The internet has begun guessing who the FBI spy was.
Was Stefan Halper the FBI spy that the Justice Department doesn’t want Congress to learn about?
Halper seems life a typical academic. Here he is from a few years ago plugging his book on China:
But several people who have been studying the issue think that Halper may have been the FBI’s source of intelligence. If so, this means the source was not embedded in the Trump campaign but had access to several people in the campaign.
Clarice Feldman writes at The American Thinker, “The ‘Election Collusion’ Was between Our Intelligence Community and Britain.”
Trending: British Muslims say Keep Your Dogs AWAY!
The most likely prospect was not in the 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 who lived in the U.K.: Stefan Halper, a former advisor to three Republican presidents (and therefore, had perfect cover), a Cambridge Fellow, who, as we 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.[…]
Here’s how Halper “helped” the Trump campaign from publicly available information:
–On July 16, 2016 he invited Carter Page to a Cambridge symposium
–On September 11, 2016 he met with a senior Trump official
–On September 13-16 he met with Papadopoulos.
Halper is a close associate of former MI6 head Richard Dearlove, who in a recent video interview, cagily refused to acknowledge the veracity of the Steele dossier.[…]
If Halper was not a person we’d consider a mole in the campaign, as he never was actually part of the campaign team — just someone trying to fish for dirt (or lure people like Page and Papadopoulos into some compromising acts) — why the weasel description in the report Nunes is examining?
Mark Wauck agrees with my take: “The advantage for the FBI would be that they could represent that they had a human source (Halper) with a decades-long track record of supposed reliability who could confirm the dossier because he was in personal contact with Page […].”
In the same sense, the Clinton-supporting IC officials likely used whatever British intelligence services they could to disguise what was really CIA spying on Trump. It also seems obvious that this coordination was not spontaneous, but was well-planned beforehand.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com