The plotters who launched spying on the Trump campaign outed themselves in leaks to the New York Times

Just as Inspector General Horowitz's report on the Department of Justice is about to be released, The New York Times published a long article attempting to present the narrative of the spy operation against Donald Trump in a light favorable to cabal members.

But the resulting article, "Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation," tripped over its own feet by admitting that the FBI did indeed spy on the Trump campaign.  And that it worried that if the pubic discovered that it was spying.  As Mollie Hemingway put it:

This NYT story says that FBI was worried that if it came out they were spying on Trump campaign it would "only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him." Yes, I can imagine that would reinforce those claims. I mean, !!! !!! !!! !!!

Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has an excellent Twitter thread that can be read here, making several key points about what the article lets out of the bag.  This smacks of desperation:

DOJ/FBI (and its [sic] leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena.  They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress?  Willing to risk very [sic] source they claim to need to protect?

And they accidentally have discredited their earlier claims about what launched the counterintelligence probe in the first place:

Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016.  Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .

Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief downer until August 2nd.  And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31.  So how did FBI get Downer details?  (Political actors?)  And what really did inspire the CI[A] investigation?

To me, the most comic aspect of the piece is the way it claimed that James Comey, the boss of the FBI who was responsible for the spy operation, really didn't know much at all.  The Sgt. Schultz defense:

Mr. Comey was briefed regularly on the Russia investigation, but one official said those briefings focused mostly on hacking and election interference.  The Crossfire Hurricane team did not present many crucial decisions for Mr. Comey to make. ...

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.

Sundance at Conservative Tree House has a long and detailed examination of other flaws in the Times report.

But this is just a coming attractions trailer for the I.G. report, which is expected very soon.

They are in a hole and can't stop digging.  But the principal effective way to do that would be taking the Fifth Amendment.  Stay tuned.

Just as Inspector General Horowitz's report on the Department of Justice is about to be released, The New York Times published a long article attempting to present the narrative of the spy operation against Donald Trump in a light favorable to cabal members.

But the resulting article, "Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation," tripped over its own feet by admitting that the FBI did indeed spy on the Trump campaign.  And that it worried that if the pubic discovered that it was spying.  As Mollie Hemingway put it:

This NYT story says that FBI was worried that if it came out they were spying on Trump campaign it would "only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him." Yes, I can imagine that would reinforce those claims. I mean, !!! !!! !!! !!!

Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has an excellent Twitter thread that can be read here, making several key points about what the article lets out of the bag.  This smacks of desperation:

DOJ/FBI (and its [sic] leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena.  They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress?  Willing to risk very [sic] source they claim to need to protect?

And they accidentally have discredited their earlier claims about what launched the counterintelligence probe in the first place:

Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016.  Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .

Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief downer until August 2nd.  And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31.  So how did FBI get Downer details?  (Political actors?)  And what really did inspire the CI[A] investigation?

To me, the most comic aspect of the piece is the way it claimed that James Comey, the boss of the FBI who was responsible for the spy operation, really didn't know much at all.  The Sgt. Schultz defense:

Mr. Comey was briefed regularly on the Russia investigation, but one official said those briefings focused mostly on hacking and election interference.  The Crossfire Hurricane team did not present many crucial decisions for Mr. Comey to make. ...

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.

Sundance at Conservative Tree House has a long and detailed examination of other flaws in the Times report.

But this is just a coming attractions trailer for the I.G. report, which is expected very soon.

They are in a hole and can't stop digging.  But the principal effective way to do that would be taking the Fifth Amendment.  Stay tuned.