Jump to content

These fuckers are going down


Recommended Posts

You guys can spin this anyway you want. The entire Russia Collusion Narrative was hatched to oust Trump. It's completely made up. What these people didn't count on was good people within government outing them. Plus they aren't as smart as they think they are. Using the press to leak was a huge mistake. What they did was leave evidence that confirms what was found. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Trump’s Campaign ‘Set Up’?

At some point, the Russia investigation became political. How early was it?

 
 
Carter Page arrives at the United States District Court Southern District of New York, April 16.
Carter Page arrives at the United States District Court Southern District of New York, April 16. PHOTO: DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES
renocol_KimStrassel.gif
By 
Kimberley A. Strassel
May 17, 2018 7:06 p.m. ET
 

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what’s driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump-Russia probe. “If the campaign was somehow set up,” he told the hosts, “I think that would be a problem.”

Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government “officials” acknowledged that the bureau had used “at least one” human “informant” to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau—and dismissed it as no big deal.

But there’s more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes’s “set up” comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI’s actions.

 

Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands—one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials—all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI—and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected—and one crucial question is how early that happened.

What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee’s recent Russia report. In “late spring” of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House “National Security Council Principals” that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here’s what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.

And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?

We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump campaign members—Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations might prove huge—right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition research to the FBI.

The question Mr. Nunes’s committee seems to be investigating is what other moments—if any—were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring—all emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.

in-art-close-icon-128x128-16481b937f87b244a645cdbef0d930f8.png
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
opt-out-icon2.png
 
unmiss-sound-button-muted-e74d67a0c85c3548f07d7564782a269c.svg

Which brings us to timing. It’s long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that’s the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?

Whatever the answer—whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery—Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its “top secret” source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinning a Crossfire Hurricane: The Times on the FBI’s Trump Investigation

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
  •  
  •  
May 17, 2018 12:22 PM
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
operation-crossfire-hurricane-trump.jpg? Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks at a rally at High Point University in High Point, North Carolina, September 20, 2016. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters) The paper buries more than one lede.

If you’re a fading Baby Boomer, you’re faintly amused that the FBI code-named its Trump-Russia investigation “Crossfire Hurricane.” It’s an homage to the Rolling Stones golden oldie “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” — which, come to think of it, might just be a perfect handle for John Brennan, the former Obama CIA director whose specter hovers over each critical juncture of the case.

The young’uns may not believe it, but back before it was known as “classic rock,” you couldn’t just play your crossfire hurricane on Spotify. You had to spin it. Fittingly, that is exactly what the New York Times has done in Wednesday’s blockbuster report on the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

 

 

The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady “buried the lede.” Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign — and to note that the Times learned this because “current and former officials” leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked “Extortion! when Congress asked about it.

But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

 

 

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.

It’s a gas, gas, gas!

 

 

It’s also bunk. Just because the two FBI cases are both referred to as “investigations” does not make them the same kind of thing.

The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence. Mrs. Clinton does have one legitimate beef against the FBI: Then-director James Comey went public with some (but by no means all) of the proof against her. It is not proper for law-enforcement officials to publicize evidence from a criminal investigation unless formal charges are brought.

 

in-art-close-icon-128x128-16481b937f87b244a645cdbef0d930f8.png
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
 
unmiss-sound-button-muted-e74d67a0c85c3548f07d7564782a269c.svg

In the scheme of things, though, this was a minor infraction. The scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged. She likes to blame Comey for her defeat; but she had a chance to win only because the Obama Justice Department and the FBI tanked the case against her — in exactly the manner President Obama encouraged them to do in public commentary.

By contast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation. Unlike criminal cases, counterintelligence matters are classified. If agents had made public disclosures about them, they would have been committing crimes and violating solemn agreements with foreign intelligence services — agreements without which those services would not share information that U.S. national-security officials need in order to protect our country.

In the scheme of things, though, the problem is not that the FBI honored its confidentiality obligations in the Trump case while violating them in the Clinton case. The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

The Times averts its eyes from this point — although if a Republican administration tried this sort of thing on a Democratic candidate, it would be the only point.

 

 

Like the Justice Department and the FBI, the paper is banking on Russia to muddy the waters. Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage — hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.

But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things. That explains the desperation to convince the public that Putin wanted Trump to win. It explains the stress on contacts, no matter how slight, between Trump campaign figures and Russians. They are trying to fill a gaping void they hope you don’t notice: Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.

At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign.

That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

 

 

 

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.

That’s your crossfire hurricane.

NOW WATCH: ‘Rand Paul Wants Answers On The CIA Possibly Spying On Donald Trump’

 
 
 
 
 
 
andrew-mccarthy_200-1.jpg
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. @andrewcmccarthy
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

What are you talking about?

Trump gave them vast powers to spy on americans. Fuck trump....fuck the usintel community and fuck you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

This thread = flat earth = Fake moon landing. 

 

The only one goung down is JT and another failed thread :lmao: 

Edited by SnowRider
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Trump gave them vast powers to spy on americans. Fuck trump....fuck the usintel community and fuck you

The person that opened the powers to Spy was Obama just before he left office. Unless there was something else Trump did after I don't recall seeing it. If so I agree that's bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Trump gave them vast powers to spy on americans. Fuck trump....fuck the usintel community and fuck you

are you talking about this? If so Ya I don't support this. 

 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/members-congress-just-voted-give-trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor innocent Trumpy.  The system was just out to get him because he’s an “outsider” and not one of the elites even though he’s been an “elite” since birth and been greasing the wheels of politics his entire adult life.  You can’t make this shit up.

An investigation shouldn’t be started until it’s fully vetted.  How the fuck can you “vet” without investigating?  Yeah, don’t investigate but “vet”, extremely!!!!1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

What's really stirring the pot for these lunatics is that there are no leaks coming out of Mueller's team, so the strategy becomes throw as much shit on the wall as possible to keep the base agitated.

It’s actually quite effective to this point. Mueller’s approval is dropping. Gives the repubs in Congress an easy out to not take his findings seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

It’s actually quite effective to this point. Mueller’s approval is dropping. Gives the repubs in Congress an easy out to not take his findings seriously. 

What findings?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
6 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

It’s actually quite effective to this point. Mueller’s approval is dropping. Gives the repubs in Congress an easy out to not take his findings seriously. 

With voters like you.......:news:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
7 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

What findings?  

 

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

If he comes out with anything... 

Poor Xtrabitchslapped :lmao: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...