by WorldTribune Staff, May 20, 2018
A 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor with long-time ties to U.S. and British intelligence has been incrementally outed by multiple reports as the operative inserted by the FBI to spy on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
While media outlets first hinted and then named Stefan Halper as the spy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said deep state actors are likely keeping Congress from learning if others infiltrated the campaign.
“We asked for specific documents that we still have not received from the Department of Justice. So they continue to leak out things about this informant and we don’t know if there is one informant or more informants because there’s so much out there now,” Nunes told Fox News on May 20.
“We have a right to get the information,” he said. “If James Comey and many others and people who are currently at the Department of Justice today continue to say there’s nothing to see here – well, if there’s nothing to see here, show us the documents we’re asking for.”
President Trump tweeted on May 19: “If the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that is a really big deal.”
Meanwhile, cable news networks which have devoted nearly 24/7 coverage to all the president’s alleged scandals were conspicuously silent on the revelations of the FBI’s spying on Trump’s campaign.
Larry O’Connor, associate opinion editor for The Washington Times, noted “We’ve talked to death the subject of Trump’s knowledge of (or lack of) paying his attorney for an alleged bimbo eruption, but no one seems the slightest bit curious over when President Obama knew that his FBI was spying on his chosen successor’s political opponent just weeks before the 2016 election.”
“The bottom line remains: President Obama spied on the Trump campaign using wire taps, moles and spies, and James Comey’s FBI hid the fact from congress for nearly a year. Where’s the outrage?”
O’Connor continued: “How has the brain-trust that powers the endless, navel-gazing round table discussions on Morning Joe, Hardball and every single program on CNN (shouldn’t some of their shows dabble in a varied format?) not found a way to muster the slightest inquisitive segment on what is clearly a historic story comparable to Watergate?”
The New York Times article last week, O’Connor wrote, paints “a picture of an Obama White House meddling in a presidential election at a level that would make Vladimir Putin green with envy:
- “The story says the FBI was worried that if it came out they were spying on Trump campaign it would “only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.” It is easy to understand how learning that the FBI was spying on one’s presidential campaign might reinforce claims of election-rigging.”
- “Now we learn that it wasn’t just (Carter) Page, but that the government was going after four campaign affiliates including the former campaign manager, the top foreign policy adviser, and a low-level adviser whose drunken claim supposedly launched the investigation into the campaign. The bureau says Trump’s top foreign policy adviser and future national security adviser – a published critic of Russia – was surveiled because he spoke at an event in Russia sponsored by Russia Today, a government-sponsored media outlet.”
- “The surveillance didn’t just include wiretaps, but also national security letters and at least one government informant to spy on the campaign.”
The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, told O’Connor that “Everybody knew about it. The agents’ texts made that clear. The Susan Rice, the memo she wrote, the ‘CYA’ memo she wrote going out the door makes that clear. The White House had to know about this from the start. And look, Larry, it’s the kind of thing… An important thing about counterintelligence… there’s nothing wrong with the president knowing about it. Because, unlike criminal investigations and prosecutions where we don’t want the political people interfering in the four corners of the case, counterintelligence is done for the president. The purpose of it is to gather intelligence, to gather information to enable the president to carry out his most important constitutional responsibility which is protecting the country from foreign threats to national security.”
The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross had reported in late March on Halper’s involvement.
“Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered – and he would accept – during the presidential campaign.
“The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.
“Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers.”
Zero Hedge noted that “These contacts are notable, as Halper’s infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with two of the four targets of the FBI’s Operation Crossfire Hurricane – in which the agency sent counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer – who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton’s emails.”
Subscribe to Geostrategy-Direct __________ Support Free Press Foundation
Questions dog outing of FBI’s spy in Trump campaign: Were there others? Where’s the outrage? added by World Tribune on
View all posts by World Tribune →