Talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh is suggesting that, based on the evidence that’s become available, the Deep State may have had a spy infiltrate the Trump campaign.
The FBI planted a spy on the inside of the Trump campaign during the election. This is huge! So even with a spy on the inside they have nothing on Russia or any other crimes committed by Trump. This is a very embarrassing time for the FBI. Obama weaponized all our intelligences
— Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) May 10, 2018
“These swamp people are so in the vapors with all of this – I think they’re so shocked and stunned over everything that’s happened – that they have long since abandoned any rationality whatsoever,” he said.
“I actually believe the FBI planted an informant in the Trump campaign – before Mueller was appointed, obviously,” he said.
He cited three recent publications in coming to his conclusion.
The first was a column by Kimberley Strassel, of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which made the point “that the Trump legal team is narrowly focused, that they’re focused on defending and protecting Trump and what they need to be focused on is defending and protecting the Constitution and the presidency and the executive branch – and in doing so, they will take care of Trump.”
Her theory, he explained, is that the attack being sustained by Trump critics isn’t an attack on him, “it’s an attack on the Constitution.”
“It is an attempt to say that any president exercising his constitutional duties is obstructing justice! He can’t fire Comey, that’s obstructing justice? That’s bogus! Her point is, the Constitution permits him control of the executive branch! He can do with anybody in the executive branch what he wants! He can declassify any file that he wants! He could make sure that we all could see the FISA warrant application. He could release everything; nobody could stop him. Her point is actually very good, that any president exercising his constitutional duties cannot be guilty of obstruction.”
Second, for Limbaugh, was a Washington Post report that Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is seeking information from the Justice Department about “an individual who people close to the matter say is a sensitive, longtime intelligence source for the CIA and FBI.”
Justice has refused to provide any information on the “U.S. citizen who has aided the special counsel investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign.”
Third was a Wall Street Journal report that commented on that very source.
“I would not be surprised if, in fact, the FBI planted an informant in the Trump campaign in order to try to prove this Russia collusion business,” Limbaugh said Thursday.
He noted Nunes’ demands for documents and information – and the Justice Department’s refusal.
He explained that one of the reports suggests that reporters already know who the “top secret” source is.
He noted the description as a “U.S. citizen,” who has been an informant for both “the CIA and FBI,” and has provided information that was given to Mueller.
“So the Journal editorial claims the Post already knows who this source is – and if they do, why can’t Nunes? Well, Nunes learning somehow would violate national security,” he said.
The claims include that outing the source could “damage relationships with other countries,” but Limbaugh said “only if the source is a foreign citizen, but we know now the source isn’t.”
“The source is a U.S. citizen, so outing the source would not damage relationships with other countries unless this source has also been involved in screwing other countries. But it suggests that the source has worked overseas. If they’re gonna claim that a U.S. citizen cannot be outed here because it might damage relationships other countries, it means he has worked overseas. Suggests it, anyway,” he continued.
Further, Limbaugh added, “And the story says the ‘role of the intelligence source’ could further provoke Republicans who have accused Justice and the FBI of engaging in ‘misuse of their surveillance power,” and, here we go, ‘hinting that the government may have used the source to snoop on the Trump campaign’”
“There it is. So it’s a pretty safe bet that the FBI planted an informant in the Trump campaign. Nunes wants to know who it is; the DOJ says, ‘No way, Jose!’” he said.
The pieces are all beginning to fall into place:
The Wall Street Journal reported:
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.
Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?
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’t 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’s loose lips.
We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both.