Skip to comments.At Least 6 and Potentially 7 Known and Suspected Intelligence Informants Spied on Trump Campaign
Posted on 05/24/2018 1:40:12 PM PDT by detective
Full title: THE LIST: At Least 6 and Potentially 7 Known and Suspected Intelligence Informants Accused of Spying on Trump Campaign
As the Russia meddling into the 2016 US election unwinds, the meddling by the Obama Administrations CIA and FBI, is becoming surprisingly more and more clear.
Internet sleuth, former D.C. Bureau Chief for Investors Business Daily, author and Hoover Institution Media Fellow, Paul Sperry, tweeted a list of 6 or 7 individuals that worked for or were suspected of working for the FBI/CIA and who were involved in spying on President Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
How many antitrump informants does it take to screw in a light bulb?
At least 5... one to hold the light bulb and one at each leg of the ladder to turn it round and round...
. . .
schiff says no spy placed in campaign..well duh they weren’t placed in the campaign they contacted campaigner
fn democrats we have to check every word.
All these were spying for the deep Soviet state to which OBAMA was connected... It would take racist democrats to call republican can racists and traitorous democrats to project allegations of collusion on Trump
The purpose of the spying was to gain political intelligence for the benefit of Clinton by the political appointees of the Intelligence Community. Who did these people report to? President OBAMA! But when Clinton lost it morphed into a coup to remove Trump. Admiral Mike Rogers blew the whistle or Hillary would be President today, banana republic style.
When this whole “Russian collusion” theme was first presented, and all of the MSM aired for many months that the “.....17 federal intelligence agencies all concurred there was collusion and/or interference by the Russians.....”, I KNEW there was a conspiracy at work, among all of the intelligence agencies. The logical conclusion was that this was the result of some action BY 0bama FOR Hillary.
This seems to be playing out according to my initial thoughts on it, and those of POTUS, as well as many FReepers. Playing out agonizingly slowly, but at least it is playing out.
PROOF POSITIVE THAT OBAMA KNEW
Obamas CYA maneuver of January 3, 2017-the signing of NSA Data-Sharing Order Section 2.3 by AG Lynch is the coupe detat to blow out The Deep State. Obamas after-the-fact ex/order contains some unusual language particularly the convoluted language WRT The Strategic Delay of Section 2.3 of Obamas Executive Order 12333:
NOTE WELL: Prior to the formal signing of Section 2.3, greater latitude ALREADY existed within the White House in regards to collection of information especially in relation to the Trump Campaign. However, once signed, Section 2.3 granted broad latitude to inter-agency sharing of information.
But by the time Obamas new executive order was signed on January 3, 2017, all that information was already in the possession of Obama White House.
Thus, Susan Rices January 20, 2017 email to herself takes on an even greater significance b/c no one was ever supposed to know about the REAL meaning of Obamas retroactive CYA.....until Rice stupidly laid it all out in an official email.
If you read Susans Rice weird email to herself, along with Senator Grassleys letter to Rice, it is obvious that it is a CYA memo. But the question is, whose A is being Cd?
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
<><> Sally Yateswho turns up like a bad penny whenever skulduggery is afoot
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 Obamas 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 havent 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 Cing her own A. Rice was nervous about the fact that, at the presidents direction, she had failed to share information fully as it relates to Russia with President Trumps 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 administrationGeneral Michael Flynnshe 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 Obamas 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 Comeys FBI had used Steeles fabrications as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were among the facts that Obama and his minions didnt 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 Trumps 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 wasnt supposed to tell the Trump team. One of these days, we will learn what was blacked out.
The fact that Michael Flynn was Susan Rices counterpart in the incoming administration may also be significant. We know that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynneven Peter Strzok!reported that they didnt think he had lied about anything.
And yet, Obamas DOJ and Bob Muellers investigationbasically a continuation of Obamas corrupt Department of Justice under another, less accountable namepersecuted 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 administrations 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.
Obama’s latest effort to cover-up the spying —— saying it was to “protect” Trump.
ANALYSIS: IF-big IF-protecting Trump was the reason for spying.....why was Trump not advised of this?
Taken another way, it was criminal not to tell Trump he was in danger and needed protection.
And either the Obama administration was sharing the intel it gathered with foreign governments, there was/were additional spy/spies for foreign government/s, or both.
Yeah. The footage of a catatonic Hillary being dragged and tossed into that van is burned into the minds of millions of Americans. That alone may have cost her the election.
Were the foreign governments trying to protect Trump, too?
If they really wanna nail Deep State, start pulling the threads on the foreign involvement.
Never hear of Dearlove and Daniel Jones! WHO are they?
Not sure his talents are in representing voters for legislation. His talents are definitely in the area of investigation and getting to the bottom of puzzling crimes.
For those that see snippets here and there and hear of a dizzying number of characters and allegations come out in this ‘watch the cockroaches scurry as the lights come on” story, Dan B puts it all in context. He’s got the whole picture.
Dan Bongino, this guy makes Woodward and Bernstein look like pikers:
Yep. Difference between Castro, Stalin, Sadam Hussein and Hillary? Hillary is the only one that lost a rigged election.
Do you think the people that placed six spies in Trumps campaign, in a very high risk strategy requiring Trump to lose or be taken out at all costs, would hesitate for one second to wack Seth Rich?
We have evidence now. Nothing has happened in 1 1/2 years. It seems there has been too much wishful thinking.
Just about. Some are left wondering about Session. Something weird there.
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.