Clinton Link Found?

PUBLISHED: 2:02 PM 4 May 2019
UPDATED: 6:02 PM 4 May 2019

FBI Testimony Outs Massive Spying Operation Clinton Link: 6-Day Deadline Issued

The latest spying information is disturbing, to say the very least, and one person who seemed to orchestrate the entire operation has been linked to Hillary Clinton.

Although not surprising, Clinton may be up to her dead eyes in the massive spying and set-up of Trump officials.

Official testimony has outed disturbing information concerning the spying and set-up operation performed against Donald Trump.

The revelations are shocking, and Devin Nunes has issued a six-day deadline for the FBI to come clean and a link to Hillary Clinton has been discovered.

National Review reported:

The deputy assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jonathan Moffa, was involved with the Russia–Trump investigation from the start.

He was asked, in a closed-door Capitol Hill interview on August 24, 2018, to describe his role: “I was the section chief over counterintelligence analysis during the period of the election,” Moffa told lawmakers and staff.

“And as a result, I had analysts who reported to me who supported the full range of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigations and counterespionage investigations during that period. So in a sense, if there’s a Russian-election-related investigation underway in the division at that point, personnel reporting to me are a part of it,” he added.

Moffa’s congressional interview was private, and no transcript has been released. But National Review has obtained a copy.

The interview transcript reveals that the FBI’s use of Confidential Human Sources and other counterintelligence assets was far more extensive than has previously been acknowledged.

Much of the questioning of Moffa was done by Robert Parmiter, the chief counsel for the Republican staff on the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee.

He asked Moffa about August 2016 text messages between Moffa and FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was putting together a meeting to discuss the initial organization of the investigation. Even at that early date, Strzok specified that they needed to discuss the use of “CHS” and “liaison.”

Parmiter asked about the acronym CHS: “What does that stand for?”

Moffa replied: “Confidential human source.”

Parmiter asked Moffa whether Christopher Steele was a CHS, Moffa went off the record to confer with his bureau-provided counsel, Robert Sinton. When they came back on the record, Moffa answered the question: “Yes.”

That was merely confirmation of what had been known for some time — that Christopher Steele was an official informant expecting to be paid by the FBI for his dossier information.

Moffa also confirmed that Steele’s status as a CHS had eventually been revoked. Moffa had been at a meeting where “closing” Steele as a Confidential Human Source was discussed, but Moffa declined to answer questions about what Steele did to lose his CHS status.

Steele was hardly the only CHS used in the FBI’s investigation. It has been widely reported that a retired Cambridge professor, Stefan Halper, was a CHS — we’ve all been lectured not to use the word “spy” in describing him.

And now the New York Times has put in print what was long suspected, that the woman Halper presented to George Papadopoulos as his “assistant” was actually something else altogether.

“Azra Turk” was an FBI asset sent across the Atlantic with a mission to get incriminating information out of Papadopoulos. It’s not clear whether she counted as a CHS herself, or whether she was an “investigator” with some other official status at the bureau.

So the question remains: Other than the woman whose cover name was Azra Turk (and whose official position may or may not have been as a CHS), were Steele and Halper the only Confidential Human Sources used against the Trump campaign? It doesn’t appear so.

Moffa was asked in the closed-door Capitol Hill interview, “How many CHSs did you have working on this investigation at the time?”

Moffa again conferred with his counsel off the record.

“Okay,” he replied, back on the record. “So I legitimately do not know the total number of CHSs. That’s an operational side decision, but I also don’t want to imply to you that I don’t — I’m not aware of any CHSs, right. So that’s what we were just talking about. But I legitimately can’t tell you the overall number that are engaged. I just don’t know it.”

It’s a curious answer. One would think that if Steele and Halper had been the only Confidential Human Sources used against the Trump campaign, Moffa would have had no difficulty answering that there had been two CHSs, although the second sentence leaves some ambiguity.

He was clearly involved in meetings where the use of CHSs was discussed, and he appears to assure lawmakers that he isn’t trying to pretend he’s “not aware of any CHSs.” He just “legitimately can’t tell you the overall number that are engaged.”

That he can’t tell “the overall number” of Confidential Human Sources —  that “I just don’t know it” — leaves open the possibility that there were more than just a few.

Then the questioning moved to the next item Strzok had told Moffa they would need to work out at the meeting launching the Russia–Trump investigation.

“The next thing that Mr. Strzok mentions in a list of what he’s going to discuss at this meeting, after CHS’s, is liaison,” Parmiter said to Moffa. “What is that referring to?”

Any liaison, Moffa replied, would have been “with either a foreign partner or it could be a USIC partner as well. We would — you know, commonly within the Bureau, you’d use that term for either.”

“And by USIC you’re referring to U.S. Intelligence Community?” Parmiter asked.

“I’m sorry. U.S. Intelligence Community, yep.” Moffa made it clear that a “liaison” in bureau parlance would not be an FBI agent: “We would not use the term ‘liaison’ to refer to an internal FBI person.”

That means from the earliest days of the Russia–Trump investigation the FBI was enlisting not only Confidential Human Sources — and possibly more of them — but also the aid of outside intelligence agencies, whether U.S., foreign, or both.

The result of this interview has led Devein Nunes to act.

Fox News reported:

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes is scrutinizing the findings in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report about Joseph Mifsud — the mysterious professor from Malta who helped ignite the Russia probe in 2016 – and wants to know exactly who he was working for when he spoke with former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.

It has long been suggested that Mifsud was connected to Russian intelligence.

But Nunes, in a Friday letter obtained by Fox News, questions that assumption, saying Mueller’s report “omits any mention of a wide range of contacts Mifsud had with Western political institutions and individuals.”

Mifsud is a crucial figure in the report: Mueller’s report states that Mifsud was the one who told Papadopoulos in April 2016 that the Russians had “dirt” in the form of emails that could damage Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

As the story goes, Papadopoulos then told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer about his conversations with Mifsud. Downer then informed U.S. officials, leading the FBI to open its investigation into whether Trump associates were coordinating with Russia during the 2016 election.

Nunes also is seeking information about the FBI’s contacts with Mifsud – asking how the bureau knew to question Papadopoulos specifically about Clinton’s emails if it hadn’t already spoken to Mifsud. The congressman said, “it’s still a mystery how the FBI knew to ask Papadopoulos specifically about Hillary Clinton’s emails…”

Nunes’ letter is addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Central Intelligence Agency Director Gina Haspel, National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone and FBI Director Chris Wray. It asks them to hand over all information they have on Mifsud by May 10.

In his letter, Nunes presents photographic evidence of Mifsud in close proximity to influential Western political and government officials.

“If Mifsud has extensive, suspicious contacts among Russian officials as portrayed in the special counsel’s report, then an incredibly wide range of Western institutions and individuals may have been compromised by him, including our own State Department,” Nunes wrote.

He added: “In fact, this could entail a major scandal for U.S. and allied governments.”

Alternatively, Nunes wrote that if Mifsud isn’t a counterintelligence threat, as implied in the Mueller report, he could have done extensive damage to Western national security. The California Republican wrote that if that’s the case, it “would cast doubt on the Special Counsel’s fundamental depiction of him and his activities, and raise questions about the veracity of the Special Counsel’s statements and affirmations.”

Mifsud has vanished from public eye after his name began surfacing in news stories.

And, we know that there is a link to Hillary Clinton.

Gateway Pundit wrote:

Mueller’s Team also had connections to Joseph Mifsud –

According to one investigative site on the web, one of the members of Mueller’s team was connected to Mifsud.

Zainab Ahmad, a member of Mueller’s legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn, Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security [GCCS] event in 2017.

In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter: “Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC Mueller? She was at a GCCS event in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George Papadopoulos] and [Simona Mangiante]. She’s a GCCS consultant.”

In a shocking new development, we now know that the Deep State’s Mifsud dined with Hillary Clinton and Italian socialists in 2016.

This entire operation is finally being exposed, and Nunes is correct: the level of spying and set up is almost unfathomable, and Clinton was up to her dead eyes in it.