{"id":99238,"date":"2018-05-14T19:05:37","date_gmt":"2018-05-14T23:05:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=99238"},"modified":"2018-05-14T19:05:58","modified_gmt":"2018-05-14T23:05:58","slug":"the-election-collusion-was-between-our-intelligence-community-and-britain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=99238","title":{"rendered":"The ‘Election Collusion’ Was between Our Intelligence Community and Britain"},"content":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Clarice Feldman
\nAmerican Thinker<\/p>\n

As I will explain, the widespread notion that Russia and Trump colluded to beat Hillary has long been demonstrable bunk. What seems more clear each day is that there was collusion between certain members of the U.S. and British intelligence communities to spy on the Trump campaign. This may explain, in large part, the reluctance of the Department of Justice to reveal what it knows publicly. After all — with rare exceptions — the two countries\u2019 intelligence services have long had important information gathering and sharing agreements, and exposure of this may harm the traditional reciprocal relationship.<\/p>\n

Whether the British counterparts were hoodwinked into playing this role is still unclear. Maybe they were. On the other hand, with most of what they know about the U.S. electorate doubtless coming from the NYT and even more left-wing British media, they may well have done this willingly, believing\u00a0the globalist Hillary had a sure shot at the presidency and this was a means of cementing a relationship with her.<\/p>\n

Key Developments This Week<\/strong><\/p>\n

Congressman Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,\u00a0has been stonewalled by the Department of Justice respecting the details of the originating Electronic Communication (EC)\u00a0on July 31, 2016, which formed the basis of the commencement of the FBI counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. In particular, he wanted to know the identity\u00a0of the person whose name\u00a0had been redacted on what has been described as an FBI\/DOJ source \u201ca U.S. Citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI\u201d. The DOJ replied that revealing the source \u201cmight damage international relationships.\u201d Failing to get a response, Nunes threatened to hold the attorney general in contempt of Congress and the DoJ offered a private meeting. At this meeting they were denied an opportunity to view the relevant documents, but Greg Jarrett reports they will get to see them next week:<\/p>\n

Jarrett:\u00a0Our top story, the corrupt DOJ Leaderships is still stonewalling Congress about a potential Bombshell revelation — the identity of an FBI Mole within the Trump Campaign. House Intelligence Committee members Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy will have to wait until next week to get a direct look at the very documents related to the Russia Probe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At about the time the meeting took place, Kimberley Strassel of the\u00a0Wall Street Journal\u00a0<\/em>dropped a bombshell<\/a>, making public what we long suspected.<\/p>\n

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post\u2019s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes\u2019s request deals with a \u201ctop secret intelligence source\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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. (snip)<\/p>\n

And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn\u2019t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide\u2019s loose lips.<\/p>\n

We also know that among the Justice Department\u2019s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the \u201csource\u201d may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That\u2019s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this \u201ctop secret\u201d source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.<\/p>\n

But what is clear is that we\u2019ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI\u2019s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It\u2019s time to rip off the band-aid.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

British Involvement in Electronic Spying on the Trump Campaign<\/strong><\/p>\n

The fingerprints are already clear on this, In January 2017 the NYT reported that Trump associates\u2019 communications had been intercepted abroad and passed on to its U.S. counterparts. Shortly afterward, Robert Hannigan, director of Britain\u2019s GCHQ (its national security center) abruptly resigned after serving in that position for just three years. CGHQ intercepts communications at the request of the CIA and sends it the CIA as if this were their own undertaking.<\/p>\n

British Involvement in Human Intelligence Gathering on the Trump Campaign<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"In January, Glenn Simpson, head of GPS Fusion, Hillary\u2019s spy operation on Trump, told investigators that in September 2016,\u00a0Christopher Steele, author of the discredited\u00a0dossier, had\u00a0\u00a0been informed by the FBI that it had \u201ca human source inside the Trump organization<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

On the assumption that this is true, the Internet has been examining who it might be.<\/p>\n

Carter Page came to many minds, but it\u2019s hard to see how revealing his identity would \u201cdamage international relationships.\u201d Moreover, the FISA warrant on him seems to have violated internal regulations and the FISA itself.<\/p>\n

He has long been known to have been an FBI informant, and may as well have informed for the CIA. Mark Wauck, a former FBI agent with experience in such matters, writes me:<\/p>\n

If Carter Page is the informant whose info helps Rosenstein justify the [Special Counsel], then at one and probably more than one point the FBI was misrepresenting Page to the FISC and was putting untruths in its own files about Page and was providing untruths in Page’s name to DoJ to justify the SC.<\/p>\n

It’s like keeping a double set of books.<\/p>\n

In one set of files, classified as 65 (espionage) the FBI says Carter Page is a Russian spy and they go to the FISC and ask for a FISA on that basis. The EC that opens the investigation spells it out: he’s a Russian guy and we can’t trust him.<\/p>\n

In a second set of files classified as 134 (CI asset) the FBI says Carter Page is a good guy who’s working for us and he’s giving us super valuable and reliable info re the Russians subverting our election and maybe that Trump is Putin’s guy. So in this set of files Page isn’t a spy at all, we’ve done the background and we trust him and his info. Which must mean that the 65 files are a pack of lies.<\/p>\n

So if Carter Page is the guy that must mean that the FBI was cooking the books. This is only possible if a bunch of people near the top are in on the deception, but the admin people lower down don’t know — which is how the FBI file system works. The admin people handling 134s won’t see the 65 files, and vice versa. And what we may find is that the 134 files were filled with creative writing.<\/p>\n

I know this sounds complicated, but trust me on this — if Carter Page is the guy the FBI\/DoJ is trying to hide from Nunes, then the FBI was keeping a double set of books, and probably totally cooking the books. And that means there could only one reason for that: to get Trump. If this is what was going on, people should be going to jail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The most likely prospect was not\u00a0in<\/em>\u00a0the Trump campaign itself, but someone who worked with U.S. and apparently British intelligence, with a record of trying to spy on lowly campaign workers and even trick them into compromising actions, a U.S. citizen with strong ties to British intelligence\u00a0who lived in the U.K.: Stefan Halper, a former advisor to three Republican presidents (and therefore, had perfect cover), a Cambridge Fellow, who, as\u00a0we detail, interacted with various Trump campaign workers ostensibly to assist them. On November 3, 2016, he publicly stated that Hillary would be the best option for U.S.-U.K. relations. It\u2019s reasonable to assume, therefore, that the \u201chelp\u201d was not for the Trump campaign,but for Hillary<\/a>.<\/p>\n

“I believe [Hillary] Clinton would be best for\u00a0US-UK relations and for\u00a0relations with\u00a0the European Union. Clinton is well-known, deeply experienced and predictable. US-UK relations will remain steady regardless of\u00a0the winner although Clinton will be less disruptive over\u00a0time,” Halper, who served as\u00a0deputy assistant secretary of\u00a0state for\u00a0political-military affairs and senior adviser to\u00a0the Department of\u00a0Defense and the Department of\u00a0Justice, said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here\u2019s how Halper \u201chelped\u201d the Trump campaign from publicly available information:<\/p>\n