Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

WaPo: “Explain The Chinese Spy, Sen. Feinstein”

I never thought I’d see this headline in the Washington Post, but there it was!

Granted, this is an opinion column, but still, I didn’t expect the uber-left leaning WaPo would publish it.  

But they did.

As Feinstein tried to take down Judge Kavanaugh, it appears that tactic may have backfired and may even be boomeranging back on her as talk of “obstruction of justice” and “leaking” is hot right now.  

READ MORE >> Calls Grow To Reprimand Dianne Feinstein

But there’s another investigation that needs to happen.

It’s about her driver of 20 years who is alleged to be a Chinese spy!

Yes, you read that right.  It’s alleged that Dianne Feinstein employed a Chinese spy as her driver for 20 years and never knew about it!  Right under her nose!

As the lefties over at Snopes will tell you, this allegation has not been proven yet. 

Now I wonder why that is?

Perhaps because it’s hard to prove something without an investigation??

Ding ding ding!

Which is why I was so (pleasantly) surprised to see this article in the WaPo.

Read more here, from the Washington Post:

NATIONAL POLL: Do You Still Have Trump's Back 100%?

Imagine if it emerged that the Republican chairman of the House or Senate intelligence committee had a Russian spy working on their staff. Think it would cause a political firestorm? Well, this month we learned that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had a Chinese spy on her staff who worked for her for about 20 years, was listed as an “office director” on payroll records and served as her driver when she was in San Francisco, all while reporting to China’s Ministry of State Security through China’s San Francisco Consulate. The reaction of the mainstream media? Barely a peep.

Feinstein acknowledged the infiltration but played down its significance. “Five years ago the FBI informed me it had concerns that an administrative member of my California staff was potentially being sought out by the Chinese government to provide information,” Feinstein said in a statement — which means the breach took place while Feinstein was heading the Intelligence Committee. But, Feinstein insisted, “he never had access to classified or sensitive information or legislative matters” and was immediately fired. In other words: junior staffer, no policy role, no access to secrets, quickly fired — no big deal.

But it is a big deal. I asked several former senior intelligence and law enforcement officials how serious this breach might have been. “It’s plenty serious,” one former top Justice Department official told me. “Focusing on his driver function alone, in Mafia families, the boss’s driver was among the most trusted men in the crew, because among other things he heard everything that was discussed in the car.”

A former top CIA clandestine officer explained to me what the agency would do if it had recruited the driver of a senior official such as Feinstein. “We would have the driver record on his phone all conversations that Feinstein would have with passengers and phone calls in her car. If she left her phone, iPad or laptop in the car while she went to meetings, social events, dinners, etc., we would have the driver download all her devices. If the driver drove for her for 20 years, he would probably would have had access to her office and homes. We would have had the source put down an audio device in her office or homes if the opportunity presented itself. Depending on the take from all of what the source reported, we would use the info to target others that were close to her and exhibited some type of vulnerability.”

“In short,” this officer said, “we would have had a field day.”

It seems improbable that Feinstein never once discussed anything sensitive in her car over a period of years. But let’s assume that Feinstein was extraordinarily careful and never discussed any classified information in front of her driver or on any devices to which he had access. Even so, one former top intelligence official told me, “someone in that position could give an adversary a whole bunch on atmospherics and trends and attitudes which are from time to time far more important than the things we call secrets.” He added, “It’s like [having access to her] unclassified emails.” (And we all know no one ever exposes classified information on unclassified emails).


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Thanks for sharing!