By JD Heyes
In a stunning report last week The New York Times admitted what more and more Americans had come to suspect: That the Obama administration launched a counterintelligence operation against the 2016 Trump campaign that included the cultivation of ‘spies’ within the organization.
The report, which claimed in its headline that the spies were really “informants,” based its characterization on the premise that the underlying counterintelligence investigation was based on actual evidence that members of the Trump campaign were in cahoots with a foreign government — Russia — to undermine the American political process.
There is no evidence any of that is true or was ever true. In fact, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has said as much.
In April, in an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Nunes said that the FBI and Justice Department launched their operation against Team Trump without any actionable intelligence — a requirement to open a counterintelligence operation that includes spying on American citizens.
“This is really important to us because the intelligence investigation uses the tools of our intelligence services that are not supposed to be used on American citizens,” Nunes said.
“So, we’ve long wanted to know what intelligence did you have that actually led to this investigation. So what we found now after the investigators have reviewed it is, in fact, there was no intelligence,” he added. (Related: House Freedom Caucus chair Meadows to Rosenstein: ‘Give ME documents; you can’t investigate yourself’.)
Now, in a separate interview with Bartiromo earlier this month, Nunes discussed a recent report that the person widely believed to have cultivated the sources within the Trump campaign — longtime Republican operative and Cambridge University Prof. Stefan Halper — was very handsomely paid for work with the U.S. in 2016 and 2017 in the amount of $411,575, according to The Gateway Pundit.
If it’s true that he was the spy working to infiltrate the Trump campaign organization — and the FBI paid him to do that based on a fabricated national security/counterintelligence investigation — then “it’s over,” Nunes told Bartiromo.
“If any of that is true, if they ran a spy ring or an informant ring and they were paying people within the Trump campaign, if any of that is true that is an absolute red line,” he said.
“There’s not an honest person in this country who could believe that taxpayer dollars going to fund this ring and operate like this what is said in The New York Times that has quite a bit of detail on it, if any of that is true it’s a red line in this country.
“You can’t do this to political campaigns,” he continued. “According to them, this was done in the spring before the counter-intelligence was even open. If that’s true, we need to know about it… If they paid someone it’s an absolute red line and this is over with.”
Nunes isn’t the only one concerned about the chilling effect this egregious abuse of power has had on the Trump campaign and future political campaigns.
Writing for The Hill, Mark Penn, who served as a pollster and political adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1995-2000, including during his impeachment, deeply criticized the ongoing limitless investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, adding that the effect it will have on future campaigns will be irreparable if it isn’t curtailed.
“Stopping Mueller isn’t about one president or one party. It’s about all presidents and all parties. It’s about cleaning out and reforming the deep state so that our intelligence operations are never used against opposing campaigns without the firmest of evidence,” he wrote. “It’s about letting people work for campaigns and administrations without needing legal defense funds. It’s about relying on our elections to decide our differences.”
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.