A Wednesday piece by The New York Times which details the FBI’s investigation into Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign may have revealed more than intended, at least if a Wall Street Journal reporter who has covered the surveillance previously is correct.

The Journal’s Kimberley Strassel has written about the investigation in the past. In a piece last week, she posited that the FBI may have used a mole in the Trump campaign, particularly given the Department of Justice’s reluctance to turn over information about the informant to congressional investigators.

The Times piece revealed more details about the Trump campaign surveillance operation — called “Crossfire Hurricane” in reference to the Rolling Stones song “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” — and just how extensive it was.

While the tenor of the article, which was written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos, is overwhelmingly favorable to the FBI and dismisses any claims that the surveillance was politically motivated ,(“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” one DOJ official is quoted as saying) there were a few things buried deep in there that specifically caught Strassel’s attention.

In a tweetstorm Wednesday evening, Strassel noted key problems in The Times’ narrative, particularly when the story appeared and significant facts that they glossed over.

TRENDING: Watch: GOP Candidate Klacik Gets Kicked Off of 'The View' for Calling Out Behar's Blackface Scandal

Strassel first argued that the article was a calculated leak of sorts in an effort to get out ahead of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and the information that he’s gathering and releasing regarding the FBI’s sources on the Trump investigation.

1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad. — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

However, she says it proves what Trump was claiming all along: namely, that his campaign was being spied upon.

2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied. (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal. — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

The story briefly mentions that “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 FBI was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.”

Do you think there was a mole in the Trump campaign? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (844 Votes) 0% (4 Votes)

3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos)–making all more likely/certain source will be outed. That's on them — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

However, if that informant met several times with two low-level Trump campaign officials, one wonders just what his role — if any — in the Trump campaign might have been. It seems somewhat unlikely that a random individual outside the campaign would have had the opportunity to meet with both George Papadopoulos and Carter Page without some suspicion being aroused if the informant didn’t have extremely close ties to the campaign.

4. DOJ/FBI (and its 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 source they claim to need to protect? — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

Strassel then noted the fact that if the FBI is willing to leak information that makes them look good to media sources, they shouldn’t have any problem complying with the subpoena that the House Intelligence Committee issued.

She also pointed out that the FBI had claimed the dossier had little to no influence on the investigation.

RELATED: Trump Gains 4-Point Lead Over Biden with FL Likely Voters in Latest ABC/WaPo Poll

5. 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 . . . — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

6. 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 investigation? — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election. — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

Sally Yates, for those of you with short memories, was the deputy attorney general under former President Barack Obama.

Strassel closed with a shot at the DOJ and James Comey.

8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u know you didn't.) — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

This is arguably the biggest story in quite some time. We already knew that intelligence had been weaponized by Obama-era apparatchiks to get a FISA court to agree to surveillance and that the Trump dossier had been prepared using money from the Clinton campaign. However, we’re beginning to realize it went deeper than that — and it could have included a mole in the Trump campaign itself.

If it did, we need to know. No more of this drip-drip-drip of information specifically designed as a limited hangout. It’s time that the American people are appraised, once and for all, just how far the Obama administration went in using the apparatus of the federal government to infiltrate the campaign of their political adversary.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.