https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-10/wsj-fbi-hid-mole-trump-campaign WSJ: The FBI Hid A Mole In The Trump Campaign by Tyler Durden Fri, 05/11/2018 - 16:11 On Wednesday we reported on an intense battle playing out between House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), the Department of Justice, and the Mueller investigation concerning a cache of intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refuses to hand over - a request he equated to "extortion." On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that Nunes was denied access to the information on the grounds that it "could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI." After the White House caved to Rosenstein and Nunes was barred from seeing the documents, it also emerged that this same intelligence had already been shared with Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his investigation into alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 US election. On Wednesday afternoon, however, news emerged that Nunes and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) would receive a classified Thursday briefing at the DOJ on the documents. This is, to put it lightly, incredibly significant. Why? Because it appears that the FBI may have had a mole embedded in the Trump campaign. In a bombshell op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel shares a few key insights about recent developments. Perhaps we should start with the ending and let you take it from there. Needless to say Strassel's claims, if true, would have wide ranging implications for the CIA, FBI, DOJ and former Obama administration officials. Strassel concludes: "I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it." Authored by Kimberley Strassel, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal, About That FBI ‘Source’ Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign? The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications. Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it. House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.” This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI. The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign. This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign. Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in? And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips. We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply. I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.
I laugh when Maris publish articles from this site. He doesn't realize that Tyler Durden is a fictional character and Zero Hedge is run from Bulgaria with Russian money.
The case is circling the drain as we speak. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ey-access-to-agent-who-interviewed-flynn.html DOJ refusing to give Grassley access to agent who interviewed Flynn By Alex Pappas | Fox News Will Flynn reverse his guilty plea? Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley isn't backing down as the Justice Department rebuffs his repeated attempts to speak with the FBI agent whose interview with Michael Flynn was used to indict the ex-national security adviser in the Russia probe. “This is no ordinary criminal case,” Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote in a June 6 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. “Congress has a right to know the full story and to know it now.” Grassley is pressing his request anew after the DOJ once again rejected his bid to speak with FBI Agent Joe Pientka and to obtain the FBI’s records of the interview. Flynn pleaded guilty in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe to making false statements to the FBI in that interview. He also lost his job at the White House after he was said to have misled Vice President Pence about a discussion with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. But Republicans on Capitol Hill are seeking more information about that interview as recent revelations have raised questions about the guilty plea itself. They say former FBI Director James Comey in fact indicated to lawmakers that FBI agents did not believe Flynn intentionally lied about the talks with Russia’s ambassador. GRASSLEY PUSHES DOJ FOR ANSWERS ON FLYNN INTERVIEW “Contrary to his public statements during his current book tour denying any memory of those comments, then-Director Comey led us to believe during that briefing that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he intentionally lied about his conversation with the Ambassador and that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute him for false statements made in that interview,” Grassley wrote in May to Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray. In that letter, Grassley requested the FBI’s so-called “302” documents memorializing their interview with Flynn and other supporting documents, including the agents’ notes. He also asked for a transcribed interview with Pientka, the FBI special agent who interviewed Flynn with fellow agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages later led to his dismissal from the Russia probe. Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, in a May 29 letter to Grassley, declined the requests. “Whatever Mr. Corney may have said and whatever Mr. Flynn's demeanor, the evidence in the public record proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Flynn knowingly made false statements about contacts with the Russian ambassador,” Boyd said. Boyd emphasized that Flynn “admitted under oath to making a materially false statement” and was represented by two experienced attorneys when he pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents. He also expressed concern that handing over those documents or allowing an interview with a FBI agent would “unavoidably would create the appearance of political influence.” “For this reason, the Department is obligated at this time to respectfully decline to provide documents or arrange for staffers to interview the agent named in your letter,” Boyd wrote. Boyd also suggested an interview with Pientka is unnecessary because the DOJ is unaware of “any allegation against or previous publicity about the agent.” Grassley, in his response to the Justice Department, took issue with that statement, calling it “disingenuous and extremely disturbing.” “As you well know, seeking information from a fact witness is not the same thing as an allegation of wrongdoing,” Grassley said. “Quite the contrary, it seems he is likely to be an objective, reliable, and trustworthy witness, which is precisely why the Committee would benefit from his testimony.” House Intelligence Committee Republicans' recently released Russia report also cited top FBI officials suggesting the agents who interviewed Flynn saw no indication Flynn knew he was lying. The development is puzzling because Flynn’s comments were indeed at odds with the evidence. The FBI reportedly intercepted conversations that countered Flynn’s initial claim that, among other things, he did not ask Russia’s ambassador to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions. The request from Grassley comes as the Justice Department and other Republicans on the Capitol Hill have been sparring over access to documents concerning the FBI's alleged informant in contact with members of President Trump's 2016 campaign at the dawn of the Russia probe. NUNES SETS DEADLINE FOR DOJ TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS ON ALLEGED FBI INFORMANT In a letter sent Friday to Rosenstein, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the records should be provided to all committee members "and designated staff" rather than just the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- which refers to Republican and Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress as well as top lawmakers from the intelligence panels. "Your continued refusal to permit Members of Congress and designated staff to review the requested documents is obstruction of a lawful Congressional investigation," Nunes wrote. Asked about the letter, however, a DOJ official said Rosenstein is currently “representing the United States in a brief unrelated visit to a foreign nation, one of America’s key intelligence partners,” indicating he would plan on responding during the previously scheduled briefing on Thursday. “He, along with the FBI Director and DNI Coats, look forward to further briefing and again presenting responsive documents to Chairman Nunes and the rest of his colleagues in the Gang of 8 meeting scheduled for Thursday of this week,” the official said. Fox News’ Pamela K. Browne, Catherine Herridge, Adam Shaw and Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this report.
He's already convicted of a felony. If the President were to pardon him then I guess Mueller would lose.
He's undoubtedly already turned up stuff. He's just trying to turn up more stuff and leverage what he's already turned up into getting witnesses to tell about other stuff. It's gonna take a lot of pardons to get the President out of this hot water.
Additional crimes have already been charged which is why he is cooperating with Mueller's team. If he changes his mind and refuses to cooperate any more then he can be charged with those other crimes and if convicted do even more jail time.
The FISA warrant was reviewed by the Justice Department as well as a FISA judge. Nunes is hardly credible for anything.
Very necessary. He has avoided paying rent on the Federal grass land that he's been using for free until the bill now totals in excess of one Million dollars. In other words, he's a lot like Trump. He thinks he can get stuff for free.
No indictment is being pursued. If you know otherwise please show me. Charges dropped, retrial barred as far as I'm aware.
