The Genuine Reason Behind the FBI's Involvement in the Trump Campaign

The FBI's involvement in the Trump campaign has been a topic of significant debate and misinformation. Contrary to popular belief, the FBI did not send an informant into the campaign directly. Instead, they acted on intelligence indicating potential connections between the Trump campaign and foreign entities with dubious intentions.

What Happened?

The key event that prompted the FBI's actions was an Australian diplomat's interaction with George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos, a young Trump campaign advisor, had met the diplomat in London and shared information about contacts who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos's disclosure was made during a conversation that involved a high-ranking official with access to sensitive information.

This included a mention of Russian involvement, which quickly escalated into a serious matter for US intelligence agencies. The situation was so concerning that it was reported to the highest levels of the Australian government, including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Given the CIA and NSA being part of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement, the information was also relayed to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Intelligence and Actions Taken

Upon receiving this information, the FBI initiated a light counterintelligence inquiry. The primary focus was to investigate Papadopoulos, as well as two other key figures: Carter Page and Sam Clovis. These individuals were identified as having suspicious connections to Russia. The FBI approached these individuals to gather more information through confidential informants, rather than conducting a full-scale investigation that might have alerted the campaign too quickly.

Key Figures and Their Connections

George Papadopoulos: Having recently joined the Trump campaign, Papadopoulos's lack of experience in handling classified information proved to be a significant oversight. The meeting with the Australian diplomat was not an official or sanctioned activity, making it a potential security risk.

Carter Page: A former Navy intelligence officer with a known history of public ties to Russia, Page's inclusion in the campaign added to the FBI's concerns. In 2013, Page had been under a FISA warrant, which led to the arrest of two Russian spies. This background made him a prime target for scrutiny.

Paul Manafort: Manafort, a campaign manager with a history of close ties to Russia, particularly to the Russian Revolution and post-Soviet era. His association with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and financial dealings with individuals tied to Putin's regime further complicated the situation.

Counterintelligence Actions and Consequences

The FBI's actions were justified under the relevant counterintelligence models. While the level of investigation was relatively light, it was still significant given the political landscape. Unlike previous administrations, the stance of the FBI in 2016 was more pragmatic, considering the broader context and potential political fallout.

It's important to note that the decision to use this approach was deliberate. By involving a third party (a confidential informant), the FBI aimed to gather more information without raising immediate suspicion within the campaign. This method also allowed them to catalogue the individuals' activities while ensuring they didn't alert the campaign prematurely.

Godwin's Law applies here: No one will be suggesting that the FBI should have taken a firmer approach based on later events, especially without additional evidence. Nonetheless, the decision made by the FBI in 2016 remains within the bounds of appropriate counterintelligence practices.

Conclusion

The involvement of the FBI in the Trump campaign was driven by intelligence reports that suggested potential ties between the campaign and foreign entities. The actions taken were a balanced approach to gather more information without causing undue alarm. The involvement of confidential informants allowed for a more discreet and effective investigation.

In the end, the FBI's actions were guided by the need to protect national security and maintain the integrity of the campaign process. The light touch taken by the FBI was a reflection of the complex and nuanced nature of the situation. The use of a third party to gather information was a well-thought-out strategy, aligning with best practices in counterintelligence.