It has been a couple of weeks of revelations within an intense battle of wills broke from House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (D-CA), the Department of Justice, and the Mueller investigation about a cache of intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refuses to deliver in response to a subpoena — a request Rosenstein equated to nothing less than “extortion.”
Information deemed so incredibly top-secret that the DOJ refused to show Nunes about the grounds that it “could risk lives by exposing the origin, a U.S. citizen that has supplied intelligence to the CIA and FBI” — that the agency finally relented on Wednesday, permitting Nunes and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to be given a classified briefing.
Then came the bombshell revelation via a disturbing op-ed from the Wall Street Journal by Kimberly Strassel alleging the FBI had infiltrated the Trump campaign with a mole.
A spy which Strassel thinks she knows the identity of but won’t print at this moment, she notes “I think I understand the name of the informant, but my intellect sources did not provide me and refuse to affirm it. It might, therefore, be irresponsible to print it.”
So it is apparently time to play whack-a-mole with the big leagues at Washington…so let’s go on a mole search. The Last Refuge notes February the Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was working as an “under-cover employee” (UCE) for the FBI — helping the agency construct a case against “Evgeny Buryakov,” Then — seven weeks afterwards, the FBI told a FISA court Page was a spy.
The Last Refuge notes “in April 2017, writing a story about Carter Page (trying to enhance/affirm the Russian narrative), the New York Times outlined Page’s connections into the Trump campaign. However, New York Times also references Page’s prior connection to the Buryakov case. If you ignore the story, you find the UCE1 description is Carter Page.”
Sarah Sanders Announces They Are ALL Banned From White House Successful NOW!
OANN’s Jack Posobiec took to Twitter to ask Page directly if the mole was instead of simply speculate. Page in return replied, denying the charge, saying — “But if what I am hearing alleged is correct, it’s a man I know who divides all of his time between inside the Beltway and in among those other Five Eyes countries,” adding “And if so, it would be typical: swamp critters placing themselves first.”
Another person of attention is Stefan Halper. Recall M16 is where Christopher Steele of the now notorious dossier had connections to too. In February 2016, Halper set up a meeting between Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos and former Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer.
Downer is a known Clinton crony and his suggestion to Australian authorities that Papadopoulos knew of hacked emails which could potentially result in injury to Hillary Clinton was regarded as a significant factor in the FBI’s decision to launch its counterintelligence operation contrary to the Trump effort.
According to this Daily Caller Halper also had other contacts with Trump effort officials as well, imagining “Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump effort associates.
Also of note, The New York Post’s Paul Sperry points out that Stefan Halper’s Wikipedia page was updated to include “He’s been exposed as a CIA along with M-16 spy supporting the FBI Russiagate investigations of the Trump Campaign and can be an informant into the Mueller Special Prosecutor investigation” — an inclusion which was instantly deleted.
Zero Hedge notes that maybe “Page and Halper are linked through London-based Hakluyt & Co.– founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to supply the type of otherwise inaccessible research for which pick governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay substantial sums.
Lately, Alexander Downer has been on their advisory board for a long time, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two novels. It’s possible to find a June 2004 movie of the group discussing their very first publication here. (h/t themarketswork.com)
Jonathan Clarke is your U.S. Representative — Director U.S. Operations for Hakluyt. Clarke is a rather public figure — but it had been quite tricky to locate references to his association with Hakluyt.
Given the long association between Halper and Clarke, I expect we’ll find additional connections between Halperalong with other members of Hakluyt and members of British Intelligence.
Halper’s association with former MI6 Head Richard Dearlove — through their previous positions at Cambridge Intelligence Seminar — is already known. –Themarketswork.com”
Now, it seems the most likely Person the FBI origin is would be Stephan Halper. He used him to confirm Steele and Downer.
It seems the rabbit hole truly is a deep one. Posobiec’s assessment about the FBI mole and on Hakluyt and on Halper’s potential involvement is in short — “Page got played.”
The Wall Street Journal again faked to release an op-ed this time from a 33-year veteran of the FBI who upon his own reflections of his biography at the Bureau and contemplating the debacle above, proclaims his “shock” at the utter and total disrespect being shown to Congress currently. As Thomas Baker notes “it truly is a change in society”
“Last week we heard that some Republican members of Congress are considering articles of impeachment from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if he does not hand over specific Federal Bureau of Investigation documents.
I spent 33 years in the FBI, including several functioning in the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. The recent deterioration in the agency’s relationship with Congress is shocking. It truly is a change in society.
In those times a statutory committee didn’t need a subpoena to get information from the FBI. Yes, we were especially responsive to the appropriations committees, which are crucial to the agency’s funding. But my colleagues and I shared a general sense that responding to congressional requests was the right thing to do.
The agency’s leaders often reminded us of Congress’s legitimate oversight function. This was especially true of the so called Gang of Eight, which was created by statute to guarantee the existence of a safe vehicle whereby congressional leaders could be briefed to the most sensitive counterintelligence or terrorism investigations.
On Aug. 27, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes requested the FBI to send certain documents immediately. The bulk of the files were not actually delivered until Jan. 11. I can not imagine Mr. Webster or even Mr. Freeh tolerating such a delay.
Among the documents Mr. Nunes requested is the electronic communication believed to have pioneered the counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump in July 2016. The FBI had previously provided a redacted text of the communication, but the Intelligence Committee desired to find out more.
On March 23 the agency essentially told the committee it would not lift the redactions. There are valid reasons why the FBI would need certain elements of a sensitive file redacted, like when information comes from a foreign partner.
But there are ways around these problems. Select members of Congress have in the past been allowed to read highly sensitive files under specific restrictions.
Former FBI Director James Comey didn’t even notify the Gang of Eight the agency had started a counterintelligence investigation to the campaign of a major-party candidate for president.
He insisted on March 20, 2017, that he had kept Congress in the dark about the Trump investigation because he had been advised to do so by his assistant director of counterintelligence–because of “the sensitivity of the problem.”
The Gang of Eight exists for exactly this goal. Not using it is inexplicable.
This isn’t how a law-enforcement agency must act under our system of separation of powers.
It will not be simple, but the American people deserve it and the Constitution requires it.”