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:
1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»Either/or: (1) We weren't spying or (2) well, we were spying, but that's a good thing.
Pick one, Clapper!
Eppure si muove.
The obama admin ran an active counterintelligence frame up operation against domestic political opponents.
And the entire obama admin knew it.
Not even LLR Chuck in his most creative and DemDefending ways is going to be able to effectively obfuscate that.
Clap on! Clap off! The Clapper!
If what Clapper is saying is true, wouldn't the FBI be duty-bound to alert the campaign of the possible foreign interference?
The house of cards is crumbling. It will get much uglier before it gets better, but the end game is starting to come in sight. Already, it seems everyday keeping the Mueller investigation going just helps Trump and, for the midterms, the GOP.
On the positive side, household income highest in 50 years. Not sure why people would want to reverse course and have Dems readopt their failed policies of the Obama years.
it's like watching Packers play the Bears and insisting you're only watching the Packers.
Reide?
If the FBI "spied" on the Trump campaign to protect it from the machinations of the evil Russians, then clearly all the more reason to put a spy in the Clinton campaign to protect it, since we've been told over & over than it was targeted by the Russkies.
And, while we're at it, how about all those Lefties on the Sanders' campaign? I bet some of those old-guard Marxists still had some active ties to the Post-USSR Russia.
So, how about it FBI? Did you extend your "protection" to other candidates, too? If not, why not? Does the FBI just hate women in charge, or what?
There is another interesting point here. Does spying on Carter Page and George Papadapoulos constitute spying on the Trump campaign? Trump has claimed in the past that they weren’t really part of his campaign, I guess they’ve been reinstated.
Prof A: so, no way around it. spying.
Let me repeat: SPYING.
Mmmm. Mmmmmmmmm.
Sssssssee-ppyyyyyyyyyyinnnnnnnng.
Enjoy that delicious sensation! Happens so rarely. Next? Exciting screenplay with Democrats spying on us!
"All of your narratives are belong to me!”
Mountain John
What a good question. Surely if they actually found anything, including colluding campaign staff, you would think so.
Watching the women on "The View" discuss current events is edifying. It's a maelstrom of malice toward Trump. The discussion is sucked into a vortex of stupidity, a black hole so dense that no intelligence can escape. Edutainment at its best!
He’s like Sherman McCoy in Bonfire. Fight on happy man!
Trump displayed his happiness by tweeting: "'Trump should be happy that the FBI was SPYING on his campaign..."
Yes, if by "his campaign" one means Putin's campaign to get Trump into office, which Trump's sentence seems to indicate is the same as Trump's personal campaign to get elected.
These word games get so boring. I realize you will use any number of them to defend anything Trump does but at some point do you never tire of refusing to see Trump and Republicans say something that they can actually mean? Your post is so long and convoluted, and basically boils down to yet another rejection of any accountability for him and his party. For how long do you think the country and the world will put up with it?
“I don’t like that term, adultery, I prefer ‘reassessing my vows’.”
I cannot think of anything that more perfectly illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Obama administration than the fact that people like Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and McCabe held positions of enormous responsibility in the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
I've always been curious as to why the FBI didn't plant an informant in the Clinton campaign. The DNC's server was hacked, though as I understand it, the server was never turned over to the FBI so someone could look at it. This hack could have been an inside job, the Russians planting someone in the campaign to get at that server. There was far more evidence of the Russians messing around in the Clinton campaign than the Trump campaign.
The Weasel Brigade (Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe) were caught off-guard. They thought Hillary was gonna win, they'd get rewarded within her administration, and nobody would find this stuff out.
Sometimes life throws you curveballs........
I cannot think of anything that more perfectly illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the country's right wing than the fact that people as irrational as Big Mike feels he has a case to make for passing judgment on the alleged insufficiency of Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and McCabe in their positions of enormous responsibility in the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
@PPPT,
Yes, if by "his campaign" one means Putin's campaign to get Trump into office,
In what way is the foreign policy of the Trump administration any kinder to Russia than was the Obama administration? Seems to me that having American troops in Syria massacre about 200 Russian mercenaries is about as punitive of a measure as any undertaken by any American administration since Truman in the Korean War.
@Inga Then why won't Cillizza admit it was spying and get on to the real question whether it was a proper situation for spying?
So what did Flynn do? Manafort?
It sounds he was trying to narrow the scope and failed.
“Spying” or placing an informer is part of the investigatory process. I believe it didn’t start with spying, it started with evidence of illegal coordination between a foreign nation working with an American campaign. It is illegal to accept foreign help in getting elected to an American political office. I suspect it was ordered legally and I’m confident that is exactly what the IG Horowitz report will indicate. The hysteria is unseemly and I hope when the investigations are complete and the evidence available for all to see you people won't lose your wits.
So this was good spying? Protective spying?
An interesting question might have been "how does good spying work?"
Or maybe "how did this spying protect Trump and America?"
Or even "how often do you do this sort of thing during elections?"
Or "do you only spy on Republicans?"
Or "did you protect Hillary by spying on her as well?"
Althouse, I don’t know. He should admit there was an informer placed within the investigation. He shouldn’t shy away from it.
We don't spy on American citizens, but if we do, its for a good reason! Really, when you think about it, J.Edgar Hoover was looking out for Martin Luther King.
@Inga,
It is illegal to accept foreign help in getting elected to an American political office,
Name once in American history that a campaign has ever been prosecuted for such. One time.
"Oh, it's just one of those laws that we never, ever, use until we need it against a Republican outsider weirdo. Other than that, like when the Obama campaign turned off protections against foreign donations via credit card, we just look the other way".
One would think the FBI or the CIA would have a heads up but noooooo.
Inga: best part of the spying...
Wait, did I say that clearly enough?
SPYING.
Repeat: SPYING.
By: Democrats.
By Demifrats.
Let me luxuriate in that? Just one more time?
Spying. By Democrats.
This is the most confusing movie I've ever seen...............
FFS, these people, they can't even lie and obfuscate competently.
-sw
“Name once in American history that a campaign has ever been prosecuted for such. One time.”
How many political campaigns did what it appears the Trump campaign did? We don’t know what a Mueller knows and to what extent the Trump campaign conspired with a foreign government to get elected.
If you want to keep track of the Russians, you should spy on the Russians, not on the Trump campaign. Isn't that obvious? They were spying on the Trump campaign.
Nice Blue Wave Icon!
On Monday, Reuters/Ipsos announced that the Democratic Party´s strong lead on the generic ballot question, which had remained stable for most of 2018, had rapidly collapsed over the prior week. The #BlueWave narrative -- the media´s all-but-concluded assumption that Democrats would retake the House of Representatives from the GOP in November -- has largely been based on the state of the generic ballot poll. So you might assume the media tasked with covering the 2018 midterm elections would immediately react to a sudden shift in the most important metric available for predicting the most important outcome of those elections. They did not.
Interesting. I see AA reply to Inga with a question, but no Inga comment. Just two deleted comments.
Then later a mistaken or deceptive claim from Inga that it is illegal to accept foreign help in getting elected. It isn’t. As a foreigner I looked into this. I could have done many things to help my candidate, including working for his or her campaign, etc. only some things, like money donations, were illegal. It wasn’t illegal for Hilary to cite foreigners who preferred her for example, or to refer to their endorsements.
Wiretapping of the Democratic Party's headquarters
...
On January 27, 1972, G. Gordon Liddy, Finance Counsel for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP) and former aide to John Ehrlichman, presented a campaign intelligence plan to CRP's Acting Chairman Jeb Stuart Magruder, Attorney General John Mitchell, and Presidential Counsel John Dean that involved extensive illegal activities against the Democratic Party. According to Dean, this marked "the opening scene of the worst political scandal of the twentieth century and the beginning of the end of the Nixon presidency".[16]
Mitchell viewed the plan as unrealistic. Two months later, he was alleged to have approved a reduced version of the plan, including burgling the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C. — ostensibly to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones. Liddy was nominally in charge of the operation, but has since insisted that he was duped by both Dean and at least two of his subordinates, which included former CIA officers E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, the latter of which was serving as then-CRP Security Coordinator after John Mitchell had by then resigned as Attorney General to become the CRP chairman.[17][18]
...
Two phones inside the DNC headquarters' offices were said to have been wiretapped.[citation needed] One was Robert Spencer Oliver's phone. At the time, Oliver was working as the executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen. The other phone belonged to DNC chairman Larry O'Brien.[citation needed] The FBI found no evidence that O'Brien's phone was bugged;[citation needed] however, it was determined that an effective listening device was installed in Oliver's phone.[20]
...
Just to put things in perspective.
Blogger Inga said...
How many political campaigns did what it appears the Trump campaign did?
Inga sweetie, exactly what is it that Trump did? Please spell it out for us.
I cannot think of anything that more perfectly illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the country’s right wing than the fact that people as irrational as Big Mike feels he has a case to make for passing judgment on the alleged insufficiency of Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and McCabe in their positions of enormous responsibility in the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
Believe what you are told people! Ignore the evidence of your eyes. There is not the tiniest sliver of a possibility of corruption involving the Clintons!
“They were spying on the Trump campaign.”
And so what? They had evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with a foreign government to get their candidate elected, that is illegal, hence the investigation that was started by the FBI in July of 2016.
During the Clinton impeachment of 1997 - 98, 'ole Slick Willie and his enablers did a masterful job toggling back and forth between:
(1)He didn't lie and (2) well, lying about sex is not an impeachable offense.
Here it's:
(1) We didn't spy on Trump and (2) well, spying was justified because of X,Y,Z.
Putin!
How many political campaigns did what it appears the Trump campaign did?
Well, I can think of at least one that took 145 million dollars from Putin and just happened to make decisions that greatly benefited him...
Here we are. Right where I said we would be.
And look at the Stalinists squirm.
The reckoning comes. You leftists tried to destroy our republic. And failed.
The rule of law will be upheld. Obama is going down. People are already admitting he knew. It will be awesome watching them turn on each other to stay out of jail.
Now you can all watch your leaders marched off peacefully to jail humiliated and broken.
Or we can do it the other way.
OK, so Clapper’s line is, We we’re only spying on Russians. And, by implication, if that happened to mean we heard some Trump people, that’s exactly why we were right to do so.
I’m always interested in what Clapper has to say. Mind you, I think he’d have no compunction whatsoever about lying, as he has demonstrated repeatedly and very very publicly, but I do find it engaging to try to guess what’s truth, what’s lie, and what is partial truth, misleadingly presented. (“Not wittingly.”)
In what way is the foreign policy of the Trump administration any kinder to Russia than was the Obama administration?
Even if you had a case here, it only changes the point if you really are ok with foreign governments being given carte blanche as backers in American elections of the candidates of their choice. This is exactly the kind of thing Obama warned about when lecturing the arrogant Supreme Court justices about the ramifications of Citizens United, only in this case the right seems to not even care which country's agenda is used to back our candidates or why, and that it shouldn't even be investigated. They just seem not to care at all.
Here's a foreign agenda that hijacked American politics in 2016: Nationalism. Before that the country was basically always following its course as a the non-sectarian project that the founders established. But the American right is no longer satisfied with its empty, warmed-over big business pro-aristocracy agenda and turned us back into just another European ethno-nationalist hard right project. How pathetic and small. This is truly a rump America.
The obama admin placed 1 spy into the campaign to plant narratives and ideas with specific Trump folks, that spy then coordinated with another spy to get the Trump folks to tell spy2 what spy1 had said!
Voila!
Halper/Mifsud planted the lies, papoadopolous is asked about the lies by spy3 Downer. Pappadopolous repeats what Halper/Mifsud told him.
Bingo.
But heres where Ingas entire timeline collapses: the counterintel Op started well before the pappadopolous/Downer meeting, which previously had been identified by comey and the other liars as the "start of the investigation".
Uh oh....
LOL
We are literally on our 4th "origination" lie...
Inga: " I believe it didn’t start with spying, it started with evidence of illegal coordination between a foreign nation working with an American campaign."
It would be pretty to believe so, but what evidence do you have for that belief? After a year of non-stop leaking by the FBI, Mueller and the Justice Department, not a shred of evidence for that smoking gun has been brought forth. We have seen an ever-shifting basis for the investigation and the FISA warrants: Carter Page, no the Dossier, no Papadopolous's drunken conversersation with the Australian Ambassador. But now we know that the investigation was started before any of those events.
"Althouse, I don’t know. He should admit there was an informer placed within the investigation. He shouldn’t shy away from it."
May I suggest that the reason was: 1. A lack of confidence in the argument that it was a proper situation, and 2. They're just so committed to digging their heels in about every damned thing that they've lost track of the interest in maintaining credibility.
If you've done the right thing, act like you think it's right. Don't act guilty! It's such a simple proposition that my presumption is: they are guilty.
Why would Nixon do that? He was guaranteed to win, I bet he had a higher than 95% chance of winning,
Inga said...
“They were spying on the Trump campaign.”
And so what? They had evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with a foreign government to get their candidate elected, that is illegal, hence the investigation that was started by the FBI in July of 2016.
What evidence?
4th Amendment to the US constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Just another bunch of words the leftists want to burn.
Disgusting amoral losers.
The Trumpen rumpenproletariat.
Just another honest beaureacratic snafu .... no controlling legal authority. Not technically perjury. I’ve seen his movie and I know how it ends.
it only changes the point if you really are ok with foreign governments being given carte blanche as backers in American elections of the candidates of their choice.
145 million dollars to the Clintons, she kills Keystone XL and promises to ban fracking and hands over Uranium One and deletes tens of thousands of emails from the time. You are fine with that.
“If you've done the right thing, act like you think it's right. Don't act guilty! It's such a simple proposition that my presumption is: they are guilty.”
True enough. Trump should stop acting like he’s guilty too. He might help himself seem less guilty by letting the investigation move forward unimpeded. And stop yelling “No Collusion!”
President Pee-Pee Tape said...
Here's a foreign agenda that hijacked American politics in 2016: Nationalism. Before that the country was basically always following its course as a the non-sectarian project that the founders established.
I love the rationalizations. The squirming.
You people hate this country. You hate the bill of rights. You have been on record screeching against the first and second amendment.
Now clear and obvious evidence Obama criminally abused the 4th amendment and several laws is presented to you and you squirm.
You are an enemy of freedom.
145 million dollars to the Clintons, she kills Keystone XL and promises to ban fracking and hands over Uranium One and deletes tens of thousands of emails from the time. You are fine with that.
Pretty sure I'm not but in your handy dandy right-wing scattergun hypocrisy fire you seem to not understand that the Clintons took money from everybody. It's hard to argue that any one single country's leader's agenda had precedence over them. They were equal opportunity whores.
FYI no declassification or redaction was ever needed. A congressman, A senator, anyone confirmed by the Senate, has the highest security clearance. They have the right to ask any question of any federal employee and demand an answer right now, else off to jail no other paperwork or process required. Due process can wait. Everything else, committee is for show and polite camaraderie. Without this government falls, no way to compel access for oversight or provide a path for whistleblowers. So, this article is a joke. Best the questioned can do is explain why you don’t want to ask the question because you don’t want to know the answer, or you can take the fifth. If they don't answer the Park Police are sitting outside and they'd love to put you in cuffs and toss you in their drunk tank, because they remember you and your treating them like dirt. Reminds me, where are the deputy directors in this fiasco.? They know everything their boss does because they must be able to step into their shoes and not miss a heartbeat, else the nation can die in a time of crisis. Afterward they may choose to explain what and why it is classified and if it is an existential threat to the nation why you’ve been assigned a permanent security detail.
1996, Chinese fundraising scandal with Bill Clinton. He handed over missile technology to the ChiComs at the behest of his biggest donor, who needed some of his “Iridium” satelites launched from China, and he didn’t want them blowing up on the pad.
You were fine with that.
They were equal opportunity whores.
Thjs was the alternative the Democrats offered America. Nobody cared, but this theoretical stuff based on partisan hatred?
You people hate this country. You hate the bill of rights. You have been on record screeching against the first and second amendment.
No wonder Asquiglees is so angry. In a Nazi or North Korean autocracy a guy like him has a place that he really doesn't have in America.
"people"
No quotes he can cite to support any of his personal attacks and lies above, of course. Maybe Trump's offered to fund his legal libel case, the way he would have supported someone's defense for assault charges.
Now clear and obvious evidence Obama criminally abused the 4th amendment and several laws is presented to you and you squirm.
You are an enemy of freedom.
I quote the above in full even though just the utter unhinged, brainless, moronic, lawless hostility of the last bit is what anyone who's studied history should take note of. Asquiglees' ever constantly hostile stupidities are the rhetorical playbook of autocratic thugs everywhere. He has about as much capacity for discourse and political effectiveness as the typical brownshirt. I really don't give him any regard higher than that. He talks like someone who just heard a rousing political speech by a guy dressed in a uniform at a beer hall.
Go back to your beer hall, Asquigglees. Usually Nazis aren't into weed and anabolics, though they shared your love of amphetamines.
It’s pretty funny to defend the Clintons on the grounds that they would sell out America to just anybody! Even if they sold out America to Putin in a bigger way than Trump ever has, it’s OK, they can’t help it, they are not morally responsible!
Thjs was the alternative the Democrats offered America. Nobody cared, but this theoretical stuff based on partisan hatred?
If you're so incapable of separating Trump from the Clintons then why didn't you just vote for them? You seem incapable of addressing anything about Trump without bringing them up. Are they like chocolate and peanut butter? Peas and carrots? Just invite them into the White House that you have so much trouble seeing as occupied by Trump alone and without them, if that's how you feel.
99% of TDS is due to projection. The Left knows how evil and corrupt their leaders are and presumes that Trump is just as bad or worse.
Go back to your beer hall,
LOL
Inga said...
“If you've done the right thing, act like you think it's right. Don't act guilty! It's such a simple proposition that my presumption is: they are guilty.”
True enough. Trump should stop acting like he’s guilty too. He might help himself seem less guilty by letting the investigation move forward unimpeded. And stop yelling “No Collusion!”
There is literally nothing at this point that would exonerate Trump in the left's eyes. "Russian Collusion" isn't even a crime. It is made up out of whole cloth.
The DNC didn't let the FBI look at it's servers. Because it was an inside job. There was no "russian" hacking.
FBI Agents are coming forward now requesting to be subpoenaed by congress so they will be protected from the corrupt leadership in the FBI.
The midterms are going to be a complete wipe out.
You tried to destroy the republic. Now the republic is going to fight back and eliminate this threat.
The Left knows how evil and corrupt their leaders are and presumes that Trump is just as bad or worse.
He raided his doctor's office to expunge the medical records pertaining to his hair loss pills prescription.
The guy is about as suited to being president as someone who pulls down his pants in public and colors in crayolas on the walls.
You seem incapable of addressing anything about Trump without bringing them up.
Democrats seem to have been incapable of seeing that they were scum and that was the alternative that the Democrats offered us to Trump. Oh and all of these unsupported accusations you are making against Trump of being Putin’s puppet, or whatever? It would seem like the Democrats’ choice for leader of the free world was guilty of all of them. So get your own house in order.
Where would we be without Scott Adams? Cuts right through the BS and with humor.
Some russians put up some facebook adds.
Mueller indicted companies that didn't exist when he said they committed crimes.
Agents that were involved in the Flynn interrogation want to go on record about how he was rail-roaded by McCabe and Comey. Both will be going to jail unless they flip.
All of them have been implicated in a clear conspiracy to leak confidential information to the press. Actual crimes.
It is all coming down on your heads.
Going to be a long hot summer.
Have Scott Adams and the President ever sat down together? I'd love to hear that conversation.
This President is definitely the best President in my lifetime. Dennis Prager agrees with me. Try to tell me that "Low energy" or "Little Marco" could have done what Trump is doing. He may fail, but it won't be from lack of trying.
Plus this whole Russia thing came out of the Clinton campaign. It started there. The people like McCabe? Fresh from covering up Hillary’s crimes, like changing the language from “Gross Negligence” original language and a crime to “Extreme Carelessness” not a crime! If you can tell me the difference, next you can explain how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and these are the people hounding Trump. So you can’t take the Clinton rot out of this. Clinton’s croney, McAuliff, gave McCabe’s wife 750K to run for STATE SENATOR, 750K! Where is that money now?
"And so what? They had evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with a foreign government to get their candidate elected, that is illegal, hence the investigation that was started by the FBI in July of 2016."
Their evidence was cooked up by a circle jerk* of provocateurs who were playing a game of telephone that was presented to the FBI as evidence that a 26 year-old wannabe fringe character "advising" the Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Russians because he heard at a cocktail party in London that the Russians has Hillary's e-mails. Then the professor who worked for MI6 and the CIA tried to worm aboard the Trump campaign bus, and the FBI went to the FISA court with a dossier cooked up by the Clinton campaign, but didn't tell the judge its provenance. This was all a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign. If they wanted to keep track of the Russians, they should have spied on the Russians, not the Trumpsters.
I am particularly incensed by this because I heard in a bar in Chicago that the Russians had Hillary's e-mails and were offering them to the GOP, and nobody investigated me.
*technical term
If you guys had run Bernie, we could all be arguing about his latest whackadoodle proposal as president, instead of this mis-use of the FBI, CIA, and NSA against a presidential campaign.
How many political campaigns did what it appears the Trump campaign did?
And what is that? Outside of beating Hillary like a rented mile, what, precisely did the Trump campaign do? The more information that trickles out, the more we see that every time the Trump campaign had something illegal or unethical or even borderline, they turned away from it.
I do find the juxtaposition of the above with “We don’t know what a Mueller [sic] knows and to what extent the Trump campaign conspired with a foreign government to get elected” to be interesting. Have you considered the obvious, that there was no conspiracy, no collusion, nothing? You have no evidence of any crime, Mueller (a Mueller, you mean there’s more than one?) which seems to you to be proof positive that there simply must be a crime of some sort there, because otherwise ... what?
"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."
This CYA stuff after the fact is BS. If they wanted to prevent the Russians from infiltrating, they would have at least notified Trump himself.
The operation was all about what Trump was doing, and more specifically, what they could plausibly pin on him as a way to prevent him from winning. "Politics" was the beginning and end of it.
Blogger Inga said...
“They were spying on the Trump campaign.”
And so what? They had evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with a foreign government to get their candidate elected, that is illegal, hence the investigation that was started by the FBI in July of 2016.
Hilarious. Inga now admits they were spying. She neglects to describe the "evidence" but she doesn't care. Whatever Hillary says is OK with her.
Did Ritmo say anything intelligent ? Anyone who reads his defecation on the thread can respond.
The FBI ran undercover agents in foreign counties against the Trump campaign. Not against Russians. They took lies they knew had been cooked up by paid agents of the Clinton campaign, and used them to trick a federal judge into issuing a FISA warrant. Meanwhile, they quashed the investigation of Hillary's evident criminal behavior, granting immunity to every one of her co-conspirators in return for exactly nothing. After the election, they arranged to give Trump a briefing on the lies they were "investigating", so they could leak the fact of the briefing to their lackeys in the press, who used it as a "news hook", so they could publish the lies and the fact of the investigation, without revealing that it had found exactly nothing.
If you ran over two stray dogs, and threw them in the trunk of your car, then left it parked at the Phoenix Airport for a couple weeks in July, it would not stink as bad as the Obama Administration. What did he know. When did he know it?
One plant tells the Greek that Russia has the emails, another plant asks him about it and he says, yeah, I heard the Russian had the email, and it’s COLLUSION!
Why the fuck didn’t Hillary just follow the rules? Why wasn’t there an IG at State during the whole four years who would have made her follow the rules? To ask such a question is to answer it, and the answer is, that’s how you get Trump.
“There is literally nothing at this point that would exonerate Trump in the left's eyes. "Russian Collusion" isn't even a crime. It is made up out of whole cloth.”
Why should Trump be exonerated before the investigation is over? If he’s innocent Mueller will exonerate him. Collusion isn’t a crime but criminal conspiracy is. Good grief, you haven’t heard the term yet?
Inga: He should admit there was an informer placed within the investigation.
You misspelled "spy," dingbat.
Collusion isn’t a crime but criminal conspiracy is.
Keep hope alive! Maybe Mueller can explain why the FBI never bothered to look at the server that was supposedly hacked by the Russians, but breaks down doors in the wee hours to seize servers and file cabinets from Republicans!
Also, the DNC server was never turned over because 1. Comey and McCabe didn't ask.
2. Crowdstrike was the "contractor" that was using the NSA intercepts to spy on Hillary's opponents and the evidence would have been obvious if the FBI got the server. They were using the server.
3. The was no Russian "hack." Seth Rich used a thumb drive to download the data and give it to Wikileaks. Hillary got to him after. The coverup included the GW medical resident who was barred from ICU when Rich was admitted alive and probably talking about what happened.
“She neglects to describe the "evidence" but she doesn't care.”
Michael, we, not one of us, know for sure what the evidence is. The Mueller investigation is ongoing and all the hysteria and all the dancing and prancing out of one conspiracy theory after another won’t change the fact that we do not know what Mueller knows. Anyone who claims they know are lying to you and themselves.
Oh yean, and the contents of those files end up on MSNBC within days as news story after news story that Igna breathlessly awaits. “Our jackbooted thugs are doing the Lord’s work!”
I hope that we all realize on this thread that we don’t know to what extent the Clinton campaign conspired with foreign governments to get elected. Australia, UK, and Russia, I'm looking at YOU.
“3. The was no Russian "hack." Seth Rich used a thumb drive to download the data and give it to Wikileaks. Hillary got to him after. The coverup included the GW medical resident who was barred from ICU when Rich was admitted alive and probably talking about what happened.”
Don’t forget PizzaGate.
Remember the Scott Walker investigation when the “prosecutors” seized files from Republicans and filed them under “Opposition Research”? Yeah, that’s how Democrats roll.
Meanwhile, they quashed the investigation of Hillary's evident criminal behavior, granting immunity to every one of her co-conspirators in return for exactly nothing.
Sally Yates also saw to it that the "Counter intel" department of State never got an IG appointed.
No IG, no evidence.
“She neglects to describe the "evidence" but she doesn't care.”
Michael, we, not one of us, know for sure what the evidence is.
Do you have a mouse in your pocket again, Inga?
Obama took the address verification off of his donation web site so that anybody anywhere in the world could give him money and limits were impossible to enforce and nobody gave a flying fuck.
anybody anywhere in the world could give him money
Even Mickey Mouse contributed.
Even Michael Clayton, the fixer in the movie didn’t have the balls that these Clinton fixers had, but they were certain she was going to win so they got careless.
“Captain - captain, there is no key, if the mess boys ate the strawberries.”
Trump should stop acting like he’s guilty too. He might help himself seem less guilty by letting the investigation move forward unimpeded. And stop yelling “No Collusion!”
But he isn’t impeding the investigation, is he? From where I sit he’s acting like an innocent man who’s good and pissed that this investigation hasn’t been wrapped up long ago.
No one’s going to trick me into assuming there was no criminal conspiracy!
tim in vermont said...
Why would Nixon do that? He was guaranteed to win, I bet he had a higher than 95% chance of winning,
All evidence indicates Nixon leaned about the whole spying thing AFTER the fact, not before.
Ans as I said before in other posts about spying/not spying:
As the MSM tries to spin the latest revelations, consider this. If you're trying to protect someone from bad people in their organization, you tell them you've got someone inside or ask them to hire your person- you let them know there may be a problem. If you're spying on someone, you insert someone into their organization- and don't tell them. And further- don't tell them there may be a problem.
The FBI didn't tell Trump they had someone in his organization. Draw your conclusion from that.
Hillary went ballistic, throwing a huge tantrum and screaming at her staff, “you f – – – ing idiots, you were supposed to have this thing set up for me and you’ve screwed it up! If that f – – – ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished…and if I lose it’s all on you ass – – – – s for screwing this up.”
At the time, and I know that this story is of questionable provenance, but not really disprovable either, but at the time this quote didn’t make much sense...
How would the Democrats have reacted if it turned out that in 2008 concerned about possible Cuban/Iranian/North Korean efforts to interfere in US elections by helping Obama, the Bush Administration had had an FBI asset carry out the same acts against the Obama Campaign as the FBI did with the Trump Campaign?
I'm certain that the Democrats would have calmly reacted and expressed the attitude that such a tasking by the FBI was perfectly understandable and justifiable and really no big deal.
Yeah, right.
Inga said...
“There is literally nothing at this point that would exonerate Trump in the left's eyes. "Russian Collusion" isn't even a crime. It is made up out of whole cloth.”
Why should Trump be exonerated before the investigation is over? If he’s innocent Mueller will exonerate him. Collusion isn’t a crime but criminal conspiracy is. Good grief, you haven’t heard the term yet?
You can only conspire to commit an actual crime. You can't Conspire to commit a non crime.
Trump has not been credibly accused of committing any crimes except actually winning the election.
The 4th amendment is just another obstacle to you and your pursuit of pwoer over others.
tim in vermont: I Remember the Scott Walker investigation when the “prosecutors” seized files from Republicans and filed them under “Opposition Research”?
I don't remember - was Inga also cheerleading that particular totally legal and patriotically justified exercise? Just curious.
I'm willing to accept that she sincerely doesn't understand what's going on here, but there does come a point when the most honestly idiotic useful idiocy can no longer be given a pass.
Drink up, Pedro! Shoot for six hundred comments!
Great analysis.
Look, if the FBI/CIA was concerned about "Russian Collusion" in the Trump campaign, why didn't they go to Trump and say:
"Hey, Mr. Trump, we think the Russians are infiltrating your campaign and trying to manipulate you. Some of your aides might be Russian operatives. We'd like to embed someone to ferret them out. I'm sure as a patriotic guy, you'd agree."
But of course, they didn't. Because they weren't doing that to Hillary. And they weren't concerned about "Russians Spies" - they were try to spy on Trump in the hopes of finding something bad, that would destroy his campaign and elect Hillary. They were unpaid DNC spies.
People forget LBJ was using the FBI to spy on Goldwater in '64. FDR did the same thing with Willkie in '40 and Dewey in '44.
Ritmo:
the Clintons took money from everybody. It's hard to argue that any one single country's leader's agenda had precedence over them. They were equal opportunity whores.
Well, thank God she lost, then.
JFC, you idiots think that's a defense?
I don't remember - was Inga also cheerleading that particular totally legal and patriotically justified exercise? Just curious.
There was an Inga cheering on the jackboots every step of the way, but this current incarnation can’t seem to remember it. I am still not 100% convinced they are the same person.
When you plead the 5th, it is customary to say, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."
It occurs to me that this would be an excellent answer to any question posed by an FBI agent.
JFC, you idiots think that's a defense?
JFC, you idiots think that's a point?
Once again, not sure who here brought up or defended the Clintons but the Trumpsters' inability to refrain from dragging them up at any mention of Trump's wrongdoings just proves how guilty they think he is. Sure Al Capone's a great president! John Dillinger was worse!
Whatever.
“ ‘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. ’ ”
Fine. Was the FBI gathering information related to Russian interference on the Clinton campaign as well?
’Cause that would make it non-political.
People forget LBJ was using the FBI to spy on Goldwater in '64. FDR did the same thing with Willkie in '40 and Dewey in '44.
Hoover set the pattern. He used to amuse Johnson with tapes of MLK screwing white women.
He never tried to throw an election, I don't think.
It was Mark Felt, after Hoover died, who did that. And quite successfully.
The left has been trying to to imitate him ever since.
A while back, I made a modest contribution to a GoFundMe for a person with some serious problems that were no fault of his own. Yesterday, I got a thank you note. I would like to quote the beginning;
"Dear Friend:
And I mean that - we may have never met, but our family considers you a true friend. What you and 6,000 others have done by donating to our legal fund was the true meaning of friendship: you saved us, selflessly, from an unknown fate.
We were buried in legal bills, the Mueller investigators knew it, and they were relying upon our fear of more fees to keep me quiet.
But you changed everything. Now, our bills are paid, and we’re not afraid of more. Now they can’t shut me up."
That was from Michael Caputo. He mentioned that he will now be able to keep the house his family lives in. That will be a real disappointment to Team Mueller, who had hoped to throw him and his family in the street for the crime of participating in a political campaign they don't approve of. I will say, it made my day to receive that e-mail, partly because of the news that I had helped an innocent victim of an unscrupulous criminal gang, but also because of that number; 6000. 6000.
I'm a right-winger. I believe that since the Clintons are corrupt, it's only natural and right that Trump should be able to break any law he wants. That's how it works in a country like ours.
I'm a left-winger. I believe that since the Clintons are corrupt, it's only natural and right that I simply assume without any evidence that Trump is also breaking laws.
President Pee-Pee Tape said...
“I'm a right-winger. I believe that since the Clintons are corrupt, it's only natural and right that Trump should be able to break any law he wants. That's how it works in a country like ours.“
What law has he broke?
I read that the FBI and/or the CIA paid this guy $400,000. That's a lot of jack.
Whose money? And for what?
I don't think a general concern over Russians speaking to Trump and/or his staff will do as a valid reason. Besides, since when did it become illegal/treasonous, or whatever, for the Executive charged with carrying out U.S foreign policy (Article I) to speak to foreigners?
What law did the FBI break?
I am down to the conclusion (reached a few weeks ago) that Carter Page was an FBI plant.
“I don't think a general concern over Russians speaking to Trump and/or his staff will do as a valid reason.”
What makes you think it was a “general” concern?
If they really were concerned, would not the proper course for Gov't employees to take be to mention their concern to the President? You know, their boss?
I don't like to respond to Inga, but if they had any specific cause to be concerned, they would have to take some action as required by their official duties. They did not.
tim in vermont: There was an Inga cheering on the jackboots every step of the way, but this current incarnation can’t seem to remember it. I am still not 100% convinced they are the same person.
Ah.
A few years down the road there will no doubt be a number of incarnations with teasingly familiar if un-pin-downable identities, with a curious dearth of memories re this season's jackbootery.
President Pee-Pee Tape,
"I'm a right-winger. I believe that since the Clintons are corrupt, it's only natural and right that Trump should be able to break any law he wants."
I'm a right-winger. I don't trust Trump any further than I could spit a rat. I don't think he should be able to break the law, and it wouldn't shock me to learn that he has.
I also think it's very possible, even likely at this point, that he has broken no law remotely pertinent to this entire investigation, and that some very important people in the intelligence community / DOJ have been assuming the very collusion they're supposedly trying to prove.
As for you, just look at the nickname you're using. I'm guessing you think it's a devastating dig, but to me it suggests your bullshit detector is turned all the way down for things you want to be true.
“I don't like to respond to Inga, but if they had any specific cause to be concerned, they would have to take some action as required by their official duties. They did not.”
And just how do you know this? If you don’t like responding to me, then don’t.
“In what way is the foreign policy of the Trump administration any kinder to Russia than was the Obama administration? Seems to me that having American troops in Syria massacre about 200 Russian mercenaries is about as punitive of a measure as any undertaken by any American administration since Truman in the Korean War.”
Actually, I think that it was mostly our Air Force that did the damages though, I think that artillary helped. Someone suggested that it be called “Arc Light on the Euphrates” for the B-52s that did some of the damage. The interesting thing there is that we don’t use B-52s unless we have complete air supremacy over the target area, which meant that was established first. Apparently we used a bit of everything from our arsenal just to make it fun: Hellfires from Reapers, F-15 Strike Eagles, AC-130s, A-10 Warthogs, B-52s showing off their rotary dispensers with mass precision JDAM drops, followed by Apache gunships doing damage assessment because there wasn’t anything left to shoot up. Apparently the Russian mercenaries built a bridge, deployed across it, starting firing their artillery, and that is when things went sidewise. Oh, to rub it in, and the Kurds upriver then opened their dam and washed out their bridge. Trump apparently warned Putin, who disclaimed ownership of the mechanized battalion of mercenaries. Not Russian military. The important point there is that the Russians had to stand down in the face of the oncoming blitz on their contractors, leaving Putin appearing weak and defenseless in comparison to the US. We could effectively destroy that mechanized battalion, without a single fatality on our side, with impunity.
Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard: "A few years down the road there will no doubt be a number of incarnations with teasingly familiar if un-pin-downable identities, with a curious dearth of memories re this season's jackbootery."
Even Clapper and Brennan and Comey can't remember what they said.
Under oath.
Multiple times......while they changed their answers.
Because they "forgot" and "made a mistake".
Clapper 2017: There was absolutely no surveillance of the Trump campaign and I would have known if there were!!
Clapper 2018: Of course there was surveillance of the Trump campaign.
LOL
Bruce Hayden: "Actually, I think that it was mostly our Air Force that did the damages though, I think that artillary helped."
Remember how it was obama that shimmied on down that rope with a knife in his teeth to personally take out Bin Laden?
LOL
I think Joe "Plugs" Biden told us that was a "really big f******' deal"
Jared Kushner regains Security Clearance today.
Hmmmm, how can that be? His brother isn't even President of CBS News!
““Spying” or placing an informer is part of the investigatory process. I believe it didn’t start with spying, it started with evidence of illegal coordination between a foreign nation working with an American campaign. It is illegal to accept foreign help in getting elected to an American political office. I suspect it was ordered legally and I’m confident that is exactly what the IG Horowitz report will indicate. The hysteria is unseemly and I hope when the investigations are complete and the evidence available for all to see you people won't lose your wits”
Except that the timing doesn’t work out for that. The CIA operatives started trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign in Spring of 2016, before the DNC email server was exploited, with its contents ending up on Wikileaks, and months before Crooked Hillary was interviewed by Strzok or exonerated by Comey, before her people bleachbitted her server, and months before Trump’s joke about asking the Russians for the contents of her server that her people had illegally deleted. Even before, it seems, when NSA Dir Rogers discovered, and shut down, the illegal accessing of FISA 702 data by FBI contractors.
Yesterdays narrative was the constitutional crisis of exposing a covert operative. I heard it on all the news channels. Now the covert operative wasn't spying? And isn't a covert operative a spy by definition?
It was Carter Page!
It was the dossier!
It was Pappydappydopolopholupolus!
It was Manafort!
It was.....??????!!!!!.....(Oh no!!!)
We didn't spy!
We did spy but Trump deserved it!
We did spy but it wasn't to hurt Trump it was to protect him!
The "investigation started in Sept of 2016!
The "investigation started in Aug of 2016!
The "investigation started in July of 2016!
The "investigation started sometime "in late spring" of 2016!
The "investigation started sometime later in April of 2016!
The "investigation started sometime earlier in April of 2016!
The "investigation started in.....uh.....hmmmmm....uh......??????!!!! (Oh no!)
LOL
iowan2: "Yesterdays narrative was the constitutional crisis of exposing a covert operative. I heard it on all the news channels. Now the covert operative wasn't spying? And isn't a covert operative a spy by definition?"
I think we are seeing the same thing...
LOL
I love how every assertion made by conservatives today is labeled insane insane INSANE. Then within 24 hours it becomes a "duh" moment and "of course it happened" and "we had to do it" and "its normal and appropriate procedure"...
If you ever wanted the PERFECT example of Lefties Rewriting History On The Fly and having history begin anew each day you would be hard pressed to come up with a better example than this BS "investigation".
“Jared Kushner regains Security Clearance today.”
Deep State bureaucrats trying to screw with Trump and his foreign policy. Kushner and his wife have been some of Trump’s most effective emissaries to foreign countries. Esp key is his relationship with the Saudi Crown Prince and the move of our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. And maybe the reproachment between those two countries.
The Clintons are extremely important.
They were the primary nexus of organized Democratic politics. It certainly wasn't the DNC. The hierarchy of consultants and fundraisers they built up controlled the largest piece if not most of Dem political financing for everything else in Dem politics.
A great deal of this still persists. HRC can still get Harvard to give her awards, because people with piles of money want Harvard to do that.
They have also been in politics so long and at such a high level that anyone who is anyone in that party is tainted. You don't have to play six degrees of separation, one or two will do. Whatever it is, they all knew, eventually, and still kept omerta.
Inga said...
What law did the FBI break?
1. None. The FBI is an institution. This is a stupid question.
2. Obviously you avoided the question of what crime Trump has committed. But you are a stalinist so you don't care.
But though the FBI can't be charged with crimes, there are several dozen members of the FBI and DOJ who have collectively committed numerous crimes including violations of the espionage act, perjury, treason, sedition, criminal invasion of privacy, money laundering and more.
Lower level FBI agents are lining up to be subpoenaed by congress so when they blow the whistle on their corrupt comrades they are protected from retribution.
Whatever happened to that delightful democrat hack/pal of Peter Strzok FISA Judge Contreras?
LOL
I see agents provocateurs doing set-ups for dirty tricks, but not much spying (yet).
The View was Clapper and his writers taking the new CIA play on the road to New Haven to test out lines and endings. He and Tribe are both prepping audiences for explainations of the CIA Sniper Teams shooting at Trump as brave men risking their own lives to shoot the Russians standing near Trump...but darn, they missed.
I can only imagine the excitement the rank and file FBI/DOJ/CIA types are feeling since we've gotten rid of an exposed Muslim Brotherhood lovin' Commie Party USA voter Brennan, under oath liar Clapper and Comey, who really, NOBODY wants to claim!
No wonder the rumblings of rank and file members who want to testify is reaching a crescendo.
“Yesterdays narrative was the constitutional crisis of exposing a covert operative. I heard it on all the news channels. Now the covert operative wasn't spying? And isn't a covert operative a spy by definition?”
The one person who can expose a covert operative without any chance of a Constitutional crisis is Trump, because any power to classify or declassify information is deep within his plenary Article II Executive power, and the power of anyone else to decide to expose such by anyone else is derivative of Trump’s power to do so.
Drago said...
The "investigation started in Sept of 2016!
The "investigation started in Aug of 2016!
The "investigation started in July of 2016!
The "investigation started sometime "in late spring" of 2016!
The "investigation started sometime later in April of 2016!
The "investigation started sometime earlier in April of 2016!
The "investigation started in.....uh.....hmmmmm....uh......??????!!!! (Oh no!)
Obama was caught spying on the Israelis years before this.
Before this is all done it will be clear that Obama was spying on his political opponents wholesale for years.
We are going to learn of "irregularities" during the Romney campaign.
People have been calling me crazy for a long time.
But everything I say keeps coming true.
It is going to be a long hot summer.
Jon Ericson: "I see agents provocateurs doing set-ups for dirty tricks, but not much spying (yet)."
I see agents provocateurs doing set-ups for dirty tricks and spying on the Trump campaign and zero spying on Russians because they already know there was no russian hacking of the DNC servers which is why the DNC refused to allow the FBI to even see the servers, much less touch and analyze them.
Achilles: "Before this is all done it will be clear that Obama was spying on his political opponents wholesale for years."
I think we are going to find out that abuse of the FISA 702 raw data intercept programs goes back all the way to GW Bush's CIA/NSA/DNI/DOJ/FBI.
Of course, W would never weaponize the federal agencies to set up and frame obama, but the foundation for accessing data on Americans improperly was no doubt begun way back then.
The Obama administration spied on journalists too. Why is this so hard for people to accept? Now we have evidence they spied on an opposition party as well. This is who they are, this is what they do.
“But though the FBI can't be charged with crimes, there are several dozen members of the FBI and DOJ who have collectively committed numerous crimes including violations of the espionage act, perjury, treason, sedition, criminal invasion of privacy, money laundering and more.”
You forgot the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from attempting to influence elections. At a minimum, the Strzok/Page emails concerning the “insurance policy”, his trip to London, exoneration of Clinton, etc evidence multiple Hatch Act violations for the two of them, plus a number of others, including McCabe. Keep that in mind - anything that any of these people did, in their official capacity, to get Crooked Hillary elected, or Trump defeated, was a crime.
Seem like the Russian thing started with the hiring of Manafort and Popodopouls. Because of Russian contacts... Manafort worked on the Russia/Ukraine thing. Isn't that exactly the same thing Podesta worked on?
“I think we are going to find out that abuse of the FISA 702 raw data intercept programs goes back all the way to GW Bush's CIA/NSA/DNI/DOJ/FBI.”
Maybe, but the number of 702 accesses skyrocketed during 2016, over previous years. As did the unmaskings of USPERS.
“Seem like the Russian thing started with the hiring of Manafort and Popodopouls. Because of Russian contacts... Manafort worked on the Russia/Ukraine thing. Isn't that exactly the same thing Podesta worked on?”
Think that it was a bit earlier with Page. Of course, Page was a useful idiot who earlier in the year, and extending back for several years had been an FBI informant, a fact tactfully ignored in their FISA applications for him.
“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.”
I think that Adams hits the nail on the head here.
I guess what I'm getting at is that Clapper is implying that observing (spying on) the campaign is OK, but that's a different issue from the set-up that Misfud/Halper did with multiple marks associated with the Trump campaign. Clapper has not been asked about that issue.
iowan2 said...
Seem like the Russian thing started with the hiring of Manafort and Popodopouls. Because of Russian contacts... Manafort worked on the Russia/Ukraine thing. Isn't that exactly the same thing Podesta worked on?
And Mueller oddly enough.
Is it possible that Trump knew he was being spied on when he made his comments about how rigged the system is?
Unmasking Americans (READ: Fourth Amendment violations) occurred until Admiral Rogers shut that method of spying on political opponents down (a bit) in March.
The human spying started immediately thereafter.
The timeline is not the least unclear.
you know when Trump won I was so happy I didn't care what the left did
but now I'm getting a little fed up with their bullshit
The Obama Admin even spied on Senator Diane Feinstein by hacking a computer of hers. Obama didn’t tolerate any dissent.
When a Democrat Senator from NJ went off the Obama Reservation on foreign policy, he was swiftly indicted. Sure the charges didn’t stick, but like with Ted Stevens, he was out of the game at a critical time.
JaimeRoberto said...
Is it possible that Trump knew he was being spied on when he made his comments about how rigged the system is?
Admiral Rogers probably told Trump everything or at least the big picture.
That was the day when everything he was doing changed tenor.
Inga, I'm curious how you square these two statements you make:
Michael, we, not one of us, know for sure what the evidence is.
AND
How many political campaigns did what it appears the Trump campaign did?
If you have no evidence, how can it appear the president did anything?
And, if you think about it, the press is definitely making it appear the Trump campaign did something, but as you note, there is NO (concrete) evidence. Just circumstantial dots.
Why should Trump be exonerated before the investigation is over? If he’s innocent Mueller will exonerate him.
Well, he shouldn't be exonerated, but he should be presumed innocent. But you see, the game is to make it appear Trump did something that is not in evidence, to gain political advantage.
The process is damaging to the country, and it's being used as a political tool.
The tables were just turned by Trump. Now he has these people on defense. I think there is about as much evidence the FBI, or Democrats spied on Trump as there is that Trump colluded with Russia, which is to say "none," but it's important to play this game.
Most importantly, to slow down and stop what Trump is trying to achieve. The former is a bid to thwart the president's vision of a strong America, I think. The later is a fighting back.
The point is all this stuff is very important, and that's why everyone is so excited about it.
The problem isn't Mueller's investigation. It's that, with no conclusion, it's being used for political advantage.
Fortunately, we have Trump, and he's pretty good at fighting back.
It is probably just a coincidence but:
Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016
On July 11, 2016, the DNC paid Crowdstrike $98,849.84
Shaun Lucas was a process server who attempted to serve Debbie Wasserman Shultz in a DNC fraud lawsuit. Shortly after, on August 2, 2016, he was found dead on his bathroom floor by his girlfriend.
On August 3, 2016, the DNC paid Crowdstrike $113,645.77 and $4,275.00
https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&data_type=processed&committee_id=C00010603&recipient_name=crowdstrike&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016&disbursement_description=technology
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
John Henry
Squeamish revolutionary, we all get that you think it is a bad thing that Donald Trump is president. We don't understand that he has done as president to make you think that, you never say.
Seems to be chemical imbalance between the two of you.
But cheer up. No matter how bad you think his winning the election was, it could have been worse.
He could have lost.
John Henry
I wonder when the assasination discussions will drop.
And just by way of no harm, I'd like to point out that over 11% of all federal appellate judges currently sitting have been appointed by President Trump. 21 out of 179
He has 10 or so more awaiting confirmation.
If he left town at midnight, those folks will still be there in 30-40 years.
He's already appointed 1 supreme. It looks like he might get to appoint 2 more in his first term.
So much winning!!!! I think I need to go lie down. Not tired yet, just a bit short of breath.
John Henry
Crowdstrike was working for the DNC in unmasking NSA intercepts. In early 2016, Admiral Rogers discovered this abus eof thw sysym and informed Trump that his headquarters was being surveilled by the Administration.
Admiral Rogers was punished for this breach of the Obama rules.
The DNC server was NEVER going tp be inspected by the FBI as it was a big part of the illegal surveillance.
Inga is just repeating DNC talking points. Debating her is like debating your computer.
Inga keeps talking about “what the Trump campaign did”. Okay, what did they do?
Seriously, what did they do? “Collude with the Russians”? In what way? Please, tell me something they actually DID. Hacked a voting machine? Registered some non-citizens to vote? Created a bunch of fake ballots and then stored them in the trunk of a car to be “found” in some state with a close election result?
You’re saying this shit like it’s obvious but it really isn’t. Help us out with the specifics. You’re always posting quotes and links to websites - in all that you must have something verifiable, right?
Achilles: "Admiral Rogers probably told Trump everything or at least the big picture.
That was the day when everything he was doing changed tenor."
The very day AFTER Adm Rogers informed Trump what was going on, 2 things happened:
1) Brennan/Clapper/Comey/Yates/Lynch wanted Rogers fired immediately and began leaking stories to their lackey Pravda-pressies that Adm Rogers was incompetent, couldn't be trusted, etc.
you know the drill
2) Donald Trump moved his entire transition team operation out of Trump Tower and over to his golf resort property in New Jersey...
...because at that point, Trump knew precisely that obama and his minions had been spying on him and his campaign for a significant period of time.
It seems to me if the Russians were "meddling", they would be in all the campaigns, including Bernie's and absolutely Hillary's campaign.
So did the FBI have agents in all the campaigns, cause if they didn't it certainly seems like they were spying on Trump. Probably because they were.
I think Sessions should open an investigation into the 2012 election, because if Obama did this to Trump he absolutely did it to Mitt. Except they couldn't have used the Russians immediately after laughing at Mitt over his Russian comments. I think they did use the Russians because they figured Republicans must all think the Russians were our biggest threat.
This experience has likely taught Trump to stay away from porn stars. Because ...
The Deep State has given him "The Clapp."
The fear in the lefty cunts is starting to show. Smells like cat urine. Bitchmo is starting to realize that the mid terms are not going to go the lefts way, and that the Russia nonsense isn't going anywhere.
Inga is too retarded to see these things, but she smells like cat urine regularly.
James Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) when Hillary Clinton made a big issue about Donald Trump not believing a finding made by all of the USA's 17 intelligence agencies.
Clapper knew that Clinton's accusation was absolute bullshit.
However, Clapper did not clarify the issue for the electorate, because Clapper perceived that the Clinton was benefiting politically form her bullshit issue.
Clapper conducted himself as if his position were Director of Intelligence That Benefits the Democrat Party.
In evaluating Clapper's conduct in the RussiaGate hoax, always remember how he allowed Clinton to blame Trump about the 17 intelligence agencies. Clapper was an extremely partisan official -- as bad as John Brennan.
Here is a good timeline of the Roger's meeting and the aftermath, from 3.2017. All the agency heads wanted him fired for meeting with the president elect. That is very, very odd.
http://usdefensewatch.com/2017/03/did-nsa-director-admiral-mike-rogers-warn-trump-about-eavesdropping/
Pee-Pee,
Re: the Trumpsters' inability to refrain from dragging them up at any mention of Trump's wrongdoings just proves how guilty they think he is. Sure Al Capone's a great president! John Dillinger was worse!
That’s not what’s happening here and you damn well know it, you dishonest hack. The question of whether there was spying or no spying on the Clinton campaign goes directly to the motives and intent of the spies who were doing the spying on the Trump campaign. If there was no such effort to “protect” her the same as they meant to “protect” Trump from the evil Russians, then those responsible are criminals using the machinery of the government for partisan political gain. There’s no other innocent or reasonable explanation.
I suspect when it all shakes out, it will be shown that the monstrous old b¡tch was well informed about every nuance of the spying, if not the actual ringleader.
LOL
And now Mueller and his team of hack dem partisans are asking for an "indefinite delay" in the the case with 1 real and 1 fictional russian company that Mueller and his team of idiots indicted!
This is now the SECOND request by Mueller and his little democrat-ies to delay the trial.
Hey rocket scientist Mueller, if you weren't ready for trial, why the hell would you indict?
LOL
The US Intelligence Community has found that the Russians hacked the DNC server. The key details are [REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED].
The key evidence supporting that finding is [REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED].
Christopher Steele says that Russian Intelligence insiders told him that
* Donald Trump is being blackmailed by Russian Intelligence.
* Carter Page is an active, secret agent of Russian Intelligence.
However, Carter Page still is walking around a free man, giving interviews on television. He has not been indicted on espionage charges.
That's because everyone knows that Steele's claim about Page is absolute bullshit, concocted for the sole purpose of justifying a FISA warrant to study all of Page's communications with Trump's associates about Russia.
However, maybe Steele really did learn from Russian Intelligence insiders that Trump is being blackmailed. That part about Trump might be true, even though the part about Page is absolute bullshit.
Mike Sylvester: "[REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED]"
I actually have the redacted information you seek.
Ready?
UNREDACTEDBEGIN...Because the democrat opposition research firm CrowdStrike told us that is what happened...UNREDACTEDEND
https://www.steynonline.com/8667/tinker-tailor-clapper-carter-downer-halper-spy
Exactly Mike sylvester, these puzzle pieces dont make sense, this is why these events are allowed to go on.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/23/donald-trump-pro-life-president-ever/
Now,from the daily caller it,seems halper was planting rumors re a,certAin ex Russian bank employed and general flynn
This is that piece:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/23/halper-false-russia-claims
You might have raisex this issue in passing:
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/04/a-conversation-with-chris-blackburn-on-the-contradictions-surrounding-mifsud/
The Daily Caller website has published an article by Chuck Ross, titled "FBI Informant Stefan Halper Accused Of Making ‘False’ And ‘Absurd’ Allegations About Russian Infiltration At Cambridge". The article includes the following passages.
[quote]
... [Stefan] Halper’s claim in December 2016 that Russians infiltrated CIS [The Cambridge Intelligence Seminar] has also been called “absurd” by Christopher Andrew, the official historian for MI5 and head of CIS ....
Halper told the Financial Times that he was resigning from CIS because of “unacceptable Russian influence on the group.” The evidence of Russian penetration was scant, with news reports citing a nearly $2,700 contribution to CIS from a Russia-based company called Veruscript. ...
A historian and Russian intelligence researcher at Cambridge, Svetlana Lokhova, told TheDCNF [The Daily Caller News Foundation] that Halper is behind allegations made about her and [Michael] Flynn during the retired general’s visit to Cambridge in 2014, when he served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
“Stef Halper ... has been revealed by [The New York Times] as the source of the false allegations about me and General Flynn,” said Lokhova, who was born in Russia and has British citizenship. ...
The New York Times reported Friday that Halper was the first to raise concerns about interactions Flynn had with Lokhova at a dinner for CIS, a forum for former intelligence officials.
According to NYT, Halper ... “was alarmed by the general’s apparent closeness with a Russian woman who was also in attendance.” Halper’s complaints prompted a person close to him “to pass on a warning to the American authorities that Mr. Flynn could be compromised by Russian intelligence.”
But Lokhova said Halper’s assessment of her interaction with Flynn was inaccurate. ...
The [DIA] agency’s liaison in London, Dan O’Brien, dismissed the idea that Flynn should have reported his contact with Lokhova. O’Brien, who attended the February 2014 dinner, said “nothing rose to the level” of requiring such a disclosure. ...
Flynn sat next to Lokhova at the CIS dinner. At one point, she showed Flynn an “erotic postcard” from 1912 of a young woman with Joseph Stalin. Flynn also mentioned hiring Lokhova as his translator for a trip to Russia he planned to make. He and Lokhova remained in email contact for a short time after the Cambridge event.
There was no evidence presented that Flynn or Lokhova did anything wrong other than arouse suspicions from a dinner attendee now known to be Halper. ...
“In Britain, I am now being accused of being a Russian spy. In Russia, some think I am a British spy. And I am neither,” Lokhova told BBC. “I am just a historian who writes about an area that has become incredibly politicized.”
“I felt betrayed that suddenly I had been turned on in such a horrible way for … attending a dinner to help Western intelligence services understand Russia better,” she continued.
Other Cambridge academics appear not to have shared Halper’s concerns about Lokhova.
[end quote]
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/23/halper-false-russia-claims/
This was the way I heard the story originally
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/cambridge-university-dragged-row-donald-trumps-ex-spy-chiefs/
Maybe only one attractive woman could be allowed in any of these concabs.
As you can see from my previous link, mifsud points decidedly away from russia, and towArd places others don't want to look at.
This is one of the tracls Blackburn iuncovered:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedailystar.net/country/babar-released-parole-attend-mothers-janaza-1252609%3famp
McCarthy was right. Democrat party members are nothing but communist party viruses for the Kremlin. America has been diseased and weakened by this sickness, this political AIDS determined to destroy it.
We don't understand
We know you don't, John Sniveling Henry. We know. If only you knew how many sentences you could start that way.
Well, it all depends on what the definition of "spy" is.
It will all eventually be moot anyway- there is literally no way that Halper was the only spy, nor the the most deeply embedded. And what is Clapper going to say when it is eventually proven that Joseph Mifsud is an MI6 and CIA asset? People are going to jail for this- count on it.
hack. The question of whether there was spying or no spying on the Clinton campaign goes directly to the motives and intent of the spies who were doing the spying on the Trump campaign.
No it doesn't. You hack.
Inga said...
[“They were spying on the Trump campaign.”]
And so what? They had evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with a foreign government to get their candidate elected, that is illegal, hence the investigation that was started by the FBI in July of 2016.
In fact they did not have such evidence. 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.
If Trump is being blackmailed by the Russians, which of his policies/decisions would be the circumstantial evidence? Missile defense? ANti-tank weapons to Ukraine? Pushing for increased oil and natural gas production? Working against Iran in Syria and with the treaty?
The Obama administration spied on journalists too. Why is this so hard for people to accept? Now we have evidence they spied on an opposition party as well. This is who they are, this is what they do.
It’s called Chicago politics. But “The City That Works,” doesn’t, anymore, and certainly not at the national level.
The DNC hacked e mails? We know the down load speeds dwarfed any internet connection. I wonder who might have done that? Foreigners?. How about Pakistani foreigners that had unlimited access to DNC House of Representative members computer network? Pakistani foreigners that have fled the country when their actions were discovered. How about Pakistani foreigners that worked for the Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz? They would have the opportunity, motive, and access. But Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused the FBI access to the scene of the crime. The FBI as is their routine practice, honored the victims wishes to refused access to to the evidence, and accepted the work of outside persons they had never worked with before.
narciso at 11:49 PM
This was the way I heard the story originally
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/cambridge-university-dragged-row-donald-trumps-ex-spy-chiefs/
The linked article includes the following passages:
[quote]
.... Mr Flynn quit the Defense Intelligence Agency in April 2014, six weeks after the Cambridge trip. A year later he was paid a reported $45,000 to attend a gala dinner in Moscow, where he sat next to Mr Putin.
Mr Flynn’s encounter with Miss Lokhova was exposed in February this year in an article in The Sunday Times by Professor Christopher Andrew, MI5’s official historian and convenor of the Cambridge Intelligence seminar. Miss Lokhova was one of Prof Andrew’s postgraduate students.
Miss Lokhova herself hit the headlines in 2015 when she was awarded £3.2 million payout after winning a tribunal case against the Russian state-controlled Sberbank for sex discrimination and harassment.
Miss Lokhova's partner David North told The Wall Street Journal she had a 20-minute conversation with Mr Flynn at the event but that the two “have not met or spoke since”. She denies that she has any links to Russian spy agencies.
Mr Flynn’s spokesman told The Wall Street Journal: “This is a false story. The inference that the contact between general Flynn and a Russian national described in this story should be seen in any light other than incidental contact is simply untrue.”
[end quote]
Why is James Clapper looked to as a valid source for any information? He perjured himself before Congress in stating the NSA had never spied on Americans, except, uh, perhaps, "inadvertently."
He has impeached himself forever. He should have been prosecuted, but was not. He should slink off into quiet retirement and never be seen or heard from again.
Clapper's unusual ears allow him to hear everything. He heard "investigation". He did not hear "spying". Case closed.
Brennen and Clapper are Clinton Corruption ass clowns.
Money Grubbing Private-Server-for-Cash Clinton was going to be the boss. All of this was to ensure it. Then came the "insurance policy."
They are uncovering now that leaders in the Ukraine sent money to the Clinton campaign. But hey - it's always cool when foreign influence helps the candidate who is supposed to win. Just ask Obama.
Post a Comment