May 23, 2018
It is now the first anniversary of the special counsel probe, headed by Robert Mueller, into the Trump campaign and possible Russian collusion. Taking into account the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe, along with the two congressional investigations, the end of July will begin the third year that Trump and his associates have been under the Russian cloud of suspicion.
In spite of these lengthy investigations, and the prolific media coverage of Russian collusion, it is still unclear what event(s) were the catalyst for the counterintelligence investigation opened by the FBI on July 31, 2016.
According to a recent article in the New York Times the investigation, given the code name Crossfire Hurricane, was spurred by the actions of a brief low- level volunteer campaign aide, George Papadopoulos. Just weeks after joining the Trump campaign Papadopolous met Joseph Mifsud, a London- based professor, with connections among Russian officials. During a meeting that took place on April 26, 2016, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.
Papadopoulos relayed this information to an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, at a London bar on May 10, 2016. As reported in the NYT, although not confirmed by the Australian government, months later, when news of the Democratic hacking became public, Australian officials notified their American counterparts of this meeting. Interesting side note, in 2006 Downer was instrumental in securing a $25 million donation from his country to the Clinton Foundation.
If a hearsay statement from an unknown professor to Papadopoulos, a volunteer aide newly with the campaign truly was the impetus for the start of a counterintelligence investigation into the campaign of a presidential candidate, there are some aspects of the leaked narrative that are perplexing. For starters, why did the FBI wait six months after the probe began to interview Papadopoulos? It makes little sense to not immediately seek out and question the primary player in a situation that supposedly sparked an investigation of this magnitude.
Further, it was public knowledge that Hillary Clinton used a home-brewed unsecured server to relay her email transmissions while Secretary of State. Many had assumed that Russia already had access to her emails. Should the FBI have really found this fourth-hand information serious enough to open a probe on a presidential campaign using their intelligence capabilities against American citizens?
According to the NYT four Trump campaign aides were monitored in the early stages of the probe. The four men included Paul Manafort – Trump’s short- lived campaign manager, Mike Flynn- Trump’s then National Security Advisor, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page- brief campaign advisors. In the case of Carter Page, Obama’s Department of Justice applied for and was granted a foreign intelligence surveillance warrant four times. This warrant has been the subject of much controversy for a number of reasons, the most contentious is that the now disproven salacious dossier was presented as evidence to the FISA court.
Many have made the point that the surveillance on Page did not equate to spying on the Trump campaign because it took place after he had left his advisory position. This is a disingenuous argument. Yes, the warrant was issued shortly after he had left his position. However, the warrant allowed the FBI to look back at his prior emails, and phone calls. Undoubtedly, this warrant gave the FBI access to calls and the content of emails involving other members of the Trump campaign. It’s noteworthy that in spite of the DOJ apparently believing that this very intrusive tactic was necessary, Page has never been charged with any crime related to Russia, the Trump campaign, or collusion.
Another tool used by the DOJ and FBI was a secret subpoena called a National Security Letter. This enabled the DOJ and FBI to monitor various data of members of Trump’s team such as phone records and email records (not content). This type of surveillance does not require a judge’s approval.
It doesn’t end there. Obama’s intelligence agencies also employed an informant, named Stefan Halper, who was tasked with ingratiating himself to Page, Papadopoulos, and another Trump campaign associate Sam Clovis. Alarmingly, Page’s first encounter with Halper occurred in early July, predating the July 31st date that the FBI has claimed the counterintelligence investigation began.
Many have discredited the concerns of those criticizing the use of a paid informant. They claim that it is not unusual for the FBI to use such a method to solicit information. Perhaps this is true. However, first, where is the evidence that the Trump campaign was working with Russia, which would warrant such intrusion? Second, is it really standard operating procedure for the administration in power to employ an informant to spy on the campaign of the opposition party? This is a very important distinction left out of the conversation by many pundits.
James Clapper’s, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, explanation that the informant was a “good thing”, and was not spying on the Trump campaign, only on Russia, is laughable. Clapper’s implication was that they were looking to protect Trump and his associates from Russian interference. According to our intelligence agencies Clinton’s campaign manager’s emails along with the emails of the Democrat National Committee were hacked by the Russians. Did the FBI hire an informant to spy on her campaign? Also, if they were only interested in Russia, and not the Trump campaign, why didn’t the FBI inform Trump and his associates regarding their concerns surrounding Russia? It could be speculated that the actually goal was not to prevent Russian interference, but to ensnare the campaign in collusion with Russia with the hope of preventing a Trump presidency. Incredibly, it has also been reported that there was more than one paid FBI informant spying on the Trump campaign.
Granted, Halper never joined the campaign as a mole, but that was not for a lack of an attempt. Clovis has stated that at a meeting in early September 2016, Halper had expressed a desire to help Trump get elected and become a part of the campaign. Not incidentally, shortly after the election Halper publically stated his preference for Hillary Clinton over Trump.
It’s also interesting that the reasoning given by the DOJ for withholding certain documents requested by Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee, in relation to the informant, was because it would expose his name putting his life at- risk. Yet, before Nunes received any of the requested documents, details about the informant, even his name were leaked everywhere. It appears that once again the DOJ was using this excuse as a pretext, concealing the real motivation, which has often been to cover up information that is negative to the DOJ/FBI.
After threats to hold Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt and move to impeach them, Nunes was finally able to review the document that shows the justice department’s reasoning for launching the probe, also known as the “Electronic Communication”.
According to Nunes the EC shows that no official intelligence was used to begin the Russia investigation. Five countries, including the United States, Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand have all agreed to share intelligence. These countries are known as the “Five Eyes”. On Fox Business News network with Maria Bartiromo a few weeks ago Nunes revealed that the EC contained “ no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government.”
John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director, seems to concur with Nunes. During an appearance in February on Meet the Press he was asked by Chuck Todd if the information about Papadopoulos came “via the Five Eyes thing” he gave a vague response about the United States’ close relationship with Great Britain. If the information that kicked off the probe was supplied by Australia the answer to this question should have been a simple “yes”.
CHUCK TODD:
Did the Papadopoulos thing come through the C.I.A. via the Five Eyes thing? That would have been a piece of information that gets to the F.B.I.? Is that how that works?
JOHN BRENNAN:
Now I’m not going to get into details about how it was acquired. But the F.B.I. has very close relationship with its British counterparts. And so the F.B.I. had visibility into a number of things that were going on involving some individuals who may have had some affiliation with the Trump campaign. And so the intelligence that we collected was pulsed against that. And I thought it would have been derelict if the F.B.I. did not pull the threads, investigative threads, on American persons who might have been involved with Russia and working on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly.
The remaining question is what evidence was used to start surveiling, and ultimately begin a formal investigation against the opposition party’s presidential campaign? It appears that Brennan, who despises Trump, (just look at his twitter feed) was instrumental in coordinating a probe that in July 2016 became a formal FBI counterintelligence investigation.
After receiving intelligence from Britain, and “one of the Baltic States”, which Brennan apparently found worrisome, as reported by the BBC, in April 2016 Brennan assembled a joint counterintelligence task force consisting of six agencies including the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency to probe possible Trump and Russia collusion.
Apparently whatever information that Brennan was privy to that worried him to the extent of assembling a task force to look into Russian collusion was not that interesting to Mueller. To date, Brennan has not been interviewed by the Special Council. Nor have any charges arisen from his investigatory task force.
Brennan may also be the source of the Trump- Russia collusion narrative seeping into the public dialogue. In August 2016 Brennan contacted the then Senate Minority leader Harry Reid to brief him on Russia’s interference in the election. Days later Reid fired off a letter to then FBI Director James Comey urging him to investigate the connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, citing allegations from the Steele dossier. Brennan also briefed the Gang of Eight, a bipartisan group of leaders in congress, at this time. Shortly after these briefings, for the first time news of possible Trump and Russia collusion began to appear.
Shamefully, the far- left Brennan, who has admitted to casting a vote for a communist party candidate for president, is completely devoid of rational and ethical behavior when it come to to Trump. In March Brennan surmised on national television that the President is afraid of Putin because Putin may have compromising information on him. Coming from the former CIA Director this unfounded statement, and sadly, probably wishful thinking on Brennan’s part, is beyond reprehensible, and says way more about the mindset of the former CIA Director, than it does about Trump.
In spite of the exhaustive investigations, to date, there is zero public evidence that President Trump, or any member of his campaign, engaged with Russia to sway the election in his favor. Nor, is there any evidence that Trump or his surrogates had any role in the hacking of the Democrat National Committee’s, or Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta’s emails.
After a year the only indictments as a result of the Mueller probe have nothing to do with coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. Out of the nineteen people that have been charged only four are former Trump advisors, none of whom were charged with working with the Russian government.
Michael Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, has pled guilty to lying to the FBI ( certain revelations have cast suspicion on this plea), not related to Russian collusion
George Papadopoulos, a minor brief advisor to the Trump campaign, has also pled guilty to making false statements, also not related to Russian collusion.
Rick Gates, and Paul Manafort, Trump’s deputy campaign manger, and campaign manager, respectively, for a brief time, have both been charged with financial crimes predating their work for Trump. Again, not related to Russian collusion.
Alex van der Zwaan and Richard Pinedo- Neither men had any association with Trump or his campaign
The other indictments include 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies, all charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election. None of the indicted Russian individuals or Russian companies have any connection to Trump or anyone associated with his campaign. Amusingly, it was revealed in court that one of the companies indicted by Mueller did not exist during the time alleged by the prosecutors. One of the attorneys at the hearing actually referenced the famous quote accusing Mueller of indicting the proverbial ham sandwich.
The DOJ Inspector General- Michael Horowitz, expected to shortly release a damning report on the handling of the Clinton email investigation, has been tasked with looking into the spying that occurred on the Trump campaign. Even better would be the appointment of a second independent special counsel with subpoena and prosecutorial powers to investigate the entire realm of corruption, and the weaponization of our intelligence agencies in an attempt to prevent and destroy a presidency.
This investigation in search of a crime needs to be fully exposed and finally come to an end.
