Clapper was on "The View" yesterday and it went like this:
BEHAR: "So I ask you, was the FBI spying on Trump's campaign?"Well, Trump seems happy that the word "spying" slipped out of Clapper as he was talking about what the FBI was doing. Clapper obviously knew he slipped, since he immediately tried to (subtly) erase it.
CLAPPER: "No, they were not. They were spying on, a term I don't particularly like, but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage or influence which is what they do."
BEHAR: "Well, why doesn't [Trump] like that? He should be happy."
CLAPPER: "He should be."
Trump displayed his happiness by tweeting: "'Trump should be happy that the FBI was SPYING on his campaign' No, James Clapper, I am not happy. Spying on a campaign would be illegal, and a scandal to boot!" And, talking to reporters: "I mean if you look at Clapper ... he sort of admitted that they had spies in the campaign yesterday inadvertently. I hope it's not true, but it looks like it is."
Here's how Cillizza tries to wriggle out of it:
Clapper makes crystal clear that the FBI was not spying on the Trump campaign. And he also makes clear that while he doesn't like the word "spying" -- because we are talking about the use of a confidential source -- that, to the extent there was any information gathering happening in conversations between the FBI's informant and members of the Trump campaign, it was entirely designed to shed light on Russian meddling efforts related to the 2016 election.Clapper began by saying "no" to the question whether the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign, but then concedes that they were spying. He doesn't like the word, because it's politically hot (and maybe illegal/unethical), but he used it. Then the question is where were they spying. They were spying on the Trump campaign.
The qualification "on what the Russians were doing" refers to the Trump campaign, not to the Russians generally. I understand that the motivation may have been to see what was the interaction between the campaign and the Russians, but that is still spying on the campaign. Now, the motivation could also have been to figure out a way to defeat Trump. I don't know.
To my ear, the phrase "on what the Russians were doing" is there as a denial of the political motivation, to say that it was legitimate to spy on the Trump campaign because the reason was to deal with genuine concern about Russians doing things within the Trump campaign. My interpretation is supported by Behar's response, "Well, why doesn't [Trump] like that? He should be happy," which Clapper jumped to ride along with, "He should be."
Cillizza:
Clapper said that the FBI didn't spy on the Trump campaign. He said that the only information gathering that happened with the confidential source was related to Russian interference.That just says that the spying on the Trump campaign was limited, not that there wasn't spying on the Trump campaign!
Any honest reading of the entirety of what Clapper said -- and you can read the whole quote in about 15 seconds! -- makes clear that a) Clapper doesn't believe the FBI was spying on Trump's campaign and b) the information gathering being done by the FBI's confidential source was aimed at Russia and designed to protect Trump and his associates, not to mention American democracy more broadly.Any honest reading... so, by Cillizza's lights, I'm not being honest.
How could reading what Clapper said make clear that Clapper does't believe something? Clapper could be lying or bullshitting. What's inside somebody's head is rarely clear even when the statements are clear. But looking only at the meaning of the text, Cillizza's interpretation doesn't sound right to me, and his assertion that his view is the only "honest reading" is an affront to our intelligence.
But let's put aside the technicality of what may be an inadvertent mistake in writing about what Clapper believes (as opposed to what he asserts). Cillizza's efforts at calling Trump wrong fail because Cillizza is only talking about the reasons why the FBI spied on the Trump campaign, not whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.
ADDED: Since Clapper was on "The View," he should have said "Yeah, it was spying, but it wasn't spying spying."
ALSO:
Four things to understand about SPYGATE: 1) There was no spy in the Trump campaign. 2) The spying that did NOT happen was totally justified. 3) It would be bad for national security to identify the spy who doesn't exist. 4) His name is Stefan. #SPYGATE
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) May 23, 2018
Posts
211 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211We still don't know why a DNC staffer was found murdered.
Nor did the spying start in July, the administration now admits it was "late spring", an intentionally nonspecific timeline since their last several efforts to explain the story have been proven false.
The spying on Americans began well before Trump but greatly accelerated in 2016 when he began to look like a serious candidate.
He notes that "Obama officials vastly expand[ed] their searches through NSA database for Americans and the content of their communications. In 2013, there were 9,600 searches involving 195 Americans. But in 2016, there are 30,355 searches of 5,288 Americans."
What else happened ?
By 2016, all pretense of a "reset" with Russia had collapsed. Former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul notes how he was being hazed by Putin's thugs the instant he left the embassy in 2012. Someone was hacking the DNC emails. Not only the Russians but the Ukrainians were active participants in events. The timeline shows that in April 2016:
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee lawyer Mark Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, hire Fusion GPS for anti-Trump political research project.
When Obama mocked Romney in 2012 for saying Russia was our opponent, the US Ambassador was already being roughed up by Putin thugs in Moscow when he would leave the embassy.
Much more is going to be coming out. The Democrats' flirtation with the Russians has been projected onto Republicans who were warning at the time they could not be trusted.
Obama was the 95 pound weakling who was getting sand kicked in his face.
How the Clinton-Emails Investigation Intertwined with the Russia Probe
Robert Cook: Why is James Clapper looked to as a valid source for any information?
Well, it's not like they have a deep bench of credible spox available. Doing the best they can with what they've got, I guess.
"The View"
Where hacks interview other hacks, and then jerk off in the green room with a photo of Bill Clinton on the wall.
That's a good link, Dickin
With the pressure to finish MYE in the rearview mirror, Hillary Clinton looked like a shoo-in to beat Donald Trump. By mid September, Lisa Page was saying as much at a meeting in Deputy Director McCabe’s office. But Strzok was hedging his bets: Maybe “there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
The Trump Russia caper was the "insurance policy."
If he’s innocent Mueller will exonerate him.
That statement should terrify any American.
Ann, you voted for (or at least said you were going to vote for) Obama. Clapper and Brennan and Holder and the rest were the foreseeable result. At least *I* easily foresaw it, and I told you so at the time. I regret the saltiness of the comment directed towards a good woman...but I do not regret the comment itself, nor do I regret opposing that bastard Obama at every turn, nor do I regret voting for Trump, though I don't like the man. And I will vote for him again. And I will vote for the next guy the NYT hates, until the media and Leftists start acting like I am their countryman again. Until then screw them all.
Behar proves to indeed be a somewhat useful idiot.
Question screaming to be asked: if suspected Russian interference with the (Trump) presidential campaign necessitated an infiltrating investigation (ie spying) then how can it possibly be that there was no similarly-conducted investigation regarding the Clinton campaign? We KNEW about the Russian efforts to hack the Democrats! Why didn't they infiltrate the Clinton campaign to spy on Russia?
MayBee said...
If he’s innocent Mueller will exonerate him.
That statement should terrify any American.
5/24/18, 10:06 AM
Remember, Inga isn't an American, after all. Not a native born citizen, I mean. Immigrants are often great, but they must adapt themselves to our system, and not the reverse. "In my country vee know how to deal viss hees kind!" Well, ZISS country doesn't, or shouldn't, groundlessly excavate the life of anyone who disturbs its soi-disant ruling class.
"If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about." Spoken like a true apparatchik.
Post a Comment