by Ruby Henley
The astute reporter, Kimberley Strassel, who breaks major stories right and left has hinted at what she is working on now. She recently wrote the following in her Wall Street Journal column.
www.wsj.com/articles/about-that-fbi-source-1525992611?mod=djemMER
- The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.
- Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.
- House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”
- This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.
- The bureau already has some explaining to do. 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. Unable to get voluntary cooperation, committee chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) issued a subpoena demanding that the Justice Department disclose information about a top-secret intelligence source who is said to have assisted the Russia investigation. That investigation is now being run by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But more interesting is how it got started.
- On that question, officials have been suspiciously fuzzy in their explanations, and hilariously inconsistent in their leaks: initially settling on an origination story that hinged on the Steele dossier and a trip to Moscow by the obscure Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page; later pivoting to a tale of boozy blathering by an even more obscure Trump-campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, when the first story proved embarrassing — the dossier allegations having been unverified when the Justice Department included them in warrant applications to the FISA court.
- The Justice Department’s inability, or at least unwillingness, to reveal exactly how, when, and why the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation has fueled suspicions that a spy who worked for both the FBI and the CIA was deployed against the Trump campaign, probably in Britain — where Papadopoulos had met with suspected agents of the Kremlin, and where Steele compiled the dossier via reports from his unidentified sources.
The word is this spy is ether Carter Page, or George Papadopoulos. However, one man who I follow and have since Day 1 is George Webb. I will put my money on this man’s research and findings. He is an amazingly brilliant individual, who stays hot on the trail of corrupt players around the world.
The possibility that the FBI planted a spy, or more than one, inside the Trump White House was leaked by Fusion GPS. No one but George Webb has mentioned Steve Bannon’s name, and I will give a synopsis on what George Webb is saying in the following video.
Day 205.4. Bannon Was the Key Trump Mole, Not Papa.
Remember, Steve Bannon is ex-naval intelligence and was given top level clearance when he worked in the White House.
Bannon’s first major offensive came in the form of an all-out assault to get Roy Moore elected to the U.S. Senate in Alabama. During this time Bannon also returned to his five-day-a-week morning broadcast of Sirius XM Patriot’s Breitbart News.
His ship was headed toward an iceberg due to his stone-cold remarks a new book by Michael Wolff, in which Bannon allegedly questioned President Trump’s mental fitness as well as called some of Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr.’s actions during the campaign ‘treasonous.’
It was time Bannon walked the plank in his own ship, and he did. He was let go from the White House, and he resigned from Breitbart.
Now George Webb is saying Bannon is still Naval Intelligence and involved in communications for the Navy. I really do not feel comfortable in saying anymore, but you can hear it on the video. It will shock you, but George Webb has not been wrong yet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy for seven years in the late 1970s and early 1980s. After his military service, he worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker, and left as vice president. In 1993, he became acting director of the research project Biosphere 2. In the 1990s, he became an executive producer in Hollywood, and produced 18 films between 1991 and 2016. In 2007, he co-founded Breitbart News, a claimed far-right[i] website which he described in 2016 as “the platform for the alt-right”.[I]
In August 2016, Bannon was named the chief executive officer of Trump’s 2016 presidential bid.[21][22] Appointed Chief Strategist in the Trump administration, he left this position on August 18, 2017 and rejoined Breitbart. After leaving the White House, Bannon opposed the establishment Republican party and supported insurgent candidates in Republican primaries. After Roy Moore, supported by Bannon, lost the 2017 United States Senate election in Alabama, Bannon’s reputation as a political strategist was questioned.[23][24] In January 2018, Bannon was disavowed by Trump for critical comments reported in the book Fire and Fury[25] and left Breitbart.
After leaving the White House, Bannon has campaigned and helped various European political movements. These include France’s National Front,[26] Hungary’s Fidesz,[27] Alternative for Germany,[28] the Sweden Democrats,[29] the Dutch Party for Freedom,[30] the Italian Northern League,[31] the Freedom Party of Austria,[32] the Swiss People’s Party,[33] and the pan-European identitarian movement.[34] Bannon believes that the aforementioned movements, along with Japan’s Shinzo Abe, India’s Narendra Modi, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and America’s Donald Trump, as well as similar leaders in Egypt, the Philippines, Poland, and South Korea, are part of a global shift towards nationalism.[35]
On November 18, during his first interview not conducted by Breitbart Media since the 2016 presidential election, Bannon remarked on some criticisms made about him, saying, “Darkness is good: Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing.”[119][120] The quote was published widely in the media.[119][121][122][123]
In an interview with The New York Times in late November, Trump responded to the controversy over Bannon’s appointment, saying, “I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right, or any of the things that we can, you know, the terms we can use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.”[124]
He is generally skeptical of military intervention abroad, opposing proposals for the expansion of U.S. involvement in the War in Afghanistan,[40] the Syrian Civil War,[41] and the crisis in Venezuela.[42] As White House Chief Strategist, Bannon reportedly opposed the 2017 Shayrat missile strike, but was overruled by Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner.[184]
In Afghanistan, he supported a proposal by Erik Prince for the deployment of private military contractors instead of the U.S. military.[185] He believes “there is no military solution” to the 2017 North Korea crisis.[37]
Bannon has described U.S. allies in Europe, the Persian Gulf, the South China Sea, the Strait of Malacca, as well as South Korea and Japan, as having become “protectorates of the United States” that do not “make an effort to defend [themselves]”, and believes NATO members should pay a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense.[186]
He also supports repairing United States-Russia relations and opposes upgrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal.[187]
However, he strongly favors U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal,[188] and was supportive of the approach taken by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis[189] and the 2017 Saudi Arabian purge.[190]