After seeing a comprehensive report on the origins of the Russian investigation which confirmed that a government informant met with Trump campaign advisors multiple times President Donald Trump questioned if the Obama’s FBI actually spied on his campaign back in 2016. And the answer appears to be yes.
In an interview for “Fox & Friends” the head of the President’s legal team, Rudy Giuliani stated that if this is indeed true and Trump’s campaign was indeed spied on by the FBI then former FBI Director James Comey should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Guiliani’s statements came on the one-year anniversary of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Democrat-led the investigation which picked up right where the FBI left off.
The New York Times who was out to give an accounting Thursday of the original investigation confirmed in the middle of their report that at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. Both of which were former Trump campaign advisers. The NY Times report went on to detail how the probe, which was originally called “Crossfire Hurricane” got started. It goes on to confirm that it all began during the final days of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server fiasco.
This all came together as Fox News had previously reported that back in August 2017 at a Senate testimony from Glenn Simpson who owns Fusion GPS had thought our the dossier. At that time Simpson testified that former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele had confirmed to him that the FBI had intelligence from an “internal Trump campaign source.” But it’s not clear if the person Simpson referred to was the same person which has been confirmed by the New York Times.
Here is more information on operation “Crossfire Hurricane” from the New York Times: “Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.
Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.
The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.
The name, a reference to the Rolling Stones lyric “I was born in a crossfire hurricane,” was an apt prediction of a political storm that continues to tear shingles off the bureau. Days after they closed their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, agents began scrutinizing the campaign of her Republican rival. The two cases have become inextricably linked in one of the most consequential periods in the history of the F.B.I.
This month, the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release the findings of its lengthy review of the F.B.I.’s conduct in the Clinton case. The results are certain to renew debate over decisions by the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, to publicly chastise Mrs. Clinton in a news conference, and then announce the reopening of the investigation days before Election Day. Mrs. Clinton has said those actions buried her presidential hopes.
Those decisions stand in contrast to the F.B.I.’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane. Not only did agents in that case fall back to their typical policy of silence, but interviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a review of documents show that the F.B.I. was even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.
Agents considered, then rejected, interviewing key Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation but risked revealing the existence of the case. Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not solve the case before Election Day, which made them only more hesitant to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy.
Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department. Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent, explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it too “tasty” to resist sharing. “I’m not worried about our side,” he wrote.
Only about five Justice Department officials knew the full scope of the case, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be briefed on a major national security case.”