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.
I have a feeling that much more will be coming out, and there will be no denying it.
No there won't...but that wasn't the point of the article. The NYT justified the actions of the cabal lined up against Trump and all the good little libs here fell right in line. It's astonishing to watch. Remember when the left hated the CIA?
I did read the article, and understood what it's intentions were.
All the dems are ignoring the issues here.
The article is political spin to put out their narrative because they know the evidence of what they did is coming out.
They started off denying that the Trump campaign was under surveillance. They attacked Nunes when he revealed that the Trump campaign was under surveillance, and they were collecting, and unmasking intel that had nothing to do with Russians, or the Russian investigation.
They attacked Trump after his "wiretapped" tweet.
They even brought out former Obama administration officials to deny that the Trump campaign was under surveillance.
And now, now that all the evidence is coming out, now they decided to come clean, and confess to the widespread surveillance of the Trump campaign.
They tell us they didn't want to do it, but they had to.
They why deny it?
Why did Obama administration officials go to the media and lie, and deny that the Trump campaign was under surveillance.
Why deny it every time more evidence came out that the Trump campaign was under surveillance?
Why are they now finally admitting to the widespread surveillance?
Because we have crossed over the point of no return.
The highly questionable nature of the origins of the Russians investigations is coming out, as is the scale of their surveillance of the Trump campaign during the election.
The evidence is out, and more is coming out on a daily basis, they can on longer deny.
All the evidence has forced them into admitting, and trying to justify their actions.
Their reasons for the surveillance of the Trump campaign are at best, highly questionable, at worst, highly illegal.
I have a feeling that much more will be coming out, and there will be no denying it.
How did you go from "the article confirms it" to "its political spin".
You guys understand that you would need to have a legitimate reason to have an undercover FBI agent in his organization, usually something very criminal, right?
How did you go from "the article confirms it" to "its political spin".
You missed the point...again.
I can't help but to think you guys are doing it on purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555
You guys understand that you would need to have a legitimate reason to have an undercover FBI agent in his organization, usually something very criminal, right?
No, if there was evidence of criminal conduct, there would have been a criminal investigation.
There was no evidence, and still isn't of any criminal conduct.
This article by a former federal prosecutor explains the issue.
The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence.
By contrast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation.
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.
I can't help but to think you guys are doing it on purpose.
No, if there was evidence of criminal conduct, there would have been a criminal investigation.
There was no evidence, and still isn't of any criminal conduct.
This article by a former federal prosecutor explains the issue.
The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence.
By contrast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation.
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.
Quote the sentences or paragraphs in the article, without edit or commentary, that supports the claim “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” and post it. Otherwise you’re just lying.
Time to put up or shut up.
I can always back what I say.
This "government informant" was the one initiating the contact with both Papadopoulos, and Carter Page.
And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.
What did you think reagarding the disparate treatment of the two campaigns.
Here you go.
The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence.
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.
THINK about those two words.....UNDERCOVER....AGENT.
Until we have evidence to the contrary, the "informant" was just that - an "informant" who reported his discussions w/Page and Papadopoulos - BOTH of whom were LEGITIMATELY under surveillance by the FBI because of their Russian contacts, Carter Page since 2013.
More likely, that informant was a campaign worker either disaffected/alarmed by what he/she saw and heard - or a Democrat seeking to undermine the Trump campaign.
Either way - until we have credible evidence - this was NOT an FBI intentionally 'planted undercover agent.'
Further, had anyone read the article, the FBI held back its investigation because it did not want in any way to appear to be working against Trump. Instead, ironically, the FBI deep-sixed Hillary.
Geez.......clearly Trump team has people on its payroll working 24 hours dreaming up these alternative fact LIES.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 05-17-2018 at 07:31 PM..
There was no "undercover agent." THINK about those two words.....UNDERCOVER....AGENT.
Until evidence to the contrary, the "informant" was just that - an "informant" who reported his discussions w/Page and Papadopoulos - BOTH of whom were LEGITIMATELY under surveillance by the FBI because of their Russian contacts.
Yes, an informant that was the one initiating the contact with both Papadopoulos, and Carter Page. We're already getting reports that this informant was pushing them to contact Russians, and was the one that set up the Papadopoulos meeting with Downer.
Not to mention that the "Russian agent" Joseph Mifsud, that allegedly told Papadopoulos about the Hillary emails, well Mifsud has a long history of working with British intelligence people.
You can't make this stuff up.
I have a feeling that we are going to get more details about this "informant".
This "government informant" was the one initiating the contact with both Papadopoulos, and Carter Page.
And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.
So no “widespread” or “electronic surveillance” nor was there an effort to meet (and note that “meeting” is different than “spying” by definition, as one is overt and one is covert) with with Trump’s campaign, but with two persons of interest (one had been for years) who worked on the Trump campaign. If IBM hires someone who deals drugs on the side and the police stop and interview him, are they “spying on IBM”?
In fact, your quote doesn’t even specify whether the informant became an informant before or after he or she met with Papadopoulos or Page.
Not just a failure and a lie, but a pathetic failure and a lie.
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.
