Michael Avenatti -- is that his name? -- the so-called lawyer for Stormy Daniels? His whole thing is imploding now. The Mueller investigation is, I think, on the verge of it. And, by the way, I'm gonna give you a little heads-up here. Based on a Kimberley Strassel column last week, a Wall Street Journal editorial today and a Washington Post piece earlier this week, I actually believe the FBI planted an informant in the Trump campaign -- before Mueller was appointed, obviously.
This was in the summer of 2016, 'cause I think they believe this Russia stuff. I literally think... I've gone back and forth on this. I really think they believe... And I think this is why.. You know, there's a FISA application for the warrant to spy, FISA, and it uses the dossier. But there have to be other things in that application. Trump could declassify any of this any time he wants to and I have told you that I don't think he's declassifying it because I think he likes playing the victim.
I think he... I don't mean to put it that way. He likes being able to tweet about the witch-hunt. I think he thinks it solidifies the bond between himself and his supporters. But clearly, if I'm a little bit overboard in suggesting they planted an informant in the campaign, they clearly have, and it's been... Devin Nunes is trying to get this. This is the result of his latest request and it's based on a Washington Post story.
I'm gonna try to make sense of all this as the program unfolds today, but I just wanted to tell you. 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. I think 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.
RUSH: Now, I want to turn to what I think may well in fact be the FBI having planted an informant in the Trump campaign, back in 2016.
And I'm not really even reading that much between the lines. I want to first start with a Washington Post story that is from this week. "Nunes Sought all Documents on Person Described as Longtime Intelligence Source." That's the headline. "A subpoena that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) issued to the Justice Department last week made a broad request for all documents about an individual who people close to the matter say is a sensitive, longtime intelligence source for the CIA and FBI.
"The Justice Department has refused to provide the documents," what Nunes wants. "Intelligence officials say the material could jeopardize the source, a U.S. citizen who has aided the special counsel investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign." Now, the fact that this is a U.S. citizen matters, because if the source here were foreign, then we would never reveal who it is or we would lose cooperation with foreign intelligence services.
So as a hypothetical, if the FBI had hired a foreign spy and implanted them in the Trump campaign -- whatever this spy, whatever this informant reported could have ended up in the FISA warrant application along with the dossier -- then I doubt even a court would require the name of the informant to be identified simply because of the risk we would run endangering relationships with the foreign government that the informant happened to be a citizen of.
But! But! Since he is a U.S. citizen, then all bets are off, and it is likely that someday we're gonna know who this is. Let me read this to you again. "The Justice Department has refused to provide the documents" to Nunes. "Intelligence officials say the material could jeopardize the source, a U.S. citizen who has aided" the Mueller investigation. "The subpoena, which was reviewed by the Washington Post, demands 'all documents referring or related to the individual referenced in Chairman Nunes' April 24, 2018 classified letter to Attorney General Sessions.'
"That is the only material the subpoena seeks." Devin Nunes is seeking the identity and the activities of one person. "In an interview Wednesday, Nunes maintained that he was 'not interested in any individual,'" meaning he hasn't named anybody. He just wants to know who this is. "'We’re interested in documents that should have been given to us at least last fall,' he said. 'That’s what we’re looking for, and any claim to the contrary is wrong, and they know it’s wrong.'
"Nunes said that Justice officials have blocked access to specific documents and that the language in the subpoena was an effort to get access to the underlying information." Key take-aways from the Nunes memo: "President Trump approved the release of a controversial classified congressional memo on February 2nd." They published some of the claims in it. But this is the thrust of the Washington Post story, and it is from this week.
Now we move to the Kimberly... Well, I think it's Kimberly Strassel wrote it. It's the Wall Street Journal editorial that runs today. "The latest intel leak is designed to block a House subpoena. Late Tuesday the Washington Post published a story with the headline 'Secret intelligence source who aided Mueller probe is at center of latest clash between Nunes and Justice Department.'
"The story reports that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes recently sent a classified letter and subpoena to the Justice Department demanding information about a 'top secret intelligence source.'" Now, the editorial at the Journal says, "The story’s bias is that Mr. Nunes -- you know, a nasty House Republican," a really rascally Republican, "is threatening to compromise national security," by trying to find out who this informant is. "Yet the article itself discloses details that suggest the Post already knows who this 'top secret' source is.
"For example, the source is a 'U.S. citizen,' 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. "The story also says intelligence officials fear that outing the source could 'damage relationships with other countries.'" Well, 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.
"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!"
The Washington Post probably does know who it is. They will not inform. Trump could end this today by declassifying all of this. But he doesn't. Why doesn't he? We've explored that on previous occasions, and I'll go through it again if you want. But the point is this, these people -- Mueller, the FBI, The DOJ, Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe -- it is absolutely incredible but it may well be that they believed this!
Even after learning that the Steele dossier is phony baloney as anything else they could have written, they really believed it. So they had an informant in the Trump campaign who was there to catch and to discover and to witness Trump's collusion with the Russians. If they had an informant in that campaign who was supposed to find the collusion and they still don't have it? I mean, look at what we're learning. They had an informant in the campaign, and they still don't have any evidence!
Then what the hell is this investigation doing even being alive at this point?
RUSH: Now, let me add one more wrinkle to this. Glenn Simpson, who is the founder of Fusion GPS and is the good friend of Christopher Steele -- and is who actually hired him -- the author of that salacious, unverified, uncorroborated Trump dossier. "Glenn Simpson testified" in August of 2017 "that the FBI had a source in the Trump campaign." Now, Simpson said this to contradict claims that the FBI began their investigation based on the Steele dossier. Simpson knew the dossier was bogus. Simpson knew the dossier was opposition research.
He is the guy who literally made the dossier happen. He owns, operates, runs Fusion GPS. He did not want his dossier to be Exhibit A for the FBI getting a warrant to spy on Trump and the campaign or anything 'cause it was bogus. So in August of 2017, Simpson said the FBI actually began their investigation because they had a source in the Trump campaign. Simpson claimed it was "a voluntary source," meaning it wasn't a plant, meaning somebody on the Trump team decided to become an informant against Trump."
Now, this is a "convenient," quote-unquote, admission, because Simpson was trying to take all the attention he could off of his phony dossier. So he testified (sputtering), "No, no, no, no! There was a source in the Trump campaign, a voluntary source, and that's what led all this off, not -- not -- not -- not -- not -- not -- not my dossier!" But what is being alleged by the Wall Street Journal editorial today and what looks to be pretty legitimate is not that the source in the Trump campaign was voluntary but that it was an FBI plant, and it was there without regard to the Steele dossier.
It was there because people in the FBI... Name the names: Comey, McCabe. There was another guy, Bill Priest something or other. I'm having a mental block on his last name, but he's one of the bosses of all these people and could end up being very crucial in any further investigation. Depends on what he knows. But these people must have obviously thought... I mean, they must have really believed this crap, that Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin.
They must really believe this. So based on this little sentence here in the Journal editorial, "Hinting that the government may have used the source to snoop on the Trump campaign," Glenn Simpson says it's voluntary. No. There was a turncoat in there. There was somebody in the Trump campaign who turned on Trump. That's not what this is. This is the FBI more than likely planting an informant inside the campaign. Just remember, if they had somebody that nobody knew was there looking for this collusion and still didn't find it, then what the hell is going on with this investigation?
It should be over long ago.
This article originally appeared on Rush Limbaugh