The implications here are twofold.
1. The FBI was openly trying to help Hillary's campaign.
2. The FBI mole was the person trying to setup meetings with Russians and create crimes.
If this is true, a whole bunch of people need to go to jail.
1. The FBI was openly trying to help Hillary's campaign.
2. The FBI mole was the person trying to setup meetings with Russians and create crimes.
If this is true, a whole bunch of people need to go to jail.
Wake up people....they were and are trying to remove Trump. They know they are all fucked and will be charged with treason.
They are in a panic.
The good shit is about to start. They will all be outed and will pay for their treasonous actions.
Trump saved the country and the world.
People have no idea what this man has done and his greatness
They are in a panic.
The good shit is about to start. They will all be outed and will pay for their treasonous actions.
Trump saved the country and the world.
People have no idea what this man has done and his greatness
Rush Limbaugh spoke about this “secret source” yesterday on his show. The dirty Deep State doesn’t want Republican members of Congress to know the identity of the Obama spy inside the Trump campaign.
Rush Limbaugh argues that the hacks at the Washington Post know who it is.
From the Rush Limbaugh Show:
Rush Limbaugh argues that the hacks at the Washington Post know who it is.
From the Rush Limbaugh Show:
Now we move to the Kimberly… Well, I think it’s Kimberly Strassel wrote it. It’s the Wall Street Journal editorial that runs today. “The latest intel leak is designed to block a House subpoena. Late Tuesday the Washington Post published a story with the headline ‘Secret intelligence source who aided Mueller probe is at center of latest clash between Nunes and Justice Department.’
“The story [in the Post] reports that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes recently sent a classified letter and subpoena to the Justice Department demanding information about a ‘top secret intelligence source.’” Now, the editorial at the Journal says, “The story’s bias is that Mr. Nunes — you know, a nasty House Republican,” a really rascally Republican, “is threatening to compromise national security,” by trying to find out who this informant is. “Yet the article itself discloses details that suggest the Post already knows who this ‘top secret’ source is.
“For example, the source is a ‘U.S. citizen,’ has been an informant for both ‘the CIA and FBI,’ and has provided information that was given to” Mueller. So the Journal editorial claims the Post already knows who this source is — and if they do, why can’t Nunes? Well, Nunes learning somehow would violate national security. “The story also says intelligence officials fear that outing the source could ‘damage relationships with other countries.’” Well, only if the source is a foreign citizen, but we know now the source isn’t.
The source is a U.S. citizen, so outing the source would not damage relationships with other countries unless this source has also been involved in screwing other countries. But it suggests that the source has worked overseas. If they’re gonna claim that a U.S. citizen cannot be outed here because it might damage relationships other countries, it means he has worked overseas. Suggests it, anyway.
“And the story says the ‘role of the intelligence source’ could further provoke Republicans who have accused Justice and the FBI of engaging in ‘misuse of their surveillance power,’” and, here we go, “hinting that the government may have used the source to snoop on the Trump campaign.” There it is. So it’s a pretty safe bet that the FBI planted an informant in the Trump campaign. Nunes wants to know who it is; the DOJ says, “No way, Jose!”
The Washington Post probably does know who it is. They will not inform. Trump could end this today by declassifying all of this. But he doesn’t. Why doesn’t he? We’ve explored that on previous occasions, and I’ll go through it again if you want. But the point is this, these people — Mueller, the FBI, The DOJ, Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe — it is absolutely incredible but it may well be that they believed this!
Even after learning that the Steele dossier is phony baloney as anything else they could have written, they really believed it. So they had an informant in the Trump campaign who was there to catch and to discover and to witness Trump’s collusion with the Russians. If they had an informant in that campaign who was supposed to find the collusion and they still don’t have it? I mean, look at what we’re learning. They had an informant in the campaign, and they still don’t have any evidence!
Then what the hell is this investigation doing even being alive at this point?
“The story [in the Post] reports that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes recently sent a classified letter and subpoena to the Justice Department demanding information about a ‘top secret intelligence source.’” Now, the editorial at the Journal says, “The story’s bias is that Mr. Nunes — you know, a nasty House Republican,” a really rascally Republican, “is threatening to compromise national security,” by trying to find out who this informant is. “Yet the article itself discloses details that suggest the Post already knows who this ‘top secret’ source is.
“For example, the source is a ‘U.S. citizen,’ has been an informant for both ‘the CIA and FBI,’ and has provided information that was given to” Mueller. So the Journal editorial claims the Post already knows who this source is — and if they do, why can’t Nunes? Well, Nunes learning somehow would violate national security. “The story also says intelligence officials fear that outing the source could ‘damage relationships with other countries.’” Well, only if the source is a foreign citizen, but we know now the source isn’t.
The source is a U.S. citizen, so outing the source would not damage relationships with other countries unless this source has also been involved in screwing other countries. But it suggests that the source has worked overseas. If they’re gonna claim that a U.S. citizen cannot be outed here because it might damage relationships other countries, it means he has worked overseas. Suggests it, anyway.
“And the story says the ‘role of the intelligence source’ could further provoke Republicans who have accused Justice and the FBI of engaging in ‘misuse of their surveillance power,’” and, here we go, “hinting that the government may have used the source to snoop on the Trump campaign.” There it is. So it’s a pretty safe bet that the FBI planted an informant in the Trump campaign. Nunes wants to know who it is; the DOJ says, “No way, Jose!”
The Washington Post probably does know who it is. They will not inform. Trump could end this today by declassifying all of this. But he doesn’t. Why doesn’t he? We’ve explored that on previous occasions, and I’ll go through it again if you want. But the point is this, these people — Mueller, the FBI, The DOJ, Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe — it is absolutely incredible but it may well be that they believed this!
Even after learning that the Steele dossier is phony baloney as anything else they could have written, they really believed it. So they had an informant in the Trump campaign who was there to catch and to discover and to witness Trump’s collusion with the Russians. If they had an informant in that campaign who was supposed to find the collusion and they still don’t have it? I mean, look at what we’re learning. They had an informant in the campaign, and they still don’t have any evidence!
Then what the hell is this investigation doing even being alive at this point?
Bingo .
Stefan Halper checks off every single box:
√Currently overseas.
√Current/Former CIA operative.
√Current/Former source for FBI.
√Anti-Trump motive.
√Formerly put together this exact type of operation.
√Connections to UK spies/intel community/politicians.
√Connection to Australian spies/intel community.
√Connection to Alexander Downer.
√Political operative. √Wanted Clinton to win 2016 election.
√Connects to Carter Page. √Connects to George Papadopoulos. √Connects to John Brennan. ETC.
Two months ago Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller took a deep dive on how Stefan Halper interacted with George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. Halper was way too sketchy, and he was trying to initiate contacts with low-level Trump campaign aides.
The desperation in every John Brennan interview and tweet shows he knows the walls are crumbling . Don't forget he pushed the dossier to Harry Reid who passed it to Comey .
Law professr Glenn Reynolds posted his thoughts on the latest developments.
Glenn pointed out months ago that the spying on Trump was worse than we can even imagine.
Glenn pointed out months ago that the spying on Trump was worse than we can even imagine.
I don’t think the FBI is being straight. I’m speculating, of course, but I think it’s going to turn out that they were spying on Trump from surprisingly early on, and that they didn’t expect him to win, and that when he did win, the Russian “collusion” thing was hyped up as a smokescreen.
Flashback, March 2017: “Hypothesis: The spying-on-Trump thing is worse than we even imagine, and once it was clear Hillary had lost and it would inevitably come out, the Trump/Russia collusion talking point was created as a distraction.”
Plus: “But if they thought Hillary was sure to win, why bother spying on Trump? A sinister reason: To prosecute him — for something, anything they could discover — after he lost, so as to properly cow Hillary’s opposition. That might be true, but on the other hand, LBJ spied on Goldwater when his win was assured, and Nixon did the same vs. McGovern. Why would unthreatened incumbents spy on opponents they expect to lose? Maybe they do it for the same reason a dog licks himself: Because he can.”
Still just a hypothesis, but one that seems increasingly likely to be true. And if it is, the sinister reason also seems more likely to be true.
Flashback, March 2017: “Hypothesis: The spying-on-Trump thing is worse than we even imagine, and once it was clear Hillary had lost and it would inevitably come out, the Trump/Russia collusion talking point was created as a distraction.”
Plus: “But if they thought Hillary was sure to win, why bother spying on Trump? A sinister reason: To prosecute him — for something, anything they could discover — after he lost, so as to properly cow Hillary’s opposition. That might be true, but on the other hand, LBJ spied on Goldwater when his win was assured, and Nixon did the same vs. McGovern. Why would unthreatened incumbents spy on opponents they expect to lose? Maybe they do it for the same reason a dog licks himself: Because he can.”
Still just a hypothesis, but one that seems increasingly likely to be true. And if it is, the sinister reason also seems more likely to be true.
