It has been widely reported that the Obama administration had a spy working inside the Trump campaign.
As previously reported internet sleuths have determined the identity of the FBI spy inside the Trump campaign.
Jeff Carlson at theMarketswork on Thursday put together a piece where he places an individual by the name of Stefan Halper as a potential FBI spy into the Trump campaign. (Note that some believe that Obama may have had more than one spy on the Trump campaign).
It was a lucrative business for Stefan Halper.
Internet sleuth Jacob Wohl discovered that Stefan Halper was paid $282,295 in September 2016 for “research and development in the social sciences and humanities.”
Another Twitter sleuth identified a second payment to Halper in the amount of $129,280 making the total payments to Halper more than $400,000 from President Obama’s Administration to spy on the future President of the United States.
Stefan Halper was paid a total of $411,575 in 2016 and 2017 for work with the US government that included spying on the Trump campaign.
Now this…
It looks like Halper was still working for the Deep State well into 2017 after President Trump was in office.
Carter Page, who was spied on by the Obama DOJ and FBI, published an email he received from Stefan Halper in July 2017.
Halper was still reaching out to Carter Page well into 2017.
There was no illegal spying.
Obama isn’t under investigation. Neither is Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is presently under investigation—and he’s acting very much like somebody with a great deal to hide.
@Greg: Dream your impossible dreams but every indicator is that Bush, Clinton and Obama meddled in our election using the IC and its useful idiots, Obama knew and there is a paper and electronic trail.
The IC is in the executive branch and Trump is the boss, you dont have to like it.
Using unverified faked evidence to obtain a warrant is illegal dopey. Leaking classified information is illegal the whole operation was a crime.
@Greg:
The voters chose not to elect a proven liar and criminal despite the overwhelming media support for that criminal. That’s actually pretty smart.
Uh, YEAH. He DOES have that right. The Executive branch works for him. He can have them investigate whatever he wants. Apparently, he can also have them spy on opposition political campaigns, too. You were saying that it is the right thing to do to investigate suspicions. Shouldn’t we find out if Obama had Trump’s campaign spied on for political reasons? Wouldn’t that be the RIGHT and RESPONSIBLE thing to do?
How do you know without an investigation? By just taking Obama’s word for it? Clapper says it was for Trump’s protection, but funny they never let Trump know he was in such peril.
Uh… hate to break this to you, but Hillary IS being investigated. My best guess is, Obama will be also… soon.
Trump has allowed this mock investigation to continue for well over a year. He was being investigated before he KNEW he was being investigated and NO illegal activity or collusion has been discovered. Now it is being revealed this was NEVER the concern, it was all political. You are making Trump more popular than he ever dreamed.
Here’s a little scenario for you.
A company wants to purchase a large portion of our uranium. It turns out this company is being controlled by the Russians. The State Department and DOJ have to sign off on the sale. The State Department and DOJ are aware of the ongoing investigation, which proves to be correct. The husband of the Secretary of State, who has to sign off on the deal, goes to Russia and gives a speech. He also visits Putin. He gets paid $500,000 for a short speech. A half million dollars, in his pocket. Then his wife, the Secretary of State, approves the uranium sale. Later, this same woman is running for President in a campaign in which the danger of Russian interference is a known concern.
The FBI spies on the other campaign.
Yeah, when I write it down, this makes perfect sense.
@Deplorable Me: This is interesting
The call for a second special counsel, 50 minutes of sanity.
@Deplorable Me, #53:
Why would anyone vote for a pack of idiots who have never been able to prove something supposedly so obvious? Particularly after repeatedly squandering millions of taxpayer dollars without turning up a shred of credible evidence? They do truly love investigations—with the notable exception of this current one.
Trump lost the popular election by nearly three million votes. A majority of American voters didn’t want him anywhere near the White House. Any intelligent person paying attention to Trump’s parody of “swamp draining” should understand why. The Russian question is only the tip of the iceberg. The fiscally irresponsible high-end cash grab described as tax reform, the mowing down of regulatory restraints that were to the benefit of the general public, and a plethora of plutocratic favors and undisclosed conflicts of interest will be a fertile ground for future historians—if not for Robert Mueller.
Donald Trump turned a rumor into a full-blown government conspiracy in just 5 days
I’m not really a president, but I play one on television.
Lesley Stahl: Trump admitted mission to “discredit” press
As if that couldn’t be figured out by way of direct observation… When truthful reporting is your enemy, you have to try to kill it.
@Greg:
Greg. Take a deep breath, sit down and pay attention. When Hillary lied under oath, on video, before Congress about sending, receiving or storing State Department classified information on her unsecured, private, secret email server, a fact that the FBI had confirmed, she proved she was a criminal. Why she wasn’t prosecuted is a testament to the politicization and weaponization of the DOJ which Obama enacted.
Now, I’ll repeat that. Hillary lied on video about a fact proved by the FBI. So, she committed perjury denying a crime the FBI said she committed.
Because of Democrat voter fraud, we have no idea what the final vote count was. But, since the Electoral College is how we have determined elections since the days of George Washington, what the popular vote was is merely a point of interest.
The only “Russian Question” there is is how much collusion did Hillary commit to sell uranium, approve weapons deals and peddle US influence. As it applies to Trump, it is a lie, it always has been a lie and only idiots still believe the lie. Are you telling me you are an idiot, Greg?
Obama using FBI spies to infiltrate the campaign of an opposition party candidate and abuse the FISA system to spy on the candidate is a disgrace. It is the stuff of dictators. Yet, no one is really surprised to learn that Obama did it and that liberals like it.
So how goes the coup today? It is now coming out that Halper may have fed information into the dossier further exposing the absurd lie that this was done to protect Trump from the Russians and that it wasn’t politically motivated. Numerous rank and file FBI agents are coming forward asking Congress to issue subpoenas so they can testify as to how the Bureau was politicized under Comey etc. They are said to be very angry and want to see the whole clan go to jail. The other agent who was present in the room during the frame up of Flynn is ready to testify. And finally, Jay Sekulow has received thousands of documents through the FOIA clearly showing pay for play at HRC’s DoS. Expect the left to become even more desperate and unhinged.
@Deplorable Me, #57:
And yet, no charges. It isn’t because the FBI and the DOJ is corrupt, and Donald Trump is the only honest man left. It’s because there was insufficient credible evidence to support any specific charges before a grand jury. I presume you understand how the grand jury process works.
People believe there is such evidence because they think the defamation campaign run across the right’s goofy conspiracy theory media bears some relationship to reality. The stuff PR campaigns are woven from is not the same as admissible courtroom evidence. If compelling evidence meeting courtroom standards did in fact exist, there would have been charges. Not liking what Clinton did doesn’t necessarily mean it was contrary to the letter of the law. Things that are arguable either way, and ultimately come down to a matter of opinion, don’t stand up in court.
The same standards will apply to Trump. Mueller won’t indict unless there’s compelling evidence to convince a grand jury that a crime was committed. Without that, a case doesn’t move on to a trial by jury.
That does not seem to be the case, which is why a Special Counsel is investigating the Trump Administration, rather than a non-existent Clinton Administration.
The Uranium One conspiracy is a story for idiots. It relies upon people being clueless about how the approval process actually worked, and about what the results of approval actually were. That’s been explained countless times, with references to back the rebuttal up. I’m not going to waste more time on pointless repetition. Anyone who wants to know the truth can discover it for themselves. Or continue listening to bullshit conspiracy theory.
@Greg: The letter of the law is Mueller cant indict a sitting President, The Senate can bring up charges and impeach, then he can be indicted. Its funny you speak of letter of the law but dont know it.
As far as the Hillary skate party goes it was never up to the investigator to decide if any of the 15 minutes of possible charges were up for prosecution, that decision should have been made by the DOJ after all the evidence was gathered. Mixing investigation with prosecution is wrong on so many levels.
@Greg:
Well, yes it is. It absolutely is. As is explained on another post on FA, the clearing verdict was concluded before the investigation began, before Hillary was “questioned” (“I don’t remember, 39 times) and before any of the laptops and phones were in the FBI’s possession (and subsequently destroyed). Now, just because that is the same way Mueller’s investigation is going (he develops the verdict, then tries to fill in the blanks to justify it) does not mean that is a proper and justice-seeking investigation. No, the way the “investigation” (aka “matter”) of Hillary was treated was with the emphasis on getting her out of a tight spot.
She is on video lying. There is but one reason there was no indictment and it is the same reason Ted Kennedy was not indicted for manslaughter; liberals get special treatment by the liberal judiciary. You have convicted Trump based on salacious hear-say and wanton fabrication of accusations yet cannot see Hillary’s guilt when it is presented on video for your education. You, Greg, at the very least, are a very, very foolish person.
Clearly the same standards do not apply. If there were equal standards (or standards at all) for every one spy Obama assigned to Trump’s campaign, he would have had 5 in Hillary’s. I don’t think that was the case.
You read the scenario I laid out in my #53 post. If the names were removed and no predetermination of guilt was assumed, would you at least admit that that is reason for suspicion? Do you at least have enough honest courage for THAT?
@Deplorable Me: You have to admit that Greg has the courage to post one stupid comment after another without concern.
@kitt, #60:
I looked into this because I didn’t know. It’s actually open to debate whether or not a sitting president can be called before a grand jury by subpoena, or can be indicted. This isn’t clearly stated anywhere in the law and the Supreme Court has never made a definitive ruling.
Because of that uncertainty, it seems unlikely to me that Mueller would turn any of his conclusions into the basis for a test case. He would more likely turn it into a problem for Congress to deal with. He could force their hand, however, by indicting others who were complicit. Such indictments could paint a very complete picture surrounding an absent central figure. Assuming, of course, that his investigation supports such an exercise. We really don’t know what he might conclude, because we really don’t know what he has discovered.
@Greg: Its the DOJs own decision:(you know the finest legal minds in the country)
“A necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court in connection with it … would interfere with the President’s unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else.
He would have to shoot Mueller in the middle of 5th avenue. After spying, and trying to roll his people they still have nada on Trump so weave those fantasies, dream those dreams.
@Greg: Or, he could simply do what is the original intent and what he has been doing; leak bits and inaccurate pieces of “evidence” and drag the investigation out until the elections to try and hurt Republican chances by the implication of guilt (since this is an “investigation” and not a “matter”).
@Deplorable Me: That would be perfect cause semi sane former democrats are up to their a$$holes and eyeballs with this crap and the Blue wave is gone, generic polls have republicans ahead, the fools have ruined a 10 point lead. Somehow stories have leaked out that the economy is doing well better than ever in Obamas reign, the only Russian they see is http://www.tmz.com/2018/05/21/hillary-clinton-russian-hat-yale-commencement-graduation/ Perhaps they just have outrage burnout.
Maybe seeing all their friends they used to love to jab on social media about politics banned has them thinking. Looking around the liberal echo chamber is not so pretty. Who wants to send their boy to the jamboree when condoms are on the must have list, what happened to the little mess kit and pocket knife?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/22/boy-scouts-require-condoms-upcoming-world-jamboree/ The theme is “Unlock a New World.” They just have to ruin everything…
@another vet: AV and Bill Burriss
You guys been spending WAY too much time on Fox—unhinged would be Sean and Laura–incredibly shrill.
Suggest you give Wolf and Erin a few minutes just to hear the other side.
Gotta say Nunez AND Schiff are both screwballs.
Carter Page—buy a clue.
As for Mueller–decorated Marine Corps Officer–fought valiantly in V.N while I was there–I await his report.
@Richard Wheeler:
We all do, hope its worth the 10s of millions of tax payer dollars he is burning through. His Russian indictment truly a disappointing joke.
To think some find it perfectly logical that the Russians can spend less than a million on trolling and ads would have much of an effect against the billions MSM provided trying to destroy a candidate.
It might have worked if the democrats had anything more than the communist manifesto dressed up as “progressive” strategy, could have overcome the Clinton “its my turn” machine and kept her sober enough to campaign without insulting her own base.
Now in order to win the candidates must dump her and Pelosi, and sound like left leaning republicans.
@Kitt:
Exactly what was the propaganda that turned everyone’s minds? Did the Russians create the story that Hillary lied about how she left the Benghazi consulate defenseless in the face of a known terror threat… ON 9/11… and lied about the cause? Did the Russians invent the story that Hillary had an illegal, unsecured, private secret email server with which to evade archive rule and FOIA requests? Did a Russian dress up as Hillary and commit perjury, on video, before Congress? If what the Russians were doing was merely to make sure these fact were spread, then they were doing the job our media SHOULD have been doing, which makes sense since they both subscribe to the same ideology.
That the Russians were fiddling around with the election is known. That they made any difference is a farce.
@Deplorable Me:
Spy/informant
Farce/cover for criminal activities
Language is a fun thing pull up a thesaurus and soften the blow, you can even argue not really a synonym 😉
@kitt, #64:
I’m aware of that DOJ statement. It’s from a memorandum stating an operational policy. It isn’t actually based on any particular law, statute, or regulation.
@Deplorable Me, #65:
The investigation will end when Mueller decides all serious questions can either be laid to rest, or evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors can be presented for appropriate action—neither sooner nor later. He has no doubt learned from Comey’s experience that trying to take any possible effect on upcoming elections into account doesn’t end well. The only way to get to a unbiased and accurate conclusion is to disregard everything but the evidence itself.
So far as the politics go, republicans should take note of an old saying: What goes around, comes around. They attempted to destroy Clinton’s candidacy with an endless series politically motivated investigations; now they’re incapable of seeing Mueller’s investigation except by the light of their own past behavior. This is much like dishonest people being unable to recognize honesty in others.
Apparently progress is being made. Initially, the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russian meddling had even taken place was claimed to be a lie.
@Greg: I dare them to test it with the SCOTUS especially with this investigation. The investigation itself severely tests the appointments clause. Roddy has some splaining to do
Restarting a “Special counsel office” that congress never renewed (where does he get off?)
Sending this dog off on a hunt without strict legal parameters (he should know that is not constitutional)
Why didn’t Roddy recruse he signed off on a request for a FISA warrant involving the election. (ethics be damned)
Yes the SCOTUS should be involved.
Mueller and the DOJ aren’t likely to do anything that would bring the SCOTUS in, knowing full well that this would be used by the Trump administration as a diversion and a means to derail the entire investigation.
What’s more likely to be tested—and in a highly public fashion—is the integrity of the U.S. House of Representatives.
@Greg:
We are well aware Mueller’s “investigation” is political retribution. You don’t need to confess it. The difference being that Clinton committed crimes. Trump’s only crime was winning an election fair and square.
The left’s accusation was that the Russians “interfered”. No one can find any interference. Again, read #69. Hillary did it all to herself. She was in no way worthy of winning.
@Deplorable Me, #75:
That would be an article of the faith rather than a demonstrable truth. Others have come to an entirely different conclusion.
Mueller’s investigation follows on a number of documented and troubling contacts between Trump campaign and administration figures and shady representatives of foreign governments. The Russians are known to have been running a sophisticated clandestine operation to influence the course of the presidential election. Why would any reasonable person think possible collusion shouldn’t be fully investigated?
To meddle means to interfere. No question it happened.
Question is== did Trump team promote or encourage Russian meddling/interference? Did they attempt to interfere/obstruct investigation of meddling/interference?
The envelope please.
@Greg:
Well, others are obviously morons. When it was discovered this was all predicated on an unverified, salacious bit of campaign propaganda, it should have been disbanded. When it was shown that everyone on Mueller’s team were ardent Hillary sycophants and Trump haters, at the very least an entirely new team should have been selected. It seems no one has even TRIED to disguise the fact that this is nothing whatsoever but a political hit job.
Yet it totally ignores the numerous contacts Hillary’s HUSBAND had with Russians, where MONEY CHANGED HANDS. Some of those “contacts” have been proven to be false, MOST have been proven to be completely benign and within the scope of representatives of a new administration creating contacts with their foreign counterparts.
Once again, read my #69. Apparently you haven’t yet.
Because these “reasonable persons” show no suspicion whatsoever of the EXTREMELY suspicious activities of the campaign that actually used their collusion with the Russians as evidence to suspect the other campaign. No, it is NOT reasonable to suspect any collusion, especially after spies in the campaign reporting back to Obama, illegal FISA surveillance being leaked, 99% of the media looking for any hint of a crime, multiple Congressional investigations and a year long “investigation” by the most biased, prejudiced people Mueller could find and NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE has surfaced even justifying the suspicion.