FBI Source in Trump-Russia Probe Is No Liberal Plant

With his name now public, more information regarding the alleged "FBI informant," Stefan A. Halper, is coming to light.

Not everyone who looks at Donald Trump and his administration with a critical eye are “Deep State” players, or some insidious, leftwing plant, bent on toppling the Trump dynasty.

Don’t believe the hype.

The name of the FBI source working with the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential race is pretty well known, now, and as it turns out, he’s got more Republican credentials under his belt than Trump has accumulated in his life.

His name is Stefan Halper. He’s a former professor emeritus at Cambridge University in England, and he’s got a long career of working for Republican presidents, through the years.

The Washington Post covered Halper’s career in an article posted on Tuesday.

The professor's career included positions in the White House as a domestic policy adviser for President Nixon and the chief of staff for President Ford, according to the Post.

Halper also reportedly served as a deputy assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration. Halper and other aides were accused of spying on Jimmy Carter's campaign after Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, according to the Post, which added that the aides denied the accusations.

Halper’s addition to the Trump campaign came after (that’s after, not before) the FBI had already obtained evidence that there were members of Trump’s team who may have had some questionable contact with Russian operatives.

Think: Carter Page, and the “low-level coffee boy,” George Papadopoulos, for starters.

Halper has a considerable background. He’s certainly no hack.

Cambridge told the newspaper that Halper taught international affairs and American studies until 2015 and drew on his extensive government contacts to host intelligence officials for seminars with students.

Unfortunately, while lawmakers and the intelligence community stressed their concerns over having Halper’s name be made public (citing legal and security concerns), that didn’t stop a host of news sources from digging into, and eventually outing the professor.

I’d written of this previously, and even though I’d heard the name, I chose not to put it out there.

It would appear that it doesn’t matter, now. It’s already out there.

President Trump has gotten a considerable amount of mileage out of claiming that the FBI “embedded” an informant (Halper) with his campaign. That doesn’t seem to be the case, since Halper never did appear to make it in with Trump’s closest circle of advisers.

We’ll have to see if the concerns of the intelligence community have any weight behind them. Some have gone as far as to frame this as a constitutional crisis.

We’ll see.

No. 1-17

@streiff_is_a_moron: I would have to say that's unlikely. This is hardly any less slanted than anything Trump might give me. Nor am I particularly well informed about Mr. Harper, the FBI's role and the alleged spying. This entire article's purpose is to forward the claim Trump is wrong and is a fool. Ie chest-beating. However I will admit your proposed metaphor would also apply to it. I think a lot of people here at Resurgent have their heads shoved up their ass. But, as they say, why break a habit of a lifetime?


@jonah - nonsense! Was it just as important to trumpet Obama's successes? I sure as hell doubt it. So is it important to Trumpet what little he has accomplished specifically because he's a "republican" (he's not) and "conservative" (he's also not this)? He's none of those things, so why Trumpet anything at all? I expect what this really is amounts to misguided damage control, because you know the man has no business actually being President. It would be better for everyone including our party for him to not continue being President. If we cared enough about Bill Clinton to nearly impeach him, I'm sure if we actually examine what we claim to stand for we could make it happen for the good of the country. But maybe I'm a patriot first and a republican second.

I'm tired of being told "Ya know, this shit sandwich is actually edible once you manage to not puke up the first few bites. It's got bread! Bread is good, right?"


S.I.A.M: If you have to use personal attacks to other opinion makers you essentially lose the argument. Even if your rational arguments have merit, you alienate those who may be on the fence about the particular issue.

Susan is our resident Trump obmbudsman since RedState times (fair enough, Susan?). It is her job to nitpick Trump's actions so that we can help other people to see not just what Trump (or his opponents) does, but how he follows through on them. Of COURSE the country would be in a much better place with a principled statesman like Ted Cruz in the executive office. But barring that, we have Donald Trump in the singular seat, so we have every reason to nitpick his every move. And by definition, the preidency is the ultimate on-the-job-training employment position, and as such, we have to use our input as principled constitutionalists to critique his wayward paths.

Having said that, it is also just as important to trumpet Trump's successes, particularly compared to how a RINO would have most probably done. But that's not what Susan does, and it's ok as we are a site that doesn't appreciate ad hominen remarks no matter by whom. Considering the fact that the Democrat Party and the Deep State progressives want to kill us, we need all the help we can get, and if Susan can provide the criticism we normies can use to help an occasional wayward move, than so be it.


@Jeck_Kravin - Maybe she writes these articles so people can have information at their disposal, instead of just buying what Trump tells them. If that's chest-beating, then what you're displaying is what every ostrich wishes it could do, burying your head in your own ass.


So I think its fair to say articles like this are less about winning an argument or even keeping people informed. It, and the comments, exists as essentially a chest-beating exercise. A way to convince and reinforce themselves they are right.