It has been a couple of weeks of revelations as an intense battle of wills broke out between House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (D-CA), the Department of Justice, and the Mueller investigation concerning a cache of intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refuses to hand over in response to a subpoena – a request Rosenstein equated to nothing less than “extortion.” Information deemed so incredibly top-secret that the DOJ refused to show Nunes 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” – the agency finally relented on Wednesday, allowing Nunes and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to receive a classified briefing.
Then came the bombshell revelation via a disturbing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Kimberly Strassel alleging the FBI had infiltrated the Trump campaign with a mole. A spy that Strassel believes she knows the identity of but will not publish at this time, she notes – “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.”
So it is apparently time to play whack-a-mole with the big leagues in Washington…so let’s go on a mole hunt. The Last Refuge notes in February that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was working as an “under-cover employee” (UCE) for the FBI – helping the agency build a case against “Evgeny Buryakov,” Then – seven months later, the FBI told a FISA court Page was a spy.
The Last Refuge notes “in April 2017, writing a story about Carter Page (trying to enhance/affirm the Russian narrative), the New York Times outlined Page’s connections to the Trump campaign. However, New York Times also references Page’s prior connection to the Buryakov case. If you ignore the narrative, you discover the UCE1 description is Carter Page.”
OANN’s Jack Posobiec took to Twitter to ask Page directly if the mole was him rather than simply speculate. Page in return replied, denying the charge, stating – “But if what I’m hearing alleged is correct, it’s a guy I know who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes countries,” adding “And if so, it’d be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first.”
No @JackPosobiec, not me. But if what I'm hearing alleged is correct, it's a guy I know who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes countries.
And if so, it'd be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first.https://t.co/lt2U4w2iGp
— Carter Page, Ph.D. (@carterwpage) May 11, 2018
Another person of significant interest is Stefan Halper. Halper is a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to both the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6. Remember M16 is where Christopher Steele of the now infamous dossier had connections to as well. In February 2016, Halper set up a meeting between Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos and former Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer. Downer is a known Clinton crony and his tip to Australian authorities that Papadopoulos knew of hacked emails which could potentially cause harm to Hillary Clinton was considered a major factor in the FBI’s decision to launch its counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
According to the Daily Caller Halper also had several other contacts with Trump campaign officials as well, noting “Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers…”
Also of note, The New York Post’s Paul Sperry points out that Stefan Halper’s Wikipedia page had been updated to include “He has been exposed as a CIA and M-16 spy behind the FBI Russiagate investigations of the Trump Campaign and is an informant to the Mueller Special Prosecutor investigation” – an addition which was quickly deleted.
Interesting recent addition to STEFAN A HALPER's Wikipedia page …
"He has been exposed as a CIA and M-16 spy behind the FBI Russiagate investigations of the Trump Campaign and is an informant to the Mueller Special Prosecutor investigation."https://t.co/WF9sCL6H3m
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) May 11, 2018
Good catch! It’s already been removed. Here are the screenshots. pic.twitter.com/3fdLLOGrSf
— 🇺🇸 MAGA 🇺🇸 (@drdrjojo) May 11, 2018
Zero Hedge notes that perhaps “Page and Halper are connected through London-based Hakluyt & Co.– founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums.
Interestingly, Alexander Downer has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. You can find a June 2004 video of the pair discussing their first book here. (h/t themarketswork.com)
Jonathan Clarke is the U.S. Representative – Director U.S. Operations for Hakluyt. Clarke is a fairly public figure – but it was quite difficult to locate references to his association with Hakluyt.
Given the lengthy association between Halper and Clarke, I expect we will find additional ties between Halper, other members of Hakluyt and members of British Intelligence.
Halper’s association with former MI6 Head Richard Dearlove – via their previous positions at Cambridge Intelligence Seminar – is already known. –Themarketswork.com”
At this point, it seems the most likely Person the FBI source is would be Stephan Halper. They used him to validate Steele and Downer.
I bet you $1,000 it's in the Carter Page FISA warrant application
— Jack Posobiec🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 11, 2018
It seems the rabbit hole is indeed a deep one. Posobiec’s assessment on the FBI mole and on Hakluyt and indeed on Halper’s potential involvement is in short – “Page got played.”
BREAKING: FBI Trump Source https://t.co/Q5MS5t2NL9
— Jack Posobiec🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 11, 2018
The Wall Street Journal again dares to publish an op-ed this time from a 33-year veteran of the FBI who upon his reflections of his own tenure at the Bureau and considering the debacle above, proclaims his “shock” at the utter and complete disrespect being shown to Congress currently. As Thomas Baker notes “it truly is a change in culture.”
Baker states –
“Last week we learned that some Republican members of Congress are considering articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if he doesn’t hand over certain Federal Bureau of Investigation documents. In January, House Speaker Paul Ryan had to threaten the deputy attorney general and FBI Director Christopher Wray with contempt to get them to comply with a House subpoena for documents about the Steele dossier.
I spent 33 years in the FBI, including several working in the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. The recent deterioration in the bureau’s relationship with Congress is shocking. It truly is a change in culture.
Former Directors William Webster (1978-87) and Louis Freeh (1993-2001) insisted that the FBI respond promptly to any congressional request. In those days a congressional committee didn’t need a subpoena to get information from the FBI. Yes, we were particularly responsive to the appropriations committees, which are key to the bureau’s funding. But my colleagues and I shared a general sense that responding to congressional requests was the right thing to do.
The bureau’s leaders often reminded us of Congress’s legitimate oversight role. This was particularly true of the so-called Gang of Eight, which was created by statute to ensure the existence of a secure vehicle through which congressional leaders could be briefed on the most sensitive counterintelligence or terrorism investigations.
On Aug. 27, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes asked the FBI to deliver certain documents immediately. The bulk of the documents weren’t actually delivered until Jan. 11. I can’t imagine Mr. Webster or Mr. Freeh tolerating such a delay. One of the documents Mr. Nunes requested is the electronic communication believed to have initiated the counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump in July 2016. The FBI had previously provided a redacted text of that communication, but the Intelligence Committee wanted to see more.
On March 23 the bureau essentially told the committee it wouldn’t lift the redactions. There are legitimate reasons why the FBI would want certain portions of a sensitive document redacted, such as when information comes from a foreign partner. But there are ways around such difficulties. Select members of Congress have in the past been allowed to read highly sensitive documents under specific restrictions.
Former FBI Director James Comey didn’t even inform the Gang of Eight that the bureau had opened a counterintelligence investigation into the campaign of a major-party candidate for president. He testified on March 20, 2017, that he had kept Congress in the dark about the Trump investigation because he’d been advised to do so by his assistant director of counterintelligence—due to “the sensitivity of the matter.”
The Gang of Eight exists for precisely this purpose. Not using it is inexplicable.
This isn’t the way a law-enforcement agency should behave under our system of separation of powers.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions must push Mr. Wray to get the FBI’s relationship with Congress back on track. It won’t be easy, but the American people deserve it and the Constitution demands it.”