goal of their mega plot?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well shoot, its behind a paywall for me.

Does anyone have a link thats not?

Obviously I would want to read it before making up my mind entirely, but I trust you have presented the info in a fair manner, so I will comment on a little of it.

1. Isnt it convenient that this operation was basically hush hush except for a small group of people, who by the way almost all entirely hated trump. Comey, Brennan, Strzok, Clapper, etc?

Take that into account that they started by meeting Downer, the Australian diplomat that facilitated the Clintons foundation getting millions of dollars from Australia. And all over what, a low level trump campaign person drunkenly saying a russian said there were dirty emails on hillary?

Wont this look real bad if it turns out the Papadopoulos met with the FBI "source" inside Trumps campaign before his russian meeting?

2. The part you cite about the FBI taking a minimal approach because they thought Hillary would win.

Am I the only one who is getting tired of this? We had texts from strzok and page saying they hoped they wouldnt look bad to hillary for investigating when she won. We had comey say his decision to announce the investigation of Hillary after the weiner laptop was because he assumed hillary would win. Now this.

I dont care what side it helps or hurts; the FBI should not be making decisions based on who they feel will win politically. This should outrage pro and anti trump people alike.

3. All of the sudden, it now seems that Obamas admin did spy on trumps team; much worse than originally thought.

They had a person inside his team, they wiretapped page, they subpoenaed phone records on people as you mention.

This is outrageous!

Now what happens if they cant prove any trump/russia collusion? Now we have a bunch of higher ups in the intel community that hated trump using oppo research from his opponent to launch an investigation and get wiretaps against trump associates, a spy placed by them on trumps team, and phone records taken by them of trumps team. And all of this may have occurred when there actually was no collusion between trump and russia.

Well I guess that sets the precedent.

Now all that Trump needs to do to spy on his opponents is to have a diplomat that is an associate of his say he heard a democrat say russia or china or some other country may have dirty emails of Trump. Then he may place spies in their campaign, get phone records, get wiretaps, etc.

And if that leads to years long investigations where his opponents team is unmasked, and all sorts of other crimes are investigated, so be it.

All in all, from what I have read of this article, it appears it may be very damning for the intel community.

Again, I hope someone can post a link I can read so I can see more of it.

So, now they're trying to throw the FBI under the bus for Hillary losing the election? After their phony evidence failed to derail Trump's campaign, they're now going to blame the FBI for not making a public spectacle about it quickly enough?

Seriously?

a reply to: The GUT

Also to add:

If Chuck Ross's sources are correct, Halper could very well be the informant but Stefan Halper didn't contact Papadopoulos until two months prior to the election.

Fusion GPS had been working FOR Veselnitskaya (for her clients to be precise but she was their rep and they were contractors) but Simpson had nothing to do with the meeting (other than Fusion GPS being being paid for the anti-Browder/pro-Kremlin research that she was shopping around Capitol Hill with Rohrbacher's help).

We know how that meeting came to be. Veselnitskaya contacted Agalarov who had Goldstone reach out to the Trumps. That's straight from the Agalarov's attorney. The whole Trump Tower meeting is a bit of a red herring. Veselnitskaya's team had been having similar meetings with lots of people at the same time. It was only the way that Goldstone conveyed the nature of it to Don Jr that makes it particularly relevant.

But it's alright now.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Trying to get back in front of the lies and the "dirty up" operation. Everywhere you look it's an obvious scam. What's sad is folk like the OP becoming a cheerleader for the deep state.

Lol---CNN is having a field day now that they have a code name. They've said it probably hundreds of times already. I'm sure having a "code name" is all it takes for the low-information types to give it legitimacy in their minds.

a reply to: network dude

And to throw in that last jab? LOL, coming form a poster with TDS such as yourself, it makes me smile. I don't really do as much supporting as I do defending. But when things go well, it does make me happy. It must be hell to have to find a way to be angry with things happen that are good for everyone involved. Remember to take that blood pressure medicine. I'd hate for you to have issues from your TDS.

"I'm not a supporter, I'm a defender!"
"TDS! TDS! TDS!"

Yawn.

a reply to: RickinVa

Yea too bad it isn’t from a conservative propaganda factory like brietbart or infowars? Huh?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Fusion GPS had been working FOR Veselnitskaya (for her clients to be precise but she was their rep and they were contractors) but Simpson had nothing to do with the meeting (other than Fusion GPS being being paid for the anti-Browder/pro-Kremlin research that she was shopping around Capitol Hill with Rohrbacher's help).

How would you know Simpson had nothing to do with it? All the evidence suggests that he did.

Veselnitskaya...you mean Fusion GPS was working with Russians in helping mitigate/overturn the Magnitsky Act? The same thing they initially accused the Trump campaign of doing in meeting with Veselnitskaya? Oh the irony. And very telling for anyone with any investigative ability.

Further, Simpson is obviously corrupted and lying when he testified--believe it or not--that he didn't know what he and Veselnitskaya talked about after the tower meeting because he doesn't speak Russian and she doesn't speak English. How in the world do they do business lol?

Also: Veselnitskaya got a special passport to be here during the time that she was needed. I wonder who approved that, eh?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: RickinVa

Yea too bad it isn’t from a conservative propaganda factory like brietbart or infowars? Huh?

I don't read normally read or much much stock into either of those sites for obvious reasons.