Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In it's effort to get out ahead of all the evidence coming to light about the spying on the Trump campaign, the NYT article finally confirms what many have known for over a year.
The NYT confirms that not only was the FBI spying on the Trump campaign, but the spying was widespread, and included electronic surveillance, and human sources.
It wasn't just FISA warrants against Carter Page, there were four people they were conducting surveillance on. The title 1 FISA warrant allowed them to spy on anyone Carter Page talked to, so much of the Trump campaign was under surveillance.
They also used National Security Letters to get documents without a warrant.
All of this was being done to the opposing presidential candidate, during the election.
Nothing short of irrefutable evidence of Russian collusion could possibly justify this level of spying on the opposing presidential candidate.
The problem is, it's been almost two years, and still not a single piece of evidence of Russian collusion.
Did you read the article? I mean ALL of the article?
The facts, had they surfaced, might have devastated the Trump campaign: Mr. Trump’s future national security adviser was under investigation, as was his campaign chairman. One adviser appeared to have Russian intelligence contacts. Another was suspected of being a Russian agent himself.
...but wait there's more...
Mr. Comey has said it is unfair to compare the Clinton case, which was winding down in the summer of 2016, with the Russia case, which was in its earliest stages. He said he did not make political considerations about who would benefit from each decision.
But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump’s campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.
How, exactly do you know that there is not one piece of evidence of Russian collusion? Unnamed sources?
Last edited by carterstamp; 05-17-2018 at 06:00 AM..
Excellent article, I'm glad to see people reading the NY Times. The information in that article was extensive but what jumped out was a little regard they gave the Trump investigation and the secrecy surrounding it. The Clinton investigation was made public and treated quite differently I assume because Giuliani and the NYPD was going to release the details. Trump was right the election was rigged, in his favor.
This should also put to rest the contention that the Dossier was the sole reason for the counter-intelligence investigation into the Russian intervention.
Great piece of investigative reporting, I have to wonder if the OP was reading the same article.
Excellent article, I'm glad to see people reading the NY Times. The information in that article was extensive but what jumped out was a little regard they gave the Trump investigation and the secrecy surrounding it. The Clinton investigation was made public and treated quite differently I assume because Giuliani and the NYPD was going to release the details. Trump was right the election was rigged, in his favor.
This should also put to rest the contention that the Dossier was the sole reason for the counter-intelligence investigation into the Russian intervention.
Great piece of investigative reporting, I have to wonder if the OP was reading the same article.
It was an excellent report and showed definite unequal treatment (actually favorable treatment toward the Trump campaign). Honestly, I agree that the FBI really mismanaged this and kept this information from me prior to the election. I think the voters had the right to know. However, nothing was proven at that point and I get that they didn't want to tip the scales prior to having more information. But I think we all deserved to know what was happening in those early days.
It was an excellent report and showed definite unequal treatment (actually favorable treatment toward the Trump campaign). Honestly, I agree that the FBI really mismanaged this and kept this information from me prior to the election. I think the voters had the right to know. However, nothing was proven at that point and I get that they didn't want to tip the scales prior to having more information. But I think we all deserved to know what was happening in those early days.
The mistake NYT made was the article on Oct 31 2016 where the headline basically say No ties found by FBI between Trump and Russia. NYT itself erred on the side of caution. They should never had run that article as it gave the impression that investigation was over.
You see it happen time and time again, leading up to the hoax they perpetuated getting exposed.
That's exactly what's going on. The corruption of the Obama administration is finally being exposed and the NYT is trying to soft-pedal their crimes against the country.
unbelievable, yet so believable. deep state indeed.
the corruption of the Obama administration was so disgusting: spying on presidential candidates, bill Clinton's clandestine meeting with Loretta lynch on a tarmac, Hillary's bleached emails, the irs targeting conservative groups for audit, etc., etc., etc. there will be a blockbuster, page turning, history book written someday about the treachery of the former administration.
IG just released the Comey/Lynch report.
No wonder the NY Times was setting up a soft landing, for the lies they told the public to push a false narrative.
Lol...I love you folks. This is a puff piece, a love note from the liberal MSM to the hard-working liars in the intelligence community who keep trying to take Trump down.
The NYT is obviously setting the table to mitigate the havoc of the upcoming IG report.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-17-2018 at 08:29 AM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
the NY Times article is a puff piece written ahead of time to soften the blow. they did not expect Hillary to lose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
