BOMBSHELL: New Report Reveals FBI May Have Had A Mole Deep In Trump Campaign

A new bombshell report, if true, could confirm a weaponized FBI against then-candidate Trump and members of his presidential campaign. As BizPac Review reports, on Thursday, House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy were able to view classified information at the Justice Department concerning “a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI probe of the Trump campaign.”

So, who is the FBI informant?

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kimberly Strassel wrote that even without the FBI providing more information, there is enough to elicit spying conducted by the FBI into the Trump campaign vis-a-vis having someone on the inside.

Strassel wrote, “The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.”

“Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information form a congressional investigation,” she added.

The information hid was the source of the FBI’s information. Was it an FBI spy inside the campaign? Nunes needed to know more and pressed the Justice Department and the FBI for more information, but was met with typical bureaucratic stonewalling.

He pressed further. Here’s what happened, via Strassel’s WSJ piece:

The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.


Here’s more:

Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Possible insider dealings from the FBI would only add to the shady behavior exhibited around the 2016 presidential election, Strassel argued. “But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible,” she concluded. “It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.” Several other people over social media shared her review:

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.

DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in articles do not necessarily reflect the views held by Sarah Palin.


Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of