Informant raises questions about FBI
Revelations that the FBI used an informant to monitor the Trump campaign in 2016 serve to reinforce the president’s contention that “deep state” forces are out to get him.
He let the world know his displeasure via Twitter on Sunday: “I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced that the Department of Justice would have the inspector general look into the informant issue, noting in a statement that he would “expand the ongoing review of the FISA application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election.”
The informant, named by multiple media sources, is Stefan Halper, a 73-year-old Cambridge University professor who has done work with several Republican presidential administrations and has ties to intelligence services in the United States. He had several conversations with members of the Trump campaign in 2016 and corresponded in email as well. This is troubling.
Best-case scenario, a counterintelligence investigation focused on Russian election tampering organically led to members of the Trump campaign and FBI resources were dispatched to investigate. It would make sense to be thorough and ferret any information that might be pertinent to the core case.
Worst-case scenario is that the Obama DOJ looked to compromise either candidate or President Trump or both and sent the FBI buzzing around the campaign looking to entrap whomever they could. It is not fair to impugn the entire FBI, but 2016 was not its best year. It was the year of Jim Comey — a director who took unprecedented liberties in the Hillary Clinton investigation.
Let’s remember, there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Even if there were a willingness to collude, that would not be a crime unless it was acted on. So what are we still doing here?
We may have to wait for the inspector general’s report on that. Until then, it looks more and more likely that the misdeeds were committed by the “swamp” and not the man trying to drain it.