The truth is out there....
Posted on 05/15/2018 10:25:50 AM PDT by mandaladon
Speculation is mounting over the identity of a purported top-secret intelligence source who was part of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign. Such a source was first confirmed last week by leakers to the Washington Post. The leakers told the Post that senior FBI and national intelligence officials tried to stop House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes from receiving information that could “endanger a top-secret intelligence source.”
The leakers also revealed the source is a “U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI.”
They also revealed that providing the information about the source could “damage relationships with other countries that serve as U.S. intelligence partners” — meaning that the source likely worked with other nations.
Their panic was reportedly set off by a recent request for the information from Nunes to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on April 24. The Justice Department initially rejected his request, but acquiesced, providing him with the information last Wednesday.
Despite claims that releasing the information would endanger lives, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) told reporters on Thursday that the request was “wholly appropriate” and overdue.
“I spent some time looking at the HPSCI request, at the HPSCI investigation. I think this request is wholly appropriate. It’s completely within the scope of the investigation that’s been ongoing for a while with respect to FISA. I actually think that this is something that probably should have been answered a while ago,” he said.
Although the leakers may have wanted to take aim at Nunes, the revelation of a top secret intelligence source has prompted new questions over whether the CIA and the FBI tried to ensnare members of the Trump campaign in order to launch an investigation of the campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Hatch act prevents government employees participation in campaigns. The mole was a direct participant as a government employe and is in violation
You can bet every phone conversation and electronic message within the upper echelon of the Trump campaign was monitored and recorded by methods employed by both the Obama administration and the Hillary campaign.
After Trump took office human resources within the bureaucracy also operated as intelligence for the democrats and media. Some of the early Trump staff could have just as easily been working for the other side. I’m thinking of types like Bannon and The Apprentice appointee, Omarosa Manigault.
There are such a laws ......they are called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, & CONSPIRACY to commit SEDITION
It wasn’t a “source,” a “mole,” or a “spy.” That is disinformation spread to minimize the real story.
It was a CIA contractor, on fedgov payroll, running an approved Operation to deliberately Sabotage the Trump Campaign, and Frame Trump for “collusion.”
And it is still going on today, via Mueller. It hasn’t been shut down, thank you Jeff Sessions.
Yes. It wasn't perform your duties as "ABC" Gov't org, they were transformed into being a arm of his socialist bent. However it is worse, when you are talking Tax, Intel, and Justice doing your bidding they are no longer working with the Constitution in mind, but doing the bidding of a Man, because these organs of power were directed against us. That is some serious East Germany Stazi-like behavior.
Man we need to pray daily that "why I am not 50 points ahead" is not in power. I wouldn't be typing this now, as my guess this website and many others would have been gone already....
So, if the FBI/CIA/WHOEVER are SPYING ON TRUMP NOW,......is not Jeff Sessions not culpable?
As soon as I saw the stories about the FISA surveillance in 2017, I considered an outlandish scenario where the Trump campaign:
1. Was under illicit surveillance for months leading up to the election.
2. Knew they were under this surveillance.
3. TOOK ACTIVE MEASURES TO THWART IT.
Think about that for a moment and imagine the possibilities.
Either there is nothing there, or revealing the sources would point to a much larger crime.
Or both. I’m leaning on both based on people I know that work in the Swamp (low level) who keep saying that the methods don’t matter, they “know” Trump is a BAD PERSON.
Several folks claim to know the name but aren’t coughing it up.....one must wonder if there’s a good reason for withholding it for now...
Forget everything Bannon claimed to represent before Trump fired him. Did you see the Sixty Minutes interview he did after the firing? He made the statement that firing FBI Director James Comey was “the biggest mistake in modern political history.” That was just the beginning.
The best policy is to not trust any of them.
The truth is out there....
Sean Hannity hinted a few minutes ago on his radio show he knows too.
I thought it was illegal for the CIA to have or cultivate sources within the US borders (except for Embassy or UN staff, which is technically outside US borders)?
Don't you mean what did Hillary know and when did she shred it...
I bet the “mole” is a well known TV or newspaper journalist ...
Really??
A few more pieces in the Obama “Get Trump” jihad.
Susan Rice wrote a memo to herself and confessed to a series of crimes that added the time line and inferences about what the outgoing Obama administration illegally concealed from incoming President Trump and his aides.
CYA memos are rarely a good idea. Most often, they reveal things the author never intended——ala Susan Rice’s now-infamous email to herself.
powerlineblog.com
WHY SUSAN RICE WROTE AN EMAIL TO HERSELF........the extraordinary email Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote to herself at 12:15 on January 20, 2017........within minutes of President Trump’s inauguration must have been her last act, more or less, before she vacated the White House. So obviously the email was important to her. But why would it be important to send an email to herself (the only person copied was one of her aides)?
If you read the email, along with Senator Grassley’s letter to Rice, it is obvious that it is a CYA memo. But the question is, whose A is being C’d?
Most attention, so far, has focused on the first two paragraphs of the email, which describe a meeting that occurred around two weeks earlier.
The participants included
<><>Barack Obama,
<><>Joe Biden,
<><>James Comey,
<><> Sally Yates–who turns up like a bad penny whenever skulduggery is afoot–
<><>and Rice:
Rice made sure to underscore that Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. Rice writes Obama stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
This is pure boilerplate.
It represents, obviously, the company line. But Rice did not write her email to cover Barack Obama’s rear end. If she or anyone else had wanted to document the claim that Obama said to proceed “by the book,” the appropriate course would have been an official memo that copied others who were present and would have gone into the file. (My guess is that such a memo was written, but we haven’t seen it.)
The important part of the email is not the paragraph that purports to exonerate Obama, but the paragraphs that follow: “From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”
The next paragraph of the email remains classified and has been redacted. The email concludes:
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
CONCLUSION Why did Susan Rice send herself an email purporting to document this part of the meeting? Because she was C’ing her own A. Rice was nervous about the fact that, at the president’s direction, she had failed to “share information fully as it relates to Russia” with President Trump’s incoming national security team.
Her actions violated longstanding American tradition. Outgoing administrations have always cooperated in the transition to a new administration, whether of the same or the opposing party, especially on matters relating to national security.
Susan Rice is far from the brightest bulb on the tree, but she was well aware that by concealing facts ostensibly relating to national security from her counterpart in the new administration–General Michael Flynn–she was, at a minimum, violating longstanding civic norms.
If she actually lied to Flynn, she could have been accused of much worse. So Rice wanted to be able to retrieve her email, if she found herself in a sticky situation, and tell the world that she hid relevant facts about Russia from the new administration on Barack Obama’s orders.
What were the secrets that Obama wanted to keep from the new administration? We can easily surmise that the fact that the Steele memo was paid for by the Democratic Party; that the FBI had to some degree collaborated with Steele; that the Clinton campaign had fed some of the fake news in the dossier to Steele; and that Comey’s FBI had used Steele’s fabrications as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were among the facts that Obama and his minions didn’t want Michael Flynn and Donald Trump to know. Susan Rice, we can infer, was told to keep these secrets, and if anyone ever asked why she had failed to disclose them to Michael Flynn and others on Trump’s team, or even lied to those people, she would have the defense that President Obama ordered her to do it.
There may be more to it than this. The redacted paragraph likely contains more information about what it was that Rice wasn’t supposed to tell the Trump team. One of these days, we will learn what was blacked out.
The fact that Michael Flynn was Susan Rice’s counterpart in the incoming administration may also be significant. We know that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn–even Peter Strzok!–reported that they didn’t think he had lied about anything. And yet, Obama’s DOJ and Bob Mueller’s “investigation”–basically a continuation of Obama’s corrupt Department of Justice under another, less accountable name–persecuted Flynn to the point where he finally pled guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in order, as he says, to end the madness and the financial drain.
Why were the Democrats so determined to discredit General Flynn? Perhaps because they wanted to pre-empt any outrage that may otherwise have followed on revelations that the Obama administration’s National Security Advisor hid important facts from her successor during the transition, and may have lied to him about those facts, in violation of all American tradition.
cont
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.