NEWS

WSJ Reporter: We’ve Confirmed the Worst

A Wednesday piece by The New York Times which details the FBI’s investigation into Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign may have revealed more than intended, at least if a Wall Street Journal reporter who has covered the surveillance previously is correct.

The Journal’s Kimberley Strassel has written about the investigation in the past. In a piece last week, she posited that the FBI may have used a mole in the Trump campaign, particularly given the Department of Justice’s reluctance to turn over information about the informant to congressional investigators.

The Times piece revealed more details about the Trump campaign surveillance operation — called “Crossfire Hurricane” in reference to the Rolling Stones song “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” — and just how extensive it was.

While the tenor of the article, which was written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos, is overwhelmingly favorable to the FBI and dismisses any claims that the surveillance was politically motivated ,(“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” one DOJ official is quoted as saying) there were a few things buried deep in there that specifically caught Strassel’s attention.

In a tweetstorm Wednesday evening, Strassel noted key problems in The Times’ narrative, particularly when the story appeared and significant facts that they glossed over.

Strassel first argued that the article was a calculated leak of sorts in an effort to get out ahead of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and the information that he’s gathering and releasing regarding the FBI’s sources on the Trump investigation.

However, she says it proves what Trump was claiming all along: namely, that his campaign was being spied upon.

The story briefly mentions that “one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.”

Do you think there was a mole in the Trump campaign?

However, if that informant met several times with two low-level Trump campaign officials, one wonders just what his role — if any — in the Trump campaign might have been. It seems somewhat unlikely that a random individual outside the campaign would have had the opportunity to meet with both George Papadopoulos and Carter Page without some suspicion being aroused if the informant didn’t have extremely close ties to the campaign.

Strassel then noted the fact that if the FBI is willing to leak information that makes them look good to media sources, they shouldn’t have any problem complying with the subpoena that the House Intelligence Committee issued.

RELATED: George Will: Christian Mike Pence Is Worst Person in Government

She also pointed out that the FBI had claimed the dossier had little to no influence on the investigation.

Sally Yates, for those of you with short memories, was the deputy attorney general under former President Barack Obama.

Strassel closed with a shot at the DOJ and James Comey.

This is arguably the biggest story in quite some time. We already knew that intelligence had been weaponized by Obama-era apparatchiks to get a FISA court to agree to surveillance and that the Trump dossier had been prepared using money from the Clinton campaign. However, we’re beginning to realize it went deeper than that — and it could have included a mole in the Trump campaign itself.

If it did, we need to know. No more of this drip-drip-drip of information specifically designed as a limited hangout. It’s time that the American people are appraised, once and for all, just how far the Obama administration went in using the apparatus of the federal government to infiltrate the campaign of their political adversary.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

To Top