Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 12, 2018

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it agreed to brief House Intelligence Committee members about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source's name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

"House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's response was to double down -- accusing the House of "extortion" and delivering a speech in which he claimed that "declining to open the FBI's files to review" is a constitutional "duty." Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all ---------- arguments -- that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in "loss of human lives."

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI."

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 05:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#1

Jesus, give it a rest. The FBI, Mueller, and the elections next November may be all that stands in the way of this low rent dictator. You're on the wrong side and deserve to be called out for it.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2018-05-11 06:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 7

Either you want all political corruption exposed, or you don't.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

And God knows you don't. Unfortunately for you so do the rest of the DR posters.

I love how your article is all conjecture, guesses, and theory.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-11 07:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I love how your article is all conjecture, guesses, and theory.

#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2018-05-11 07:29 PM

Given that describes 95% of the articles posted on the DR, that's not surprising in the slightest.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-11 08:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Given that describes 95% of the articles posted on the DR, that's not surprising in the slightest.

#5 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

The articles I post are towering factual Rock-of-Gilbraltar-pillars of truth, justice, and the American way.

#6 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-05-11 08:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

#6

Thanks Clark Kent...

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-05-11 08:45 PM | Reply

your article is all conjecture, guesses, and theory.
#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

LOL. That's Rich.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-05-11 09:56 PM | Reply

Time will tell. Many of these things seemed implausible when first floated and were later proven to be true.

Starting with Trump winning the election.

Then we found out that they really were spying on the Trump campaign.

Now this. I will wait and see...

#9 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-05-12 07:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Biased journalism

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-05-12 10:25 AM | Reply

It's an opinion piece. Those are always biased. I wish they'd stop being linked as 'news'.
wsj.com/news/opinion

#11 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-05-12 11:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then we found out that they really were spying on the Trump campaign

Only in Faux News Trumpland.

You know, where the FBI was having secret society meetings and the missing thousands of text messages were intentionally deleted to cover the FBI plot to unseat Trump when really it was a broad glitch affecting multiple phones that once fixed revealed a dozen eggs on every right wing lunatics face because there was nothing?

You -------- are not only dishonest but you also suffer from some of th worst cognitive bias I've ever seen.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2018-05-12 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Like I said time will tell. Your little tantrum not withstanding. There is already a name floating around.

#13 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-05-12 05:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What name is it this time? Who's going to be demonize endlessly the next few weeks then forgotten when this "scandal" fizzles?

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2018-05-12 06:45 PM | Reply

#15 in your wishes

#15 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-05-12 09:30 PM | Reply

Lordy let there be tapes.

#16 | Posted by bored at 2018-05-12 09:58 PM | Reply

#15 in your wishes

#15 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2018-05-12 09:30 PM | FLAG:

Best post from you I have ever seen.

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2018-05-12 10:57 PM | Reply

On the one hand I appreciate that Ms. Strassel didn't name names for journalistic reasons. Having said that, she stated that she has a pretty good idea who the 'source' is. Why even say that? By saying that she seems to be trying to nudge the reader toward inferring something is amiss. But she's not in a position to expose it and her nudge is speculative. I don't like that kind of insinuative-journalism.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-13 03:17 AM | Reply

"I love how your article is all conjecture, guesses, and theory."

FYI: It's not an article; it's an opinion piece:

Opinion Potomac Watch
About That FBI ‘Source'
Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?

written by:

Kimberley Strassel is a member of the editorial board for The Wall Street Journal. She writes editorials, as well as the weekly Potomac Watch political column, from her base in Washington, D.C.

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-13 05:54 AM | Reply

Did the FBI have a spy in the Trump campaign?

Let's unpack a couple of things, starting with the "spying" allegation. Does "source" exclusively mean someone planted within an organization, or can it mean a member of an organization who decides to inform on it on their own? Strassel assumes the former, but the latter also makes sense. The difference is more than just rhetorical; it's the difference between planting a spy and reacting to a whistleblower. If the FBI or CIA sent an agent to infiltrate an American political campaign, that would be an unconscionable intrusion into domestic electoral functioning. If, on the other hand, someone who worked on the campaign went to them and passed along information because they felt that serious wrongdoing was afoot, that's a significantly different situation -- still a bit fraught, but not the same thing as spying.

The timing is another point. If this "whistleblower" report came to the FBI after the Papadopoulos incident, it's not much of an issue at all. If it came before Papadopoulos shot off his mouth in a bar, and/or if the "whistleblower" turns out to be working for the FBI or CIA, then the Papadopoulos explanation has been a deliberate lie. Deliberate lies aren't much of a problem in counter-intelligence operations, but they do matter in criminal probes, and that would put a very big cloud over Robert Mueller's special-counsel efforts. It would also put Rosenstein's efforts to keep that information from Congress in a particularly egregious light.

hotair.com

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-13 06:19 AM | Reply

One person I can think of within the Trump campaign who might have turned whistleblower is former CIA Director James Woolsey. Woolsey attended a meeting with Flynn and Turkish officials about kidnapping a Muslim cleric:

Woolsey, a Flynn Intel Group board member who was present at the September meeting, said that Flynn and the Turkish ministers went further than talking about how to lobby for Gulen's extradition, however, and discussed how they could physically remove Gulen from the country.

Reached for comment, Woolsey's spokesperson, Jonathan Franks, said that the former CIA director stands by his story. Franks confirmed that Woolsey had notified Vice President Joe Biden, through a mutual friend, of what he thought could be an illegal discussion. The Obama administration said it would not extradite Gulen until Turkey provided the necessary evidence of his complicity in the coup, but Trump has not said how he plans to address the issue, if at all.

www.businessinsider.com

"Ambassador Woolsey and his wife have been in communication with the FBI regarding the Sept. 19, 2016 meeting Ambassador Woolsey was invited to attend by one of Gen. Flynn's business partners," Woolsey spokesman Jonathan Franks said in a statement. "Ambassador Woolsey and his wife have responded to every request, whether from the FBI, or, more recently, the Office of the Special Counsel."

Franks clarified that the FBI has been "in communication" with Woolsey both before and after the matter was taken over by Mueller's office.

www.nbcnews.com

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-13 06:45 AM | Reply

FWIW, the above speculation is just me spitballing and isn't something I read anywhere else, so it may be completely irrelevant and off the mark.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-13 06:47 AM | Reply

"Either you want all political corruption exposed, or you don't.
#3 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM"

Exposing one bad actor, say one who is in power, comes with the opportunity cost of not being able to spend your time and resources exposing another bad actor, say one who is not in power.

Either you understand that what Sheeple "wants" makes the good the enemy of the perfect, or you don't.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-13 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Either you understand that what Sheeple "wants" makes the good the enemy of the perfect, or you don't.

He has the same MO when it comes to the ACA versus single-payer.

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-05-13 03:46 PM | Reply

As his name states, his goal is to create schisms between people.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-13 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Either you understand that what Sheeple "wants" makes the good the enemy of the perfect, or you don't."

When anyone makes "good" the enemy of the "perfect" then you know that really they want neither "good" nor "perfect." It's like the Trump healthcare plan that was going to be so "great." He wanted to kill Obamacare and replace it with nothing. That's what Sheeple supports though he thinks he fools us.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2018-05-14 08:38 AM | Reply

Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise -- why destroy yourself?

--Ecclesiastes 7:16 (NIV)

#27 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-05-14 09:50 AM | Reply

I love how your article is all conjecture, guesses, and theory.
#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2018-05-11 07:29 PM
Given that describes 95% of the articles posted on the DR, that's not surprising in the slightest.
#5 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You are smart enough to know the difference between "possibly"/"could be" and "Is". This is an article based fully in "possibly" and "could be".

#28 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-05-14 12:59 PM | Reply

Either you want all political corruption exposed, or you don't.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism

You want political corruption exposed, so you spend all day defending the most corrupt administration ever, and fighting against investigating their corruption.

You're a moron.

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-05-14 01:45 PM | Reply

and fighting against investigating their corruption.
You're a moron.

#29 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-05-14 01:45 PM | FLAG:

No need to fight it, not going to help. As long as you cry babies can't accept that your candidate was a low level moron like yourself your side won't give up and as long as Trump keeps doing what is right for this country like he is doing your side will look more foolish by the day.

#30 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-05-14 03:55 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort