Buried in paragraph 40 of the FBI/DOJ justification article presented by the New York Times on behalf of contributing editors James Comey, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, John Brennan and James Clapper, the oft-used intelligence propaganda outlet attempted to bury the lede:

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.  (read more)

In essence what the Deep State apparatchik was/is doing is admitting they conducted a large-scale surveillance operation against their political opposition by weaponizing the most intrusive intelligence gathering capabilities of the federal government.  An admission they denied for the previous 18 months….

And somehow, we are supposed to be ok with this.  Well, that’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.  Ultimately they have no choice.  If the participating members don’t justify their endeavors there’s a strong likelihood of shiny new steel bracelets.

Oddly enough, the target of the corrupt intelligence enterprise is not too pleased:

… Go figure.

From the justification outline the conspiracy crew focused on using the national security apparatus to target: •Michael Flynn; according to the article under Flynn was under surveillance since 2015 because he took a trip to Russia; •Campaign and Delegate Manager Paul Manafor because he did business with Ukraine; and two unpaid low level staff “volunteers” •Carter Page and •George Papadopoulos.

Oddly, and damned sure not coincidentally, Carter Page was an FBI asset in March of 2016 and yet somehow by October the same year he was a foreign agent, acting on behalf of mother Russia, and deserving of a FISA Title-1 Surveillance Warrant to ensure every second of every move was tracked and monitored as if he was an activated terrorist en-route to the detonation site:

(Full Memo pdf)

In 2013 the U.S. Department of Justice, Southern District of New York, announced an indictment against a Russian Operative Evgeny Buryakov.  LINK HERE  In March of 2016 Buryakov pleaded GUILTY: Carter Page was an FBI cooperating asset in 2013, and remained the primary FBI witness through May of 2016 throughout the duration of the Buryakov case.

If Carter Page was an FBI asset and witness, responsible for the bust of a high level Russian agent in 2013, and remained so throughout the court case UP TO May of 2016, how the f**k it is possible that on October 21st, 2016, Carter Page is put under a FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?

Conclusion:  He wasn’t.

The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division, knew he wasn’t a Russian agent.  The DOJ-NSD and FBI  flat-out LIED to the FISA court.

Now, go back to the March 2016 DOJ Press Release of the guilty pleading for Evgeny Buryakov, announced from the New York office:

…”Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced”…

Because “FISA Title-I” surveillance authority against a U.S. citizen is so serious (the U.S. government is essentially calling the target a spy), only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrants.

One of the four people authorized to make such a filing is the Asst. Attorney General who is head of the National Security Division of the DOJ.  At the time that person was John P Carlin.  The same John P Carlin who worked with the FBI counterintelligence unit, conscripted Carter Page as an FBI asset/witness, gained a guilty plea, then turned around six months later accuses their star witness of being a Russian Spy?

Think about this?

Apply common sense.

Why?  Likely because the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) and FBI Counterintelligence needed to find a legal way to spy on the Trump campaign. The 2016 FISA Title 1 surveillance of former FBI employee Carter Page became that legal way. [“The Insurance Policy”]

In October of 2016, at approximately the same time the DOJ was making the FISA Court filing against Page, and successfully gaining the surveillance warrant, Asst. Attorney General  John P Carlin resigned as head of the DOJ-NSD.    –SEE HERE–  Did Carlin resign in protest? or, did Carlin resign knowing he too had served a larger purpose?

With John Carlin gone, immediately after admitting to FISA(702)(16)(17) search abuses, the surveillance application filed by the DOJ to the FISA Court was signed by Sally Yates.

Sally Yates previously denied the DOJ Inspector General any oversight over the DOJ National Security Division. {SEE HERE}  Huh,… funny that.

Responding to a 2015 request by the DOJ Office of Inspector General, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told the internal watchdog they cannot investigate the National Security Division.  That’s right, there was essentially no oversight on any activity happening inside the NSD.

In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

So where does this leave us?…

Occam’s Razor: The FISA Title I surveillance authority over Carter Page was cover, most likely retroactive cover, for the DOJ and FBI conducting surveillance on the Trump campaign.  Previous to the October 21st, 2016, FISA Warrant the FBI was limited to using illegal searches of FISA(702)(16)(17) FBI and NSA databases {see here}; and according to the New York Times: “National Security Letters”.

National Security Letters are a type of administrative subpoena designed to allow the FBI to access the records of people suspected of being foreign agents. Section 505 of the Patriot Act expanded the FBI’s ability to use these subpoenas: FBI agents now only have to state that the information sought is “relevant” to a national security investigation in order to obtain sensitive financial, communications and other personal records. The letters are issued by FBI field offices and are not subject to judicial oversight. Recipients of these letters are under a gag order. (link)

The DOJ-National Security Division and FBI Counterintelligence Unit didn’t care about Carter Page because to them he was a useful tool.  It wasn’t Page they needed, per se’, they just needed someone, anyone, who had contact with the Trump campaign that they could apply the label “foreign agent” upon.

How did they enhance that appearance?

Enter Stefan Halper.

Remember the Peter Strzok trip to London?

The source of John Brennan’s “Electronic Communication”, which initiated the July 31st, 2016, origination authority of the FBI Counterintelligence operation, is likely FBI and CIA operative Stefan Halper a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

[Stefan] Halper met campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page at a July 2016 symposium held at Cambridge regarding the upcoming election, Page told TheDCNF. The pair remained in contact for several months. (link)

Stefan Halper posesses a very specific set of skills from all of his prior work within politics and the intelligence community. Halper was in contact with every official and entity in the set-up; and Halper was in the right places at the times when all of these set-up meetings and issues took place.

Stefan Halper connects to the same circle of intelligence operatives Christopher Steele used for his sketchy Dossier construct. Halper’s role looks simple: make the low-level Trump campaign aides appear dirty… the CIA would relay that information to the FBI; and the FBI counterintelligence unit (Agent Peter Strzok) would take it from there.

The DOJ/FBI just needed someone they could position to gain the FISA “Title I” surveillance approval that would retroactively make all prior sketchy campaign surveillance legal.  Carter Page and George Papadopoulos checked the right boxes.

Page didn’t need to be a “plant” or a willing “participant”, he was carrying surveillance authority like an Ebola virus and transmitting it onto everyone he contacted. Both Page and Papadopoulos were useful for the corrupt intelligence apparatus because they could attach a label to them and justify their surveillance and monitoring.  Nothing more.

Clear enough?

Carter Page testified to the House Intelligence Committee that DOJ-FBI officials leaked his identity, his role in the Buryakov case, to the media.  This is confirmation from Page himself that he was an FBI asset and witness.

(Source Link – Page. #19 House Intelligence Testimony pdf)

Stefan Halper’s role looks simple: make the low-level Trump campaign aides appear dirty… the CIA would relay that information to the FBI; and the FBI counterintelligence unit (Agent Peter Strzok) would take it from there.

Make sense now?…

I might be wrong, but this is the first prime-time mention of Stefan Halper I’m aware of:

.

Two days prior to the New York Times article outlining an FBI counterintelligence sting operation to infiltrate the Trump campaign I wrote the following:

I have a sneaking suspicion the Machiavellian connections between the U.S. intelligence apparatus and multiple foreign agents/actors, including the work of Stefan Halper in the 2016 presidential election, are only a few days from fully surfacing.  There could be enough sunlight on U.K/U.S. political and intelligence officers to launch multiple investigations.

Well, buckle up, I think today we are going to see and hear much, much more.

…at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos,… ~NYT

Originally, attention was paid to Glenn Simpson saying in that August 2017 testimony the FBI had some additional ‘inside’ knowledge in addition to Chris Steele’s information.  Talk of campaign interlopers increased last week after the DOJ/FBI started stonewalling Devin Nunes and accusing him of trying to reveal the identity of a confidential CIA and FBI source for the 2016 origination of the FBI counterintelligence operation against Trump.

People began connecting Glenn Simpson’s prior 2017 testimony about ‘inside sources’ to the 2018 DOJ statements about exposing CIA/FBI ‘sources’. {See Here} Due to defensive leaks from within the corrupt intelligence apparatus the name Stefan Halper was identified.  {See Here} Stefan Halper is a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

Then came this:

New York Times – […] The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials…

Stefan Halper connects to the same circle of intelligence operatives Christopher Steele used for his sketchy Dossier construct.  Halper’s role looks simple: make the low-level Trump campaign aides appear dirty… the CIA would relay that information to the FBI; and the FBI counterintelligence unit (Agent Peter Strzok) would take it from there.

A close circle of politically connected U.S., British, Australian and Russian intelligence insiders begins to back-stop the larger conspiracy.  The information provided by the international crew was apparently shaped and funneled by former CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI for domestic political exploitation.

Andrew McCarthy appeared on Fox News this morning to discuss the bombshell admissions within a New York Times report, leaked by FBI and DOJ officials, attempting to justify their illegal spying and surveillance operation against the campaign of Donald Trump in 2015 and 2016.

Andrew McCarthy’s Latest Article Here

Real Clear Investigations journalist Paul Sperry has noted that Inspector General Michael Horowitz found “reasonable grounds” for criminal prosecution and referred his findings to U.S. Attorney John Huber for possible criminal prosecution.

(Tweet Link)

Hopefully, this does not come as a surprise to CTH readers.  Remember, the IG draft report has just been sent to the principals for review.  Generally speaking IG draft reviews take around two weeks.  The final IG report is on target for release by the end of May.

While the terms “reasonable grounds” and “criminal prosecution” gain additional emphasis against the draft submission, months ago it was transparently obvious OIG Michael Horowitz discovered criminal conduct and submitted his request.  AG Jeff Sessions informed everyone of U.S. Attorney John Huber in March.

If IG Horowitz did not discover reasonable evidence of criminal conduct there would not be a U.S. Attorney (Huber) paralleling his investigation since late last year.  U.S. Attorney John Huber was assigned to assist Horowitz at least eight months ago. It wasn’t until March of this year when AG Jeff Sessions, quietly made the acknowledgement.

The evidence of a U.S. Attorney working with Horowitz was initially evidenced when it became obvious that Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker and Bruce Ohr were cooperating with the investigation.   Each of these individuals is clearly outlined as engaging in conduct that exposed them to legal risk.  The IG cannot coordinate terms of cooperation surrounding unlawful conduct.  That was the first indication a U.S. attorney was assisting.  That indication was more than six months ago.

“They are sat down, told to not do anything, say anything or discuss anything UNTIL they get an attorney. At which time, the attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed you are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you sit there. When we do we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.” (Link to Prior)

The fact that U.S. Attorney John Huber exists is evidence in-and-of-itself that criminal conduct was discovered by IG Horowitz.  It should not come as a surprise to hear news today about this.  Clearly U.S. Attorney John Huber has been reviewing evidence and conducting his own investigation for more than six months.

The process was outlined by Jonathan Turley WATCH (March 2018):

.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham interviews President Trump attorney and former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, about current political events and the ongoing fiasco with the Robert Mueller investigation. WATCH:

Last week, in an effort to target President Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, sketchy porn-lawyer Michael Avenatti received and released stolen financial records for a group of people who held the name Michael Cohen.  At least two of the people who had their records released were the wrong Michael Cohen.

In a New Yorker article today, far-left playtime ‘journalist’ Ronan Farrow writes about his contact with the law-enforcement official who stole the Cohen financial records and gave them to the sketchy porn lawyer.

From the timing it appears the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General is close to catching the criminal leaker.  As such, Farrow writes a sympathetic outline attempting to shape a narrative of a “law-enforcement official” as a wounded ‘whistleblower‘.

New Yorker – Last week, several news outlets obtained financial records showing that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, had used a shell company to receive payments from various firms with business before the Trump Administration.

In the days since, there has been much speculation about who leaked the confidential documents, and the Treasury Department’s inspector general has launched a probe to find the source. That source, a law-enforcement official, is speaking publicly for the first time, to The New Yorker, to explain the motivation: the official had grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents. (read more)

Here’s the problem with Farrow’s sympathetic motive framework. The ‘law-enforcement official’ stole, and released, financial records of the wrong Michael Cohens. That’s not the conduct of a “whistleblower”; that’s the conduct of an entrenched and corrupt partisan ideologue holding -and exploiting- their position within law-enforcement.

A Big Difference.