Pierce: It's Probably Bad That the FBI Had a Mole in Your Campaign

[babylonsister]

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14941443/fbi-mole-trump-campaign/

It's Probably Bad That the FBI Had a Mole in Your Campaign
The ballad of Trump 2016.
By Charles P. Pierce
Jan 9, 2018


By now, we all ought to have made ourselves comfortable down here in the rabbit hole into which the country dived in November of 2016. Laid down rugs. Hung a few pictures. Hooked up the WiFi and the cable. Because, otherwise, finding out that someone walked out of the Trump campaign and into the waiting arms of the FBI might be a story that rocked a few worlds. From Mother Jones:

The ex-British spy who authored a dossier of allegations against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was told the FBI had someone inside the Trump campaign providing agents with information, according to a newly-released transcript of a congressional interview…“My understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization,” Simpson said. Using the parlance of spies and law enforcement officials, Simpson said the FBI had a “walk-in’’ whistleblower from someone in Trump’s organization.

There seems to be some confusion over whether or not Simpson was talking about a heretofore unknown figure in the investigation, or about the Australian diplomat to whom George Papadopolous drunkenly ran his mouth in the British wine bar. But this I can guarantee you—this revelation is going to be twisted into some amazing shapes by people like Charles Grassley and the replicant that has replaced Lindsey Graham, to say nothing of the entire right-wing media network.

By the end of the week, we’ll be hearing about Barack Obama’s being on stakeout outside of Trump Tower in a nondescript white van, headphones securely on his head. Down in the rabbit hole, we won’t be surprised at all.

[Irish_Dem]

1. But the FBI felt compelled to say that Hillary was under investigation right before the election. nt

[Wounded Bear]

5. They probably didn't have an asset to protect in the Clinton camp...

According to the testimony, at least one person has already been killed over this.

[Irish_Dem]

6. I understand why they did not tip their hand on Trump, but why make a public statement

about Hillary on weak charges, when they knew Trump was a real problem.

[Wounded Bear]

8. Sorry if I sounded like I was defending how they handled the Clinton situation...

From Comey launching his editorial monologue when what he should have said was simply, "The investigation into the Clinton email server is closed due to lack of evidence."

Then he compounded that with his letter to the Congress just before the election.

He definitely screwed the pooch on that one.

[Irish_Dem]

12. Oh I know you weren't. I am just asking rhetorical questions.

Sorry for the confusion!

[tblue37]

15. Giuliani and Clinton-hating FBI goons in NYC were pressuring & threatening Comey. nt

[Irish_Dem]

16. I know, but to me, the story seemed to have some missing pieces.

Is Comey so lacking in courage, strength or conviction?

Could a field office have so much power over him?
And why?

[tblue37]

26. The NYC cadre had possession of Weiner's laptop, as I understand it. Their threat

was to reveal (1) that they had the emails on the laptop, and (2) that Coney was suppressing the "evidence" of Clinton's "crimes."

Since Comey had promised Congressional Republicans that he would inform them of any new developments in the case, he wrote the letter to the GOP leadership in Congress, which, of course, they immediately leaked to the voracious anti-Hillary press.

It's all a lot of bull caca, but it does seem that Comey let himself be outmaneuvered by the Hillary haters in the NYC FBI.

[Irish_Dem]

30. Why was he so afraid of the GOP congress if that was a major pressure point for him?

I guess I still do not understand why a long time Washington insider would let himself be
threatened by his own staff and congress. Certainly he understood politics and it was not the first
time he had been pressured to do something wrong.

The more we talk about it, the more I am thinking about Occam's razor.

1. Comey did it because he is naive, not very smart, and lacks integrity.

or

2. Comey did it because he wanted to.

[tblue37]

32. He truly believed Clinton would win. Maybe, since he is a Republican, no doubt fairly conservative,

he thought it would be a good idea to weaken her a bit at the start of her presidency.

More likely, I think, is that he is very vain about his own reputation for probity and was thus easy to stampede with a plausible threat to that reputation.

[Irish_Dem]

33. Interesting.

Yes that makes sense, an attempt to weaken her presidency before she took office.
Reprehensible. A clear ethical violation.
He must have been planning on leaving Washington if she won.
He didn't care what anyone thought of him.

The reputation thing is interesting.
What kind of a person protects his reputation by taking an action that damages it completely.

[shraby]

39. He had told congress he would keep them apprised of anything that came up.

Chavez was investigating. Comey gave the info to congress and they threw it at the media almost immediately. That was not supposed to be the modus operandi to Comey. But Chavez has no scruples.

[Irish_Dem]

41. Just surprising that a Washington insider would be so threatened by congress.

To commit a crime (Hatch Act), and at the least act unethically.

[brush]

31. Yeah, it's all on Comey. He got suckered when he should've fired their asses.

As far as Weiner's laptop, there was a report that the "new" emails on the laptop were implanted there digitally, but however they got there, the rogue agents had to know they were just duplicates of what had already been extensively investigated.

They called Comey's bluff and he caved, and then still didn't fire them after the emails were found to be nothing but duplicates.

When he found that out he should've called them on the carpet to ask why they hadn't looked and found they were duplicates before threatening to reveal them?

Then of course he should've fired them to let others know not to pull that shit on the director.

[Mopar151]

40. Not the only rotten branch of the FBI.

The Boston field office developed Stockholm Syndrome over their star informant, the murderous Whitey Bulger.

[brush]

17. Because they are repug, partisan hacks in the tank for the repug to win, even though...

he had Russian spy Carter Page in his campaign.

Party over country.

[Irish_Dem]

18. I know, but why did Comey fold like a lawn chair?

That is the piece I cannot quite sort out yet.

The head of the FBI gives into a field office and violates the Hatch Act.
I know some say it was not a violation of that act, but certainly he knew
it was unethical to do what he did.

[brush]

19. My question too, and from my understanding making statements that can effect an election...

Last edited Tue Jan 9, 2018, 09:47 PM - Edit history (2)

two weeks before said election is a violation of the Hatch Act.

I blame Comey totally. He needed to act like the director of the FBI, not the one being directed by rogue, repug agents in the NY field office who threaten to reveal "new" Clinton emails if he didn't.

WTF?

He needed to clean house, fire their asses if need be, and either announce a new Clinton investigation along with the months' long trump campaign investigation or do nothing.

He caved to his own rogue agents and swung the election to trump by only announcing the new Clinton email non-scandal. What a weak, sanctimonious wuss.

IMO it's really something to watch the feet of clay of these once, allegedly strong figures be revealed — Comey, Bannon, Kelly, and of course trump, Ryan and McConnell.

[Irish_Dem]

23. Yes

But when I have asked that question here, some insist it is not a violation of the Hatch Act.
But the way I read the law, it is.

I agree, he was the boss.
And he does not answer to a field office.
They answer to him.
If subordinates start threatening their boss, they need to be fired.

If you have integrity and know the law, it is hard to be talked into illegal behavior.
We certainly expect more from the head of the FBI.

I also found his testimony in front of congress disingenuous.
He pretended that he only realized what he had done afterwards.
Can he really be that naive and clueless?

I suspect there is a bit more to this story, but not sure if we will ever learn of it.

Yes you are exactly correct on all your points.

And yes, I think Michelle Obama said: "Adversity does not build character, it reveals it."
So, yes we are seeing that every day now, character laid bare for the world to see.

[tblue37]

48. "If subordinates start threatening their boss, they need to be fired." True, but it is not that easy

to fire people from low-level and mid-level civil service jobs like that. Sure, you can fire people from appointed "posts," but civil service employees actually have a fair amount of protection against being summarily fired--sort of like public school teachers. The idea is to keep the government running by not letting each new regime fire everyone and then restaff with only their supporters, regardless of competence.

Also, of course, you don't want institutional memory to completely disappear every time a new administration gets into office.

[Irish_Dem]

53. Yes but certainly they can be moved, demoted or totally ignored.

Given reprimands, what have you.

There has to be some remedy available to an FBI director who is being threatened or blackmailed
by a field office.

If a director cannot manage his people, then he is the one who needs to be fired.

[tblue37]

55. Yes, that is what Wray did recently to a top FBI lawyer, Jim Baker. He moved him to

a different, less consequential position.

[MadLinguist]

24. Right down here with the March Hare, Dormouse and the Mad Hatter, the rogue NY FBI chapter

has been the subject at the mad tea party for a whole gott dam year! And frankly, Alice and I have both wearied of the tea and cakes. No one is saying just why a Raven is like a writing desk.

[brush]

29. Good analogies, but you've got to give us the reason why on the raven.

[MadLinguist]

35. well, I was riffing on Lewis Carroll given Pierce's refernce to a rabbit hole, BUT!

Carroll's answer to the Mad Tea Party riddle of why a raven is like a writing desk was "because it can produce a few notes, though they are very flat; and it is nevar put with the wrong end in front"

Assuming that you want something better than Carroll's misspelled palindromic answer to stand in for what in *THE* flying fuqq Comey thought he was doing and in response to what when he danced out for his 2016 October surprise, I'd say, given the context of what we now know about what the FBI knew in the Fall of 2016, that Comey the Raven was like a writing desk in his flat affect (considering what he knew, he was positively 2-diminsional in presentation), but which writing desk he was like is still a mystery --what notes he produced, and what notes he had access to, we do not know. There is something absolutely back assward (and much more complex than mere palindromic asymmetry) about a single FBI field office in NYC wielding that much power up the chain to the cause the director to take such a rash and unseemly action to head them off, something deeply awry there.

If I had to guess, I would say that the NYC office, when in Giuliani's hands, made some deep inroads into certain organized crime rings using information from rival crime rings. If they brought down the Gigante family thru insider information from certain Brighton Beach Russian mob assistance, there may have been some quite, let us say, complex relationships established in this exchange. Maybe Comey was a party to, or signed off on some of these trade-offs and somebody high up enough to do damage (a Giuliani protege maybe) was cashing in their chips in mid-October of 2016, thereby threatening whatever part in this crime-ring info exchange deal Comey played. So Comey moves to protect his hine quarters and justifies it to himself that he is also protecting the integrity of his agency, and launches his October Surprise. I know I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, but there is my partial answer to why the Raven was like a writing desk in October 2016.

I have my reservations about Comey, but I've never forgotten that it was he who raced to Ashcroft's hospital room to prevent Cheney's henchman, Andrew Card and W. Bush's AG, Gonzales from forcing Ashcroft to sign in something that would have reauthorized absolutely non-transparent domestic surveillance post 9-11. You don't do stuff like that for the fun of it, I don't think. I had never heard of Meuller back then, but in retrospect, knowing that it was *he* directing the FBI at the time that Comey was in the position that Rod Rosenstein now occupies, under the putrid leadership of AG Alberto Gonzales, I do believe that both Comey and Mueller survived in Justice Department through widely varying administrations at the White House by being loyal to the independent mission of their agency, and making that clear to people up and down their chains of command. This establishes a level of trust even amidst the normal work-place politics associated with personal ambitions and the like. This is just my read, since you asked...

As an aside from this all speculation within the Raven-writing desk metaphor I digress, but the point is, Comey was to Gonzales as Rosenstein is to Sessions. I could not stand Alberto Gonzales, who I referred to as 'Gun Sales' when W was in power. Now he seems like a mere wart in comparison to the racing cancerous defilement represented by Jeff Sessions.

[brush]

36. I think you may have filled in the missing "why" Comey didn't rein in the NY field office...

from their seeming insubordination. If chips were being cashed in from Comey looking the other way in shady compromises to bust mob figures—well, that could be a reason for his actions.

IMO it doesn't outweigh what he did to the country though with the Oct. letter that swung the election to trump, who he knew was compromised by Russians—with a Russian spy in his campaign, Carter Page, no less.

Seems he allowed Guiliani and the NY field office rogue agents to force his hand. No way he should have been that weak. He should've fired their asses, or at least threaten to go down with the ship with them by exposing what they were trying to do if they persisted in trying to scuttle Clinton's campaign.

Before his July 2016 public chastising of Hillary and the Oct. letter I thought he was a decent man because of the principled stand he took against Card and Gonzales in Ashcroft's hospital room back in the day, and the speech he gave against racism and excessive police force during the Obama administration.

He let a lot of people down as trump is an unmitigated disaster.

[MadLinguist]

37. deleting, Ii meant to reply to Brush, post 36

Last edited Wed Jan 10, 2018, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

[Irish_Dem]

43. I'm trying to understand it for the same reasons.

And it has been bugging me because there is a big piece missing in the story.

[tblue37]

49. Again, though, he really assumed Clinton would win anyway, and probably he thought

kneecapping her at the very start of her administration was probably not a bad thing, since he is, after all, a Republican, though of the old-fashioned sort, and he probably loathes the Clintons and dreaded what a second Clinton administration might accomplish with a real mandate.

[brush]

51. I don't think he was that naive to believe that letter wouldn't be leaked and swing the election

[MadLinguist]

54. I agree with you that Comey let the FBI and the country down with his October surprise letter

It was a tangled and fuqqed up set of decisions. I just would really like to understand it, because whatever happened there, it means some serious manipulations and clandestine arm twisting was going on. And there is very likely on-going dick twistery in some FBI corridor somewhere right now still. Given the Fusion GPS testimony Dianne Feinstein released yesterday, we know that Steele had reason to believe that by October 2016 (right around the time of Comey's rat fuqqing letter) Trump's people had gotten to the FBI and he stopped communicating with them. If this twisty ass shyte (whatever the hell it may be) or some aspect of it comes out exploding out or is made to explode out in the midst of Mueller's public legal moves, the twisty dicks have a much better shot at achieving their nefarious goals. It may be the only thing protecting the country from such an outcome is someone or someones protecting the reputations of the twisty dick cabal.

I know this is all speculation and terribly conspiracy theory-esque, but this is what happens when there is a big blank spot in the middle of a story.

[Irish_Dem]

44. Yes but why protect your reputation by doing something more damaging?

Giving into your field office sets a bad precedent.
And letting congress yank you around does as well.
Seems like a Washington insider and FBI director would not be so weak or naive.

And then to CYA in a public way that is illegal and unethical?

All that said, I think you are getting closer to the truth.
We are not quite there yet, but close.

[brush]

46. Yes, closer. I think MadLinquist's posts filled in some gaps, as did Feinstein's release yesterday.

[Irish_Dem]

47. Yes, exactly. nt

[uponit7771]

62. +1, very unethical and now every office holder who can bring charges to a candidate will take Comeys

... example seeing there's no recourse and all of Washington can say "no they wont" in unison and song and no rational person should believe them

[Irish_Dem]

66. Yes, we now know the FBI can be bribed/threatened into taking action against a candidate's opponents

And also cover up wrong doing of that candidate as well.

[uponit7771]

68. Damn, jus messed up !!!

[paleotn]

20. Unfortunately, we may never fully know why.

And you're right down below. This is like looking at a puzzle with more than half the pieces missing. On its face, it makes no sense.

[Irish_Dem]

25. Right, the "New York meanies made me do it" falls a bit short of the whole picture. nt

[uponit7771]

10. +1

[Poiuyt]

2. They were probably videotaping Trump from a microwave.

?itok=r9OpKRuL

[WheelWalker]

3. On that model isn't the video camera behind the "Popcorn" button?

I wouldn't think it necessary to open the door.

[smirkymonkey]

14. Randy Rainbow w/ "Microwaves"

I love this parody!

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

52. His ice cream was bugged

That's why he had to have two scoops -- the Feds wanted to get his babblings in stereo.

[DBoon]

4. better a mole than a wart

Nt

[BoneyardDem]

7. I see an artery in Trump's forehead throbbing so hard it's looking to burst

wouldn't that be just awful?

[Wounded Bear]

9. Frankly, I'd hate for him to have an embolism before we can take him down...

He needs to really feel the loathing that MOST Americans feel about him.

[4139]

11. No, whats bad is the FBI may have told Fusion they had a source in the trump campaign.

They only way Fusion could have know about the source is in the summer of 2016 is:
A. The Australian ambassador
B. George P.....
C. The FBI

This maybe a serious Fusion Fuckup!

Only B is a good choice

[L. Coyote]

13. Correction, the "walk-in whistleblower" was the Australian diplomat.

See: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210079224

[bettyellen]

57. But Papadopoulos was NOT a voluntary witness- he lied to the FBI so this cant be about him being

the one in the campaign and/or Trump organization. He lied and was then flipped, this said there was a volunteer.

[L. Coyote]

61. Papa is the person who drunkenly spilled the goods to the Australian diplomat in London.

And the informant initially was the Australian. I imagine there was other signals intelligence and foreign intel given to the FBI too, some even sooner, plus the usual mob watching that encompasses Trump's organization and real estate dealing.

[bettyellen]

63. I think that speculation is incorrect- they said they had a volunteer who had been w Trump campaign

or the Trump business- neither he or the Australian fit that description. He didn’t volunteer info to the FBI- he got caught lying. Lots of people left Trump- there are many more possiblilities.

[L. Coyote]

64. Check out this thread:

For some reason DU is not supporting Twitter tonight, so the thread is now really screwed up.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210079224

[bettyellen]

65. Thanks! Well, thats interesting. This is going to be some story when all is told!

[McCamy Taylor]

21. The FBI has "moles" everywhere. That is their job

[Irish_Dem]

27. I wonder if they are embedded in every presidential campaign?

Does make a person wonder.

[Kristofer Bry]

22. Fair Assumption

[elfin]

28. I'm guessing Priebus

or some other "regular" Repub. (if there is such a thing anymore.)

Thinking there was someone with enough shreds of conscience left after he sailed through the primaries and then OMG "won" that they were sill so horrified at what could happen to the Party, with what could happen to the Country secondary.

[snooper2]

38. Is this Pierce idiot even a reporter? They didn't say "in the campaign"

If he had actually read the transcript as I did he would know that they didn't specify whether it was somebody on the trump campaign or somebody who worked for the trump organization.

That was actually clarified during the closed hearing with follow up questions. But, I guess reading is "hard" LOL

[kcr]

67. Didn't specify? Gee, are you sure that's what it said?

Because I read that he wasn't sure if it was someone in the camp or the org. Lolololol.

[wiggs]

42. would be a surprise if there were only one whistleblower. nt

[lagomorph777]

45. Yup - that's the big story from the Fusion GPS transcript.

Very very bad news in Trump world.

I wonder if the mole is still in the White House?

If they needed another reason to distrust each other, they just got a big one.

[tblue37]

50. The mole was Papadopoulos, and the walk-in informant was the Australian guy he blabbed to. nt

[bettyellen]

56. But Papadopoulos wasnt a volunteer informant -he was flipped.

“35/ And then Simpson dropped a bomb: Steele went to Rome, gets debriefed by the FBI, and learns in the debriefing that the FBI, in September 2016, has a "voluntary" source inside the Trump campaign. (Tr. 175-176). READ THAT AGAIN.
36/ NOTE: that means this is not Papadopoulos. He was flipped when he lied to the FBI. This was also someone who was NOT also a source for Steele.“


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/950884746082562048.html

[tblue37]

58. I think the testimony is fuzzy around the edges. If Papadopoulos was flipped early and then

stayed with the campaign to funnel info, he might be considered "voluntary" in a way. But I have read that the "voluntary" descriptor was for the Australian "walk-in" informant.

The testimony and the various pundits' take on it confuse the issue a lot.

[bettyellen]

59. Isnt there a timeline for Papadopoulos? Im hoping there are others- like the lawyer

Who saw the obstruction of justice on Airforce One and quit. So many people quit- hopefully many have cooperated quietly.

[tblue37]

60. If Corallo did not go to the FBI when he quit over the obstruction of justice taint,

then some of that mud falls on him, too. I bet he realizes this, and I hope it motivated him back then to go to the FBI about it.