Operation Crossfire Hurricane

Blizzard

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,308
Reaction score
3
Points
38
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.

2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied. (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.

3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos)--making all more likely/certain source will be outed. That's on them.

4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena. They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?

5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .

6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation?

7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.

8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u know you didn't.)

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/996917898898649088.html
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
127
Points
63
You say spied, but there's never been any actual evidence produced that the FBI was doing anything other than investigating people who deserved to be investigated.

As for the dates, you realized those 2 dates are three days apart? Do you really think that it's reasonable to expect that interviews on Australian soil of Australian officials occur on the very first day of the investigation? What percentage of meetings at your place of work get scheduled in shorter time frames, even ones that occur a couple of offices over?

If this investigation was so pernicious, so diabolical, why not go public with it like they did with the Comey letter in October?

_________________

As for Kim Strassel, you know how many times she has tweeted about Michael Cohen? Twice. Once on April 10 and once on April 17. She has however strongly defended Scott Pruitt's habits. She's really doing a great job of covering all the relevant political stories in Washington.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
You say spied, but there's never been any actual evidence produced that the FBI was doing anything other than investigating people who deserved to be investigated.

As for the dates, you realized those 2 dates are three days apart? Do you really think that it's reasonable to expect that interviews on Australian soil of Australian officials occur on the very first day of the investigation? What percentage of meetings at your place of work get scheduled in shorter time frames, even ones that occur a couple of offices over?

If this investigation was so pernicious, so diabolical, why not go public with it like they did with the Comey letter in October?

_________________

As for Kim Strassel, you know how many times she has tweeted about Michael Cohen? Twice. Once on April 10 and once on April 17. She has however strongly defended Scott Pruitt's habits. She's really doing a great job of covering all the relevant political stories in Washington.
jtf-

What is going to come out (actually it is already out, but the media pays no mind to it) is that the story that "got them investigated" was made up in the first place - part of it by the CIA and part of it by the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele. So Trump did NOT deserve to be spied on, nor did his campaign. The story was planted. The CIA planted operatives (Halper, Mifsud and Downer) to talk to low level Trump people (Papadopoulos, Page) to feed them information and bait them. In fact Page himself may well have been a plant considering his history as an FBI informant and witness. This is as dirty as it gets. The New York Times is attempting to frame a narrative about what is to come- they are complicit.

Why didn't they go public with the investigation like Comey did? Because Sessions wants to do this by the book rather than the way Comey did.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
127
Points
63
jtf-

What is going to come out (actually it is already out, but the media pays no mind to it) is that the story that "got them investigated" was made up in the first place - part of it by the CIA and part of it by the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele. So Trump did NOT deserve to be spied on, nor did his campaign. The story was planted. The CIA planted operatives (Halper, Mifsud and Downer) to talk to low level Trump people (Papadopoulos, Page) to feed them information and bait them. In fact Page himself may well have been a plant considering his history as an FBI informant and witness. This is as dirty as it gets. The New York Times is attempting to frame a narrative about what is to come- they are complicit.

Why didn't they go public with the investigation like Comey did? Because Sessions wants to do this by the book rather than the way Comey did.
You're saying Sessions was controlling the Papadapolous / Page investigation between August and November 2016? Explosive.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
You're saying Sessions was controlling the Papadapolous / Page investigation between August and November 2016? Explosive.
We are talking about two different investigations- I thought you were talking about the investigation of the FBI- post election. If you are talking about the investigation of Trump- the reason they didn't reveal that investigation was because they KNEW it was a dirty, made up investigation and they didn't want to play that card because they were certain that Hillary was going to win. It was only an insurance policy in the highly unlikely, miraculous event that Trump won. Why risk getting arrested for a treasonous conspiracy on behalf of a candidate you were sure would win? And better yet for them- they knew that Hillary would put the band back together if she won and none of the dirty tricks they were playing would ever come to light- just as in the Obama era where Lynch and Holder played goalie for the administration and made sure nothing ever got prosecuted.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,585
Reaction score
118
Points
63
jtf-

What is going to come out (actually it is already out, but the media pays no mind to it) is that the story that "got them investigated" was made up in the first place - part of it by the CIA and part of it by the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele. So Trump did NOT deserve to be spied on, nor did his campaign. The story was planted. The CIA planted operatives (Halper, Mifsud and Downer) to talk to low level Trump people (Papadopoulos, Page) to feed them information and bait them. In fact Page himself may well have been a plant considering his history as an FBI informant and witness. This is as dirty as it gets. The New York Times is attempting to frame a narrative about what is to come- they are complicit.

Why didn't they go public with the investigation like Comey did? Because Sessions wants to do this by the book rather than the way Comey did.
I wouldn't hold out hope on Sessions
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
I wouldn't hold out hope on Sessions
I get very discouraged with Sessions. There are two schools of thought on him:

1. He is from Congress so he is protecting the good old boy system and nothing much will come of this- because he will help the cover up. I don't believe this one, (although I dread it) but I can see why some do. The reason for my dread -btw-is that I think that about half of congress is corrupted by pay for play or some scandal and a lot of these guys know that the scorned deep state has the goods on them. This is a bi-partisan mess that is product of too many years of lobbying and repeat terms. The longer these guys are in the deeper they get into this (not all of them but a lot of them). So the concern is that Sessions knows that hell will break loose if he busts the deep state and scandals will break out like an ebola virus.
2. He cannot reveal anything regarding ongoing investigations. Under this scenario he has a two tiered investigation going on of all of the wrong doing (FISA abuse, Clinton emails) where the IG reports -coming soon- are filed and then his special prosecutor John Huber is doing a side by side with evidence he gets from the IG and from his own investigation and grand jury proceedings. Since we know this is actually happening- I have a pretty good degree of faith that his is doing this silently, by the book.

Also on Sessions- to his credit have reopened the Clinton Foundation investigation which Lynch squelched and that is proceeding in Arkansas. He also has the Uranium One investigation going and that one is NOT GOOD for Clinton, Rosenstein, Obama and Mueller.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,585
Reaction score
118
Points
63
I get very discouraged with Sessions. There are two schools of thought on him:

1. He is from Congress so he is protecting the good old boy system and nothing much will come of this- because he will help the cover up. I don't believe this one, (although I dread it) but I can see why some do. The reason for my dread -btw-is that I think that about half of congress is corrupted by pay for play or some scandal and a lot of these guys know that the scorned deep state has the goods on them. This is a bi-partisan mess that is product of too many years of lobbying and repeat terms. The longer these guys are in the deeper they get into this (not all of them but a lot of them). So the concern is that Sessions knows that hell will break loose if he busts the deep state and scandals will break out like an ebola virus.
2. He cannot reveal anything regarding ongoing investigations. Under this scenario he has a two tiered investigation going on of all of the wrong doing (FISA abuse, Clinton emails) where the IG reports -coming soon- are filed and then his special prosecutor John Huber is doing a side by side with evidence he gets from the IG and from his own investigation and grand jury proceedings. Since we know this is actually happening- I have a pretty good degree of faith that his is doing this silently, by the book.

Also on Sessions- to his credit have reopened the Clinton Foundation investigation which Lynch squelched and that is proceeding in Arkansas. He also has the Uranium One investigation going and that one is NOT GOOD for Clinton, Rosenstein, Obama and Mueller.
I so hope that #2 is what's going on. Just laying in the weeds, especially because he doesn't want any perceived partiality to President Trump. Let's pray this is the case.

Interesting about #1 is that I've read rumors that Sessions is a proven racist and the deep state has the goods.

My hope is that the reason Trump isn't making a fuss about it everyday because he knows what Sessions is up to. That being said, I'm not optimistic.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
I so hope that #2 is what's going on. Just laying in the weeds, especially because he doesn't want any perceived partiality to President Trump. Let's pray this is the case.

Interesting about #1 is that I've read rumors that Sessions is a proven racist and the deep state has the goods.

My hope is that the reason Trump isn't making a fuss about it everyday because he knows what Sessions is up to. That being said, I'm not optimistic.
The rumors about his racism, if there were anything deeper, would have come out in the hearings for his nomination as AG. I think Trump is gaming the media on this- knowing that Sessions is hard at work he gives Sessions cover from partisan leftist attacks by hammering Sessions himself. In so doing he has almost made Sessions a hero of the left. Almost.....
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,997
Reaction score
722
Points
113
I so hope that #2 is what's going on. Just laying in the weeds, especially because he doesn't want any perceived partiality to President Trump. Let's pray this is the case.

Interesting about #1 is that I've read rumors that Sessions is a proven racist and the deep state has the goods.

My hope is that the reason Trump isn't making a fuss about it everyday because he knows what Sessions is up to. That being said, I'm not optimistic.
Sessions was racist by 1986 standards. But it's 2018 Trump MAGA time. His racism is all good now.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,585
Reaction score
118
Points
63
Sessions was racist by 1986 standards. But it's 2018 Trump MAGA time. His racism is all good now.
I'm impressed with your stamina in keeping the Trump racism alive. Keep up the good work
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,997
Reaction score
722
Points
113
I'm impressed with your stamina in keeping the Trump racism alive. Keep up the good work
Sessions was deemed too racist to be a SCOTUS justice in 1986, but not too racist to be AG in 2017. Do you dispute basic facts?
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,585
Reaction score
118
Points
63
Sessions was deemed too racist to be a SCOTUS justice in 1986, but not too racist to be AG in 2017. Do you dispute basic facts?
Yes. That is true.

But its not that simple.

Was it the same congress voting on it and under the same circumstances?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
127
Points
63
jtf-

What is going to come out (actually it is already out, but the media pays no mind to it) is that the story that "got them investigated" was made up in the first place - part of it by the CIA and part of it by the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele. So Trump did NOT deserve to be spied on, nor did his campaign. The story was planted. The CIA planted operatives (Halper, Mifsud and Downer) to talk to low level Trump people (Papadopoulos, Page) to feed them information and bait them. In fact Page himself may well have been a plant considering his history as an FBI informant and witness. This is as dirty as it gets. The New York Times is attempting to frame a narrative about what is to come- they are complicit.

Why didn't they go public with the investigation like Comey did? Because Sessions wants to do this by the book rather than the way Comey did.
Just a reminder:

And he also wasn't an employee or even working with the FBI. The FBI detected that Page had been duped by the SVR into handing over some documents and they interviewed Page after the fact. This story only serves to further illustrate that Carter Page was well on the FBI's radar as being susceptible to Russian manipulation well-prior to the Steele Dossier. You and CRG can make it sound like Page was some sort of FBI secret agent, but nothing in the story you linked implies that.

The Town Hall story asks questions about why the Russians would work with Page, but Page admits they did:


https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...es-memo-216934
However, in testimony to Nunes’ House Intelligence committee last November Page admitted meeting Andrey Baranov, Rosneft’s head of investor relations. Did sanctions come up? “Not directly,” Page replied. Did Baranov talk about privatization? He “may briefly have mentioned it,” Page admitted. Was Baranov relaying Sechin's wishes? Almost certainly.

Page’s problem, then, was that he had an unfortunate habit of seeking out Russian spies—ones in their twenties like Podobnyy and older ones like Sechin, either directly or via underlings. And Russian ambassadors like Sergei Kislyak, whom Page met in summer 2016 at the Republican national convention
http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?81057-The-strange-case-of-Carter-Page&p=1515023#post1515023
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,997
Reaction score
722
Points
113
Yes. That is true.

But its not that simple.

Was it the same congress voting on it and under the same circumstances?
I'd say it's pretty simple. The standards the Senate has for confirming a SCOTUS justice and the AG are very similar, and haven't changed that much over the years.

Why was Congress more tolerant of his racism in 2017 than 1986? Two reasons: Trump has made tolerating it more acceptable. 2. He was "one of them". 2 probably had more weight, but I still don't believe any Senate from 1986-2014 would have confirmed him.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,585
Reaction score
118
Points
63
I'd say it's pretty simple. The standards the Senate has for confirming a SCOTUS justice and the AG are very similar, and haven't changed that much over the years.

Why was Congress more tolerant of his racism in 2017 than 1986? Two reasons: Trump has made tolerating it more acceptable. 2. He was "one of them". 2 probably had more weight, but I still don't believe any Senate from 1986-2014 would have confirmed him.
#1 - Did you see what Congress did to Clarence Thomas that time? Doesn't matter what year or decade it is, they can smear you.

#2 - I thought I read that Trump has had the toughest time getting his confirmations voted for in modern history. Is this not true?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
Just a reminder:

And he also wasn't an employee or even working with the FBI. The FBI detected that Page had been duped by the SVR into handing over some documents and they interviewed Page after the fact. This story only serves to further illustrate that Carter Page was well on the FBI's radar as being susceptible to Russian manipulation well-prior to the Steele Dossier. You and CRG can make it sound like Page was some sort of FBI secret agent, but nothing in the story you linked implies that.

The Town Hall story asks questions about why the Russians would work with Page, but Page admits they did:


https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...es-memo-216934

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?81057-The-strange-case-of-Carter-Page&p=1515023#post1515023
I didn't link a story. Page- for his own interests in oil industry consulting dealt with Russians because they...have a lot of oil. But he also was used by the FBI as a pain informant more than once and his most recent gig with them supplied testimony in 2016.

Isn't it kind of amazing that Page who got a FISA warrant to spy on him issued 4 times was never arrested for anything? I mean seriously...to get one of those warrants you are pretty much supposed to have the goods. hmmm
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
#1 - Did you see what Congress did to Clarence Thomas that time? Doesn't matter what year or decade it is, they can smear you.

#2 - I thought I read that Trump has had the toughest time getting his confirmations voted for in modern history. Is this not true?
If you plan to work for Trump- you are going to get smeared. There is a 50 million fund out there to do just that. The media will help all they can- whether paid or free- because they hate Donald. TDS
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
127
Points
63
#1 - Did you see what Congress did to Clarence Thomas that time? Doesn't matter what year or decade it is, they can smear you.

#2 - I thought I read that Trump has had the toughest time getting his confirmations voted for in modern history. Is this not true?
#2 - It's tough to compare. The Trump admin clearly did an awful job vetting. You had the judge who basically didn't know trial law as well as an avid watcher of Law and Order. You have all the people who had to leave the White House for not passing background checks. They tried to skip ethics checks. Obama told him not to hire Flynn and they did anyway. There was the whole Ronny Jackson blowup. Unfortunately they short-staffed the office that does this work.

This article says that Trump has had historic success getting judges appointed: http://www.theacru.org/trumps-historic-success-appointing-federal-judges-in-2017/
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,285
Reaction score
116
Points
63
I so hope that #2 is what's going on. Just laying in the weeds, especially because he doesn't want any perceived partiality to President Trump. Let's pray this is the case.

Interesting about #1 is that I've read rumors that Sessions is a proven racist and the deep state has the goods.

My hope is that the reason Trump isn't making a fuss about it everyday because he knows what Sessions is up to. That being said, I'm not optimistic.
Sessions is the 'silent assassin'. He recused himself so that no one could reasonably accuse the revelations & subsequent arrests of high level Obama/Clinton operatives & intel community leaders as being partisan driven.

What he did do was select a Democrat (IG Horowitz) who worked for the Obama admin to run the investigation into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email server scandal. Horowitz is also now investigating the Intel leakers, the FISA court scandal & likely other scandals that have arisen during his investigation.

Then he appointed a Secret Prosecutor in John Huber who'd been investigating parallel with Horowitz for months before Sessions ever revealed what he'd done. Very wisely Sessions charged Huber with the prosecution because he's outside the beltway & was able to conduct his business below the radar. Huber's Grand Jury is already empaneled & the just pool will come from Utah, not DC. That's important.

Sessions has also re-opened the Uranium One investigation & opened an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, which is being done in Arkansas for the same reason Huber is doing his in Utah.

Sessions also in sitting on over 25,000 sealed indictments. For reference, the national average is about 250 per year. It's clear he's got something massive in scope sitting in the hopper.

The reason the right's so angry with Sessions is two fold: 1) He recused himself from the Russia collusion investigation, but that was a very smart move. No reasonable person will be able to accuse Mueller of letting Trump off the hook because of cronyism like they would have with Sessions. Trump didn't collude with the Russians. He was set up by the CIA/FBI/Clinton campaign in a coup d'etat attempt. It's all coming out in the wash now. No one would have believed it had it been Sessions' conclusion. 2) Sessions won't release many of the documents Congress is requesting, so people think he's obstructing on behalf of the I.C. The real & more obvious reason is because they're evidence in the Horowitz/Huber investigations. They have cooperating witnesses in Strzok, Page, Baker, Ohr, Priestap, et al. They need to interview them and all the people under investigation without everyone on the planet knowing precisely what they know ahead of time.

Sessions is one of the good guys. Have faith.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,285
Reaction score
116
Points
63
The rumors about his racism, if there were anything deeper, would have come out in the hearings for his nomination as AG. I think Trump is gaming the media on this- knowing that Sessions is hard at work he gives Sessions cover from partisan leftist attacks by hammering Sessions himself. In so doing he has almost made Sessions a hero of the left. Almost.....
It's also worked very well for Trump to constantly play the victim of the I.C. Just look at the numbers since the Mueller investigation began.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,285
Reaction score
116
Points
63
Just a reminder:

And he also wasn't an employee or even working with the FBI. The FBI detected that Page had been duped by the SVR into handing over some documents and they interviewed Page after the fact. This story only serves to further illustrate that Carter Page was well on the FBI's radar as being susceptible to Russian manipulation well-prior to the Steele Dossier. You and CRG can make it sound like Page was some sort of FBI secret agent, but nothing in the story you linked implies that.

The Town Hall story asks questions about why the Russians would work with Page, but Page admits they did:


https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...es-memo-216934

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?81057-The-strange-case-of-Carter-Page&p=1515023#post1515023
Page worked undercover for the FBI for years. Even the left wing media acknowledges that.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
#2 - It's tough to compare. The Trump admin clearly did an awful job vetting. You had the judge who basically didn't know trial law as well as an avid watcher of Law and Order. You have all the people who had to leave the White House for not passing background checks. They tried to skip ethics checks. Obama told him not to hire Flynn and they did anyway. There was the whole Ronny Jackson blowup. Unfortunately they short-staffed the office that does this work.

This article says that Trump has had historic success getting judges appointed: http://www.theacru.org/trumps-historic-success-appointing-federal-judges-in-2017/
Show me that man and I'll show you the crime. That's the way the Dems and the media are playing in the all out effort to get Trump. Country be damned.

There are very few perfect people out there. Trump has a very small pool to choose from since he is an anti-establishment candidate. The pool is generally establishment people. Add in the fact that people know that things are going to get rough with the media when they join Trump and there are precious few brave souls who are willing and able to go to work for him.

The Ronnie Jackson deal was a pure hit job. Obama sang his praises. They tried the same hit job on Pruitt (who they REALLY hate- don't anger the greenies!). They did it to Flynn- who will get exonerated soon.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/997164344499671040?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/breaking-ig-horowitz-found-reasonable-grounds-fbi-violated-federal-criminal-law-in-bureaus-handling-of-hillarys-investigation/

I don't know how to post tweets (maybe I should learn :) ) but Paul Sperry (NYPost) is breaking news that Horowtiz' IG report has made criminal referrals on FBI personnel for the Clinton email scandal. Think Strzok, Page, McCabe, Comey and AG Lynch as possible suspects here although Lynch might fall outside of Horowitz' scope.

There is no way Obama didn't know that this stuff was happening.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
127
Points
63
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/997164344499671040?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/breaking-ig-horowitz-found-reasonable-grounds-fbi-violated-federal-criminal-law-in-bureaus-handling-of-hillarys-investigation/

I don't know how to post tweets (maybe I should learn :) ) but Paul Sperry (NYPost) is breaking news that Horowtiz' IG report has made criminal referrals on FBI personnel for the Clinton email scandal. Think Strzok, Page, McCabe, Comey and AG Lynch as possible suspects here although Lynch might fall outside of Horowitz' scope.

There is no way Obama didn't know that this stuff was happening.
A)
1) Click that little down arrow in the upper right.
2) Click embed tweet
3) Copy the code it highlights
4) Paste the code

B) Remember what McCabe was fired for according to the IG: talking to the media and lying about it. There's nothing in that which helps Trump at all. There's also nothing that helps Trump even if the IG finds that Clinton was let off easy.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,285
Reaction score
116
Points
63
A)
1) Click that little down arrow in the upper right.
2) Click embed tweet
3) Copy the code it highlights
4) Paste the code

B) Remember what McCabe was fired for according to the IG: talking to the media and lying about it. There's nothing in that which helps Trump at all. There's also nothing that helps Trump even if the IG finds that Clinton was let off easy.
That's what McCabe was fired for. That does not preclude him from being charged with additional crimes as they may arise.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,285
Reaction score
116
Points
63
A)
1) Click that little down arrow in the upper right.
2) Click embed tweet
3) Copy the code it highlights
4) Paste the code

B) Remember what McCabe was fired for according to the IG: talking to the media and lying about it. There's nothing in that which helps Trump at all. There's also nothing that helps Trump even if the IG finds that Clinton was let off easy.
If it's proven Andrew McCabe & Peter Strzok of the FBI sandbagged the Clinton investigation in order for her to win the election, how does that not help Trump considering they were the two agents who also launched the counter-intel investigation into the Trump team & quarterbacked what they called "the insurance policy" against Trump. It would be pretty hard to convince even the most partisan of left-wing Trump haters that their sketchy investigation into Russian collusion is on the level if the same FBI agents are sitting in jail for trying to swing the election Clinton's way.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
A)
1) Click that little down arrow in the upper right.
2) Click embed tweet
3) Copy the code it highlights
4) Paste the code

B) Remember what McCabe was fired for according to the IG: talking to the media and lying about it. There's nothing in that which helps Trump at all. There's also nothing that helps Trump even if the IG finds that Clinton was let off easy.
Thanks! I'll give that a go.

The IG report is going to tackle a couple of areas:

1. The Clinton email scandal- which doesn't help Trump much- except it shows that there was bias in the FBI and DOJ against him
2. The FISA abuse scandal where it will be shown that the FBI illegally wire tapped Trump and associates and actually ran a plot against him- and that will help him a LOT in terms of public perception.

But the other thing that helps Trump is that the public now is starting to get that Trump was innocent in the first place. There was no collusion. And when you add that up with point # 2- that is a huge scandal for the FBI and a huge scandal for the Dems who have been attacking Trump for so long. Furthermore it will be very damaging to the wing of the Democrat party known as the MSM who are losing credibility by the day. All of that legitimizes what Trump has been saying all along:

-The system is rigged
-There is a deep state'
-Hillary is crooked
-Trump didn't collude with the Russians
-The Mueller probe was a witch hunt
-The media is terribly biased and has been pushing Fake News

Yes indeed, Trump is looking downright prophetic these days.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,720
Reaction score
512
Points
113
Andy McCarthy cuts through the NYT crapola right here- with a sharp knife...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-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 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.
 
Top Bottom