Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 11:37:41 GMT -5
How are you talking about partisan opinions and telling me to check out Kim Strassel's article? How about we discuss what's in front of us..... They didn't spy on Trump. They spied on members of his campaign, Manafort, Page, and Papadopolous. You have to have corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. It can't be based solely on the dossier. How are you a lawyer, but you're getting basic facts about the case wrong? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking. Care to respond? Read the facts in the Strassel article — then respond. You say they did not spy on Trymp, just his associates. Are you OK with spying on the Dem staff but not the candidate without a valid basis to do so? And the problem with the dossier is that Comey himself admitted it was unverified when they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on American citizens. I have a problem. With spying on Americans no matter how unsavory they may be unless there is a proven basis to do so. FISA was intended to surveil foreign actors and one can do this to citizens under limited circumstances. One would hope that US law enforcement would take this extraordinarily step only with sound verification of allegations. I have seen no evidence that this happened and rely upon the sworn testimony of Comey that the dossier was not verified. It is not a partisan position to believe this. You need corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. True or false? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 12:20:48 GMT -5
Crickets.....
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 12:24:01 GMT -5
Read the facts in the Strassel article — then respond. You say they did not spy on Trymp, just his associates. Are you OK with spying on the Dem staff but not the candidate without a valid basis to do so? And the problem with the dossier is that Comey himself admitted it was unverified when they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on American citizens. I have a problem. With spying on Americans no matter how unsavory they may be unless there is a proven basis to do so. FISA was intended to surveil foreign actors and one can do this to citizens under limited circumstances. One would hope that US law enforcement would take this extraordinarily step only with sound verification of allegations. I have seen no evidence that this happened and rely upon the sworn testimony of Comey that the dossier was not verified. It is not a partisan position to believe this. You need corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. True or false? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking. Yes you need proof. Problem is that the FBI director testify none of that the dossier was not verified.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 18, 2019 12:31:01 GMT -5
]Read Kim Strassel’s article today in the WSJ. Hardly a pro-Trump publication. I'm gonna stop you right there, because we're two sentences in and I don't think most of us agree. Make your argument explicit, with links, because none of us understand what you are angry about. You have to understand that you live in a different information universe as the rest of us. You can throw around these names but none of us, who read the news, know what you are talking about, although I have no problem with the FBI shopping around a nonclassified document that allows them to communicate the gist of urgent classified information that's being held up because of partisan politics. Even if you don't agree with the FBI, it's basically begging the question though because we have a Russian puppet in the White House. Your argument is basically that that is okay because the FBI didn't put cover sheets on their TPS reports. Everything above is whataboutism, and your party has controlled the Department of Justice for two years now, so I encourage some self reflection on the question of "why wasn't X investigated".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 12:35:47 GMT -5
You need corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. True or false? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking. Yes you need proof. Problem is that the FBI director testify none of that the dossier was not verified. No, he didn't.... He said parts of it were not verified. Big difference. He never said he entire dossier was unverified. You're taking his words out of context. 1) Exactly. You need proof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 12:54:51 GMT -5
]Read Kim Strassel’s article today in the WSJ. Hardly a pro-Trump publication. I'm gonna stop you right there, because we're two sentences in and I don't think most of us agree. Make your argument explicit, with links, because none of us understand what you are angry about. You have to understand that you live in a different information universe as the rest of us. You can throw around these names but none of us, who read the news, know what you are talking about, although I have no problem with the FBI shopping around a nonclassified document that allows them to communicate the gist of urgent classified information that's being held up because of partisan politics. Even if you don't agree with the FBI, it's basically begging the question though because we have a Russian puppet in the White House. Your argument is basically that that is okay because the FBI didn't put cover sheets on their TPS reports. Everything above is whataboutism, and your party has controlled the Department of Justice for two years now, so I encourage some self reflection on the question of "why wasn't X investigated". He's talking about an opinion piece written by Kim Strassel. It's based on an article by Jon Soloman in The Hill yesterday that says Bruce Ohr told the FBI the dossier came from oppo research, and Steele had shown bias against Trump in interviews. thehill.com/opinion/white-house/425739-fisa-shocker-doj-official-warned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clintonAs JID noted they couldn't obtain Fisa by just using the dossier, they had to have corroborating evidence. And it was reported previously that they did mention it came from opposition research. Same ol scandals repackaged and rolled out every couple of months....
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 12:59:52 GMT -5
No, he didn't.... He said parts of it were not verified. Big difference. He never said he entire dossier was unverified. You're taking his words out of context. 1) Exactly. You need proof. The standard for granting a FISA application for electronic surveillance and physical search is the exact same standard used in seeking search warrants in criminal practice -"probable cause" which equates to a fair probability. Probable cause may be demonstrated by live, sworn testimony or by affidavit. More importantly, an affidavit based on hearsay (which could not be used as evidence in a criminal trial) can be used as the basis for issuing a warrant, so long as the circumstances in their totality establish probable cause. I have written over 200 FISA applications (2006-2010 and 2012-2014) for electronic surveillance and/or physical search (of which approximately 35-40% of my applications targeted Russian assets). I have presented both live testimony by Supevisory Special Agents of the FBI and by affidavit to the FISC. Certain posters (and op-ed editorialists) simply have no idea what they are talking about when opining about the FISA process. Certain posters are stuck in Nunesland. His attempt to discredit the Page FISA application has been thoroughly discredited. www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666Not to mention that the four FISC judges are all Republican-appointees. In practice before the FISC, there are ZERO politics among the DOJ, NSD lawyers and the judges. Nunes discredits his own efforts to undercut the Page FISA application: thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/373454-democrats-dont-need-to-discredit-nunes-memo-the-memo-does-that-itselfBut it is worth noting that—and as the Democrats previously pointed out—the judges who signed off on these four FISA applications were all appointed by Republican presidents, including one George H.W. Bush appointee (Anne Conway), two George W. Bush appointees (Rosemary Collyer and Michael Mosman) and one Reagan appointee (Raymond Dearie). I know some of those judges, and they certainly are not the types to let partisan politics affect their legal judgments. www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applicationsAnd the Trump cultists can't answer a simple question - if the FBI and the "deep state" were so hellbent on preventing the election of Trump, why didn't it leak the facts of the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign and/or its supporters in the run up to the 2016 election? Instead, Comey (a lifelong Republican) held his press conferences. Go figure. Can any Trump cultist explain that one? No, they can't because they are immune to facts and reason.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 14:04:37 GMT -5
Comey did not have to leak. His extension Steele did so to david Korn n and Isakov, and Harry Reid wrote to Congress about it as well. All before the election.
What is your explanation for the Strok Page MCCabe insurance policy references?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 14:24:12 GMT -5
Oh you shot down my latest conspiracy theory? Well lucky for you I have 10 more to roll out. Oh, and btw, I’m no Trump apologist, and for the record I didn’t vote for him.
What was their “insurance plan?” To make his campaign do a bunch of illegal stuff? To force him to instruct witnesses to commit perjury? Oh, I got it. To let him win the Presidency and then they’ll have him right we’re they want him. Above the law and protected by a bunch of feckless Republicans who will put party over country every time.
Mike Pence must be a horrible person...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 14:25:48 GMT -5
You did not answer the question. Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that there was counterintelligence investigation against Trump campaign and/or its aides PRIOR to the election? That would have been the simplest way to attempt to stop Trump from becoming President -- yet no one in the FBI did so despite the fevered Trump cultisits belief in the "deep state." And who say anything about Comey leaking -- clearly, Strzok and Page were the ones to do this if there was this vast "deep state" conspiracy to prevent Trump's election. The "insurance policy" text message was August 16, 2016, predating the election. Strzok testified in a public hearing that it wasn't to stop Trump from becoming President but that it simply meant that the investigation would continue. Why keep that in your pocket if you could simply leak the fact of the investigation to blow up Trump's campaign, as Comey did in his ill-advised press conferences about Clinton's emails? From the Inspector General's Report on Stzok/Page and whether there was improper bias in the investigation (it concluded there was not but I guess the IG is simply part of the "deep state" right, for you Trump cultists): “Strzok said the reference in his text message to an ‘insurance policy’ reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win,” the report reads. www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/14/how-the-two-rogue-fbi-officials-explain-their-text-messages-about-trump/?utm_term=.be6f72ab09a7Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote. www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policy
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 14:27:51 GMT -5
Oh you shot down my latest conspiracy theory? Well lucky for you I have 10 more to roll out. Oh, and btw, I’m no Trump apologist, and for the record I didn’t vote for him. What was their “insurance plan?” To make his campaign do a bunch of illegal stuff? To force him to instruct witnesses to commit perjury? Oh, I got it. To let him win the Presidency and then they’ll have him right we’re they want him. Above the law and protected by a bunch of feckless Republicans who will put party over country every time. Mike Pence must be a horrible person... Well he is but wouldn't be ironic if he goes down to as part of the conspiracy to obstruct justice and Nancy Pelosi becomes C-I-C? Ha ha ha ha ha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 14:32:42 GMT -5
You need corroborating evidence to obtain a FISA warrant. True or false? Just so we're clear your position is if a person breaks the law, and it's discovered by an opposition researcher, he should get off? Nothing should be done after that even if criminal activity is exposed, because the source is the problem, not the law breaking. Yes you need proof. Problem is that the FBI director testify none of that the dossier was not verified. DJT Jr. admitted publicly that he met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary. I take that as proof that he met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary. If you don't, well...then...I don't know what to say.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 14:42:43 GMT -5
Yes you need proof. Problem is that the FBI director testify none of that the dossier was not verified. DJT Jr. admitted publicly that he met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary. I take that as proof that he met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary. If you don't, well...then...I don't know what to say. And admitted it only after his cover story on "adoptions" fell apart in a couple of days once the emails were disclosed. So we have Trump who has a history of asking others (including his own son) to lie. Trump's behavior seems consistent with the story surrounding Cohen, doesn't it?? In a recently disclosed letter to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, President Donald Trump’s attorneys said the president “dictated” his son’s statement to the New York Times about a June 2016 meeting between top Trump campaign aides and a Russian lawyer. The admission, in a Jan. 29 letter written by attorneys John Dowd and Jay Sekulow, contradicted earlier claims by Sekulow that the president was not involved in drafting his son’s statement, which gave misleading information about the meeting, and the White House’s later admission that the president gave his input, but did not dictate the statement. The Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, was arranged by music publicist Rob Goldstone, who sent an email to Donald Trump Jr. saying, “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.” In agreeing to the meeting, the younger Trump told Goldstone, “ f it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
At the meeting, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul Manafort, Trump’s then-campaign convention manager, met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. There is no publicly available evidence that Veselnitskaya provided any incriminating information about Clinton, as promised by Goldstone, although the Russia investigation, of course, is still active.
www.factcheck.org/2018/06/a-timeline-of-trump-tower-meeting-responses/
(Plus, "Problem is that the FBI director testify none of that dossier was not verified." That double negative is thoroughly confusing . . .)
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 15:55:23 GMT -5
You did not answer the question. Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that there was counterintelligence investigation against Trump campaign and/or its aides PRIOR to the election? That would have been the simplest way to attempt to stop Trump from becoming President -- yet no one in the FBI did so despite the fevered Trump cultisits belief in the "deep state." And who say anything about Comey leaking -- clearly, Strzok and Page were the ones to do this if there was this vast "deep state" conspiracy to prevent Trump's election. The "insurance policy" text message was August 16, 2016, predating the election. Strzok testified in a public hearing that it wasn't to stop Trump from becoming President but that it simply meant that the investigation would continue. Why keep that in your pocket if you could simply leak the fact of the investigation to blow up Trump's campaign, as Comey did in his ill-advised press conferences about Clinton's emails? From the Inspector General's Report on Stzok/Page and whether there was improper bias in the investigation (it concluded there was not but I guess the IG is simply part of the "deep state" right, for you Trump cultists): “Strzok said the reference in his text message to an ‘insurance policy’ reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win,” the report reads. www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/14/how-the-two-rogue-fbi-officials-explain-their-text-messages-about-trump/?utm_term=.be6f72ab09a7Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote. www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policyI answered the question. The FBI did not have to leak because Steele and Harry Reid had already put this out into the public domain. Did you read the David Koran Mother Jones article and Michael Isakov article on this? Did you read Harry Reid’s letter to Congress about this? And this was well before the election. These are publicly available facts.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 16:01:17 GMT -5
You did not answer the question. Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that there was counterintelligence investigation against Trump campaign and/or its aides PRIOR to the election? That would have been the simplest way to attempt to stop Trump from becoming President -- yet no one in the FBI did so despite the fevered Trump cultisits belief in the "deep state." And who say anything about Comey leaking -- clearly, Strzok and Page were the ones to do this if there was this vast "deep state" conspiracy to prevent Trump's election. The "insurance policy" text message was August 16, 2016, predating the election. Strzok testified in a public hearing that it wasn't to stop Trump from becoming President but that it simply meant that the investigation would continue. Why keep that in your pocket if you could simply leak the fact of the investigation to blow up Trump's campaign, as Comey did in his ill-advised press conferences about Clinton's emails? From the Inspector General's Report on Stzok/Page and whether there was improper bias in the investigation (it concluded there was not but I guess the IG is simply part of the "deep state" right, for you Trump cultists): “Strzok said the reference in his text message to an ‘insurance policy’ reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win,” the report reads. www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/14/how-the-two-rogue-fbi-officials-explain-their-text-messages-about-trump/?utm_term=.be6f72ab09a7Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote. www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policyIf Strzok is so pure and credible why did Mueller’s team delete all of his emails from the time he served with Mueller - and Lisa Page’s as well. We will never know what the these two were saying, as we will never see the 30,000 emails that Clinton deleted and bleachbit despite the fact that they were under Federal subpoena. If my client unilaterally told the Judge that he/she/it unilaterally decided what was relevant destroyed evidence under subpoena severe sanctions would ensue. It is clear that millions including the posters on this string despise Trump. But does this hatred justify the conduct of Comey/McCabe et al?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2019 16:28:39 GMT -5
You did not answer the question. Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that there was counterintelligence investigation against Trump campaign and/or its aides PRIOR to the election? That would have been the simplest way to attempt to stop Trump from becoming President -- yet no one in the FBI did so despite the fevered Trump cultisits belief in the "deep state." And who say anything about Comey leaking -- clearly, Strzok and Page were the ones to do this if there was this vast "deep state" conspiracy to prevent Trump's election. The "insurance policy" text message was August 16, 2016, predating the election. Strzok testified in a public hearing that it wasn't to stop Trump from becoming President but that it simply meant that the investigation would continue. Why keep that in your pocket if you could simply leak the fact of the investigation to blow up Trump's campaign, as Comey did in his ill-advised press conferences about Clinton's emails? From the Inspector General's Report on Stzok/Page and whether there was improper bias in the investigation (it concluded there was not but I guess the IG is simply part of the "deep state" right, for you Trump cultists): “Strzok said the reference in his text message to an ‘insurance policy’ reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win,” the report reads. www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/14/how-the-two-rogue-fbi-officials-explain-their-text-messages-about-trump/?utm_term=.be6f72ab09a7Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote. www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policyI answered the question. The FBI did not have to leak because Steele and Harry Reid had already put this out into the public domain. Did you read the David Koran Mother Jones article and Michael Isakov article on this? Did you read Harry Reid’s letter to Congress about this? And this was well before the election. These are publicly available facts. 7 You are simply wrong on your chronology. There was a vague letter from Reid that said nothing. Please link to any source indicating that the American electorate was aware that the Trump campaign was under a counterintelligence investigation PRIOR to the election. The DHS had reported that Russia was interfering in October 2016 and McConnell refused to issue any joint statement with DHS. Neither said Trump was involved. But Trump did publicly call for Russia to release HRC's emails which clearly looks incriminating in light of the investigation. I'm done engaging with someone who lacks the basic facts of what had occurred.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,213
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 18, 2019 16:37:34 GMT -5
You did not answer the question. Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that there was counterintelligence investigation against Trump campaign and/or its aides PRIOR to the election? That would have been the simplest way to attempt to stop Trump from becoming President -- yet no one in the FBI did so despite the fevered Trump cultisits belief in the "deep state." And who say anything about Comey leaking -- clearly, Strzok and Page were the ones to do this if there was this vast "deep state" conspiracy to prevent Trump's election. The "insurance policy" text message was August 16, 2016, predating the election. Strzok testified in a public hearing that it wasn't to stop Trump from becoming President but that it simply meant that the investigation would continue. Why keep that in your pocket if you could simply leak the fact of the investigation to blow up Trump's campaign, as Comey did in his ill-advised press conferences about Clinton's emails? From the Inspector General's Report on Stzok/Page and whether there was improper bias in the investigation (it concluded there was not but I guess the IG is simply part of the "deep state" right, for you Trump cultists): “Strzok said the reference in his text message to an ‘insurance policy’ reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win,” the report reads. www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/14/how-the-two-rogue-fbi-officials-explain-their-text-messages-about-trump/?utm_term=.be6f72ab09a7Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote. www.lawfareblog.com/peter-strzoks-insurance-policyI answered the question. The FBI did not have to leak because Steele and Harry Reid had already put this out into the public domain. Did you read the David Koran Mother Jones article and Michael Isakov article on this? Did you read Harry Reid’s letter to Congress about this? And this was well before the election. These are publicly available facts. As TC requested earlier can you link the information you're referencing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 17:20:20 GMT -5
That's not true.
This was the front page of the New York Times a week before the election.
It's pretty amazing that so many people are blindly loyal to a man that is only loyal to himself.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 18, 2019 17:34:30 GMT -5
You are simply wrong on your chronology. There was a vague letter from Reid that said nothing. Please link to any source indicating that the American electorate was aware that the Trump campaign was under a counterintelligence investigation PRIOR to the election. The DHS had reported that Russia was interfering in October 2016 and McConnell refused to issue any joint statement with DHS. Neither said Trump was involved. But Trump did publicly call for Russia to release HRC's emails which clearly looks incriminating in light of the investigation. I'm done engaging with someone who lacks the basic facts of what had occurred. In response to your request to "...Please link to any source indicating that the American electorate was aware that the Trump campaign was under a counterintelligence investigation PRIOR to the election': Michael Isakov, Yahoo News, 19/23/16 www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html"U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials — including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue" David Korn, Mother Jones, 10/31/2016 www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/On Monday, [10/31]NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chief. But Reid’s recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump— and that the FBI requested more information from him.
So, my friend, the American electorate was aware of the investigations before the election. Steele was the source of the two above articles and the FBI supposedly terminated him because of this. But Bruce Ohr -- #4 in DOJ and spouse of GPS Fusion operative Nellie Ohr -- continued the relationship and continued to feed Steele info to the investigators nonetheless. Please John Solomon;s article in The HIll, hardly a right-wing rag! thehill.com/opinion/white-house/425739-fisa-shocker-doj-official-warned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clinton
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 18:01:18 GMT -5
It's a shame the FBI forced the Trump campaign to do a bunch of illegal things so they would have to investigate them. You literally just posted an article of them looking into Manafort, who just got convicted of multiple felonies.
Bad FBI. Why are the cops out here trying to catch criminals said the lawyer....
|
|