April 16, 2019
Last Wednesday Attorney General William Barr sent the mainstream media into a tailspin when he told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee what every honest, informed person in the United States has been longing to hear their attorney general acknowledge-
” I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal.” ” Yes- I think spying did occur.”
Barr went on to state that he planned to form a team to investigate “the genesis and the conduct” of the FBI to determine if there was a justified predicate to open the FBI counterintelligence probe, and the subsequent spying on Trump’s campaign associates by American intelligence.
Barr is now being accused of acting in bad faith, motivated by the goal of pleasing the president. Never mind that Barr has had a long stellar career as the former Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, making it highly unlikely that he would be willing to make statements and take actions that would tarnish his reputation and legacy.
Was there Spying?
According to the New York Times four Trump campaign aides were indeed surveilled by the FBI under the Obama administration. 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. These warrants have been the subject of much controversy. The now debunked Trump dossier, opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, claimed that Page coordinated the election efforts between Russia and the Trump campaign. Incredibly, in spite of knowing the political motivations behind the creation of the dossier, and not independently verifying its claims, the DOJ used it as evidence in the FISA application to spy on Page.
Many have made the point that the electronic surveillance conducted 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 in October, 2016, 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 surveillance gave the FBI access to calls and the content of emails involving other members of the Trump campaign, and possibly then candidate Trump.
Another tool used by the DOJ and FBI to surveil aides on Trump’s campaign was a secret subpoena called a National Security Letter. This enabled the DOJ and FBI to monitor data, such as the phone records and email records, (not content) of Manafort, Flynn, and Papadopoulos during the campaign.
Further, during the remaining weeks of Obama’s presidency the National Security Agency (NSA) relaxed their classification rules. This allowed for the easy dissemination of globally intercepted communications with the 16 other intelligence agencies before screening out irrelevant personal information, such as the identities of the innocent, making it more likely for intelligence of private citizens to be circulated improperly and leaked.
Samantha Powers, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Obama administration, revealed the identities of Americans not under surveillance, but caught incidentally speaking to someone being monitored, 260 times. The volume of the unmasking was unprecedented. The unmasking, and illegal leaking of Flynn’s identity is what lead to his eventual downfall. To this day no one has been held accountable for revealing and illegally leaking Flynn’s identity.
Obama’s FBI also employed an informant to spy on the Trump campaign. Stefan Halper was tasked with ingratiating himself with Page, Papadopoulos, and another Trump campaign associate Sam Clovis during the presidential campaign. Halper is a longtime FBI, CIA informant. He was also an associate of Sir Richard Dearlove, the former Director of the British intelligence agency- MI6, when they were both employed at Cambridge University.
Alarmingly, Page’s first encounter with Halper occurred July 11, 2016, predating July 31st- the date that the FBI has claimed they opened the counterintelligence investigation. According to Page, in May or June 2016 he was invited to attend a July intelligence seminar run by Halper, which even included reimbursement for travel expenses. It has not been revealed if this first meeting was at the direction of the FBI. However, if Halper was being used by the FBI as an informant prior to the opening of the probe, it raises the question, for how long was Obama’s intelligence agencies surveilling the Trump campaign?
Page’s next meeting with Halper occurred a month later in August at Halper’s farm. By this time Page had started to receive numerous calls from reporters claiming that they had information that he had met with two senior Russian intelligence figures in Moscow to coordinate with Russia to benefit Trump’s presidential election. Page was incredulous at these allegations, and remembers telling Halper that the claims were false. In an interview with The Hill’s Jon Solomon Page stated:
“Im certain that nothing I said that day at the professor’s farm could be deemed anything other than exculpatory. And once again, in September, I explained reality to the FBI. Contrary to the DNC’s false reports, I have never met those Russians, and I did not know of any effort to coordinate, collude, or conspire with Russia. Period.”
Reportedly, the exculpatory information Page relayed to the undercover informant and to the FBI was never mentioned in the FISA application submitted to the court in October, to surveil Page.
Halper also reached out to Clovis-the then Iowa based national co-chairman of the Trump campaign in late August 2016, referencing his relationship with Page as a reason to meet. Clovis has reported that during the meeting Halper expressed a desire to help Trump get elected and become a part of the campaign. Was Halper attempting to become an embedded mole within the Trump campaign? Were his actions politically motivated? In March 2016 Halper was quoted as saying” I believe Clinton would be best for U.S-U.K., and with the European Union.”
In September 2016 Halper offered Papadopoulos $3,000 along with travel compensation to write a foreign policy paper. Papadopoulos has reported that during his meetings with Halper he was asked numerous questions about Russia and Trump, and whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to hack into the DNC server. Papadopoulos vehemently denied these allegations, firmly telling Halper that what he was asking was treason, and no one from the Trump campaign conspired with Russia in any capacity.
Many have discredited the concerns of those criticizing the use of a paid informant to spy on Trump aides. They claim that it is not unusual for the FBI to use such a method to solicit information. Perhaps this is true. However, where is the evidence that the Trump campaign was working with Russia, which would warrant such intrusion? Also, is it really standard operating procedure for the administration in power to employ an informant to spy on the campaign of the opposition party?
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. Clinton’s campaign manager’s emails along with the emails of the DNC were hacked by the Russians. Did the FBI hire an informant to spy on her campaign? Also, if they were only interested in preventing nefarious Russian actions, and not spying on the Trump campaign, why didn’t the FBI inform Trump and his associates of their concerns surrounding Russia?
The FBI didn’t even inform Congress that they had opened an investigation into the Trump campaign, until March 2017. Testifying before a congressional panel, the then Director of the FBI James Comey, admitted that protocol dictated that the ranking House and Senate intelligence Committee members, referred to as the “Gang of Eight”, be briefed on “sensitive cases”. When asked why he never briefed the Gang of Eight that the FBI had opened a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign, Comey head-scratchingly replied that the matter was too sensitive to include in briefings. Why such secrecy? Were they counting on Clinton winning the presidency and never having to reveal the spying that occurred on the Trump campaign?
It is beyond dispute that American intelligence spied on members of Trump’s campaign. Further, after numerous exhaustive investigations, it is now beyond a doubt that there is no evidence that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia to subvert the presidential election,
What is yet to be answered is what was the predicate to abrogate the privacy rights of American citizens, and spy on a political campaign? How much did the FBI rely on the Russian sourced disinformation in the infamous dossier to fuel their investigation, and surveil members of Trump’s team? Exactly how much did the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s campaign overlap with opposition research funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign?
Answers are Finally Coming
Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, has recently confirmed that he is still investigating possible FISA abuse by the DOJ and FBI. According to Barr, the Horowitz report should be completed by May or June.
Further, U.S. Attorney John Huber is conducting an investigation into whether bias among those in power at the DOJ/FBI impacted their actions during the FBI Trump-Russia collusion investigation. It’s unclear when his investigation will be completed.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has also indicated that the Senate will be investigating the origins of Mueller’s investigation and potential bias in the Justice Department and FBI, including looking at the FISA warrant applications.
These investigations combined with the commitment by the Attorney General to investigate the “genesis” of the probe that lead to the FBI spying on the opposition party’s political campaign will finally bring answers and accountability. No wonder so many on the left are angry-or perhaps it’s fear.
