Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 03, 2019

The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The inspector General's report must be getting ready to break; CYA.

No spying on Trump campaign indeed.

Comments

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

I was wondering when this would get posted.

The timing is interesting with the IG report coming in a few weeks.

It strikes me as certain players wanting to get out in front of the report to try and set the narrative.

I'm very interested to see what's in that report. We'll know soon enough.

Grab your popcorn. This might get very interesting.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-03 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The FBI had every duty to investigate the fairly obvious connections of the Trump campaign's links to Russia.... even after he was elected, there were conversations about officials wearing a wire to determine the same thing.

Trump and his lemmings will use this as a distraction from his crimes, but investigations were, as Poppy Bush would have said, "only prudent".

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-03 03:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Remember when all the talking heads were laughing last year when Trump made the comment that he was being spied upon? They laughed, they called him an idiot, look who's laughing now.

#3 | Posted by homerj at 2019-05-03 03:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Note to deep state, if you're going to kill the king, you better not miss.

#4 | Posted by homerj at 2019-05-03 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Note to deep state, if you're going to kill the king, you better not miss.

#4 | Posted by homerj at 2019

Note to paranoid people and generic sycophants. "Deep State" is a lie a criminal attempts to hide behind.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-03 03:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

What I find interesting is when this subject came up over a year ago, my recollection is certain players in the Obama administration (I think Comey was one of them) categorically denied any of this happened. Now we know that to be untrue.

Like I said, this might get very interesting.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-03 03:30 PM | Reply

-if you're going to kill the king

That's one of the problem with simple-minded rwingers; they truly believe that their Pres is a King and above the law... when in our system, the law is king anyway.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-03 03:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-7 For you and the Zedi

Danger, danger the Queen's about to kill
There's a stranger, stranger and life about to spill
Oh no move me out of harm
I need a spell and a charm
Fly like the wind
I'm no pawn, so be gone, speed on and on
Kill the king
Tear him down
Kill the king, yeah
Strike him down
Power, power it happens every day
Power, devour all along the way
Oh no, move me out of harm
I need a spell and a charm
And fly like the wind
I'm no pawn, so be gone, speed on and on
Kill the king
Treason, treason, the specter looms again
Treason, reason, the realm is safe and then
Oh no, move away from harm
I need a spell and a charm
Fly like ...

#8 | Posted by homerj at 2019-05-03 04:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So, by this article's reasoning, the FBI also spied on the Clinton campaign by investigating Sec. Clinton's handling of emails.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-03 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign"

So far, so good.

"to undermine his electoral chances."

That means the FBI also spied on the Clinton campaign to undermine her electoral chances.

And yes I realize TruthHurts just said as much.

Keep in mind, "spied" is being used in the non-pejorative sense of the word that Barr invoked. No wrongdoing implied by saying someone spied!

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-03 05:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

What's different about this case is that they appear to have been trying to infiltrate the campaign. That is entirely different from the Clinton email investigation.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-03 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign"

American law enforcement went to his campaign, warning about Russian attempts to influence.

Then American law enforcement kept surveilling Russians...and members of Team Trump kept showing up in, say, the office of Sergei Kislyak. That's not "spying on the campaign".

Basically, this "defense" suggests American law enforcement should have turned off the recording devices because Jeff Sessions walked in to Kislyak's office. Laughable on its face.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-03 05:43 PM | Reply

Ooh, spying is now infiltrating!

I notice you haven't said the FBI acted improperly.

Would you care to comment on the propriety of the FBI's attempted infiltration, JeffJ?

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-03 05:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The 'spies' in the case of Trump approached them under false pretenses and never disclosed they were with the government or sent on the behest of the government.

In the case of Hillary's emails, we have zero proof that any government official ever approached her under false pretenses much less failed to disclose that they were sent on behest of the government.

If you can't see the difference, it is due to partisanship.

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-03 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So what? The FBI was notified about Russian contacts with the Trump campaign. They opened a counterintelligence investigation, as they should have.

Since when is foreign interference in our campaigns OK with anyone in America? Since Trump.

Had this been Obama or Clinton, the right would have been screaming holy murder. As it is, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Graham still seems far more interested in Hillary's emails than Russian interference in our elections.

What a bunch of traitorous --------!

#15 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-03 09:04 PM | Reply

"The 'spies' in the case of Trump approached them under false pretenses and never disclosed they were with the government or sent on the behest of the government. "

Only after the FBI warned them of Russian attempts to influence, and left them with strict instructions to contact the FBI if it happened again.

Then it happened again and again, some times initiated by the Trump campaign, and the campaign was silent, even about the meetings the FBI had recorded.

Had the tables been turned, and the FBI not done something (and HRC won a close one with Russia's help), your head would've exploded.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-03 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LOL, Homer is an Infowars Zombie!

....and Ira Lieburg is a Russian troll, figures!

#17 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-05-03 10:59 PM | Reply

Too bad the FBI didn't investigate Erik Princes and the DeVoss connection to Russia.. then again, the Seychelles has such a large resorts, it might be hard to find them amid all those other Russian government representatives.

#18 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-05-04 01:04 AM | Reply

"Only after the FBI warned them of Russian attempts to influence, and left them with strict instructions to contact the FBI if it happened again.
Then it happened again and again, some times initiated by the Trump campaign, and the campaign was silent, even about the meetings the FBI had recorded.
#16 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Your problem is that we now know the FBI/Obama story about spying on the Trump campaign was a total lie - we had an unprecedented attempt to infiltrate the Trump campaign. The next shoe to drop on Obama/Deep state will be with regard to the lies they told around Papadopolous. It is clear that they used CIA/FBI contractors for the contacts with Papadopolous. Also, it is clear that they outsourced some of this to other European intelligence services as their conduct was illegal under US law. You are correct - had Hillary won, all this would have been swept under the rug.

Now, it is the great Deep State purge with the IG report expected soon. With the newly leaked and soon to be fully declassified documents around Papadopolous, we will have former Obama officials in prison. The question will soon turn to what did Obama know and when did he know it.

Even the MSM knows this is coming - which is why we have this concerted effort to redefine the term 'spy'. We are fast approaching "The Day of the Rope" ala Prayer of the Rollerboys.

#19 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-04 02:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What is different about this case is that Comey didn't announce collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign two weeks before the election. This entire made up scandal is total B**l S**t. I lose respect for everyone like Jeff who tries to get us to buy into it. Horse crap! Diversion from the real crimes of the Trump campaign. I don't buy it at all. Republican spinmeisters are great at diverting attention away from Republican's real crimes. They've been perfecting their techniques since Nixon. If you believe any of it then you are willingly giving up your ability to think and reason.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-04 06:12 AM | Reply

Jeff, was the Obama administraion supposed to ignore collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? Turn it around, what if it was the Clinton campaign colluding with Russians? Your hypocrisy is hilarious. I am laughing at you right now!

#21 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-04 08:15 AM | Reply

An investigator walks up with a badge and tells you they're investigating you. A spy pretends to be a research assistant of another FBI implant and tries to seduce you into giving her information.

#22 | Posted by homerj at 2019-05-04 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#22

The naivety is strong in this one.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-04 10:40 AM | Reply

to ignore collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? - danni

What collusion?

What lead them to believe this?

Who was working with a research firm that had Russian connections?

#24 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-04 11:09 AM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY CORKY

The gullibility is strong in this one.

#25 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-04 11:10 AM | Reply

So, by this article's reasoning, the FBI also spied on the Clinton campaign by investigating Sec. Clinton's handling of emails.

#9 | Posted by truthhurts

And you don't know the difference in spy and investigator. Not too bright!

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-04 12:01 PM | Reply

American law enforcement went to his campaign, warning about Russian attempts to influence.

#12 | Posted by Danforth

Now there is a huge lie.

#27 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-04 12:03 PM | Reply

So what? The FBI was notified about Russian contacts with the Trump campaign. They opened a counterintelligence investigation, as they should have.

Since when is foreign interference in our campaigns OK with anyone in America? Since Trump.

#15 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

You are real funny!!!!!!!!!!!!! The dems are OK with illegals voting................ Isn't that foreign interference?

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-04 12:06 PM | Reply

#20 | Posted by danni

Would you repeat that that in English with a fact or two?

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-04 12:08 PM | Reply

Jeff, was the Obama administraion supposed to ignore collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? Turn it around, what if it was the Clinton campaign colluding with Russians? Your hypocrisy is hilarious. I am laughing at you right now!

#21 | Posted by danni

ddan, o'bummer interfered in the Israeli election. Care to put your spin on that?

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-04 12:10 PM | Reply

The naivety is strong in this one.

#23 | Posted by Corky

You don't have a clue cor.

#31 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-04 12:11 PM | Reply

If only Trump colluded with foreign agents to compile a dossier on Clinton using Russian intelligence agents as sources. Maybe that smoking gun is out there and Mueller (former hero turned hack) lacked the diligence and/or motivation to find it.

If Clinton had won, this would have never seen the light of day. Since we're digging into 2016, we might as well know about what the administration was up to.

#impeach45 #impeachBarr

#32 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-05-04 12:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

They laughed, they called him an idiot, look who's laughing now.

#3 | POSTED BY HOMERJ

I'm still laughing and calling anybody who spins this as "spying" an idiot.

We had a Presidential campaign so connected to Russia it sparked a counter intelligence investigation and you guys expect it to be let go because he's your team's candidate.

That's pretty pathetic.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-04 12:42 PM | Reply

We had a Presidential campaign so connected to Russia it sparked a counter intelligence investigation and you guys expect it to be let go because he's your team's candidate.

That's pretty pathetic.

#33 | Posted by jpw

So, you don't believe the mule report. All you libs are singing a different tune than you were a month ago. Then you thought he was your savior and thought his report was going to put Trump in jail. You libs are hilarious.

#34 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-04 01:27 PM | Reply

Campaign advisor spends months trying to build a relationship between the Trump campaign and Russians. He brags to an foreign diplomat that the Russians have hacked emails from one of the two major political parties weeks before the emails are made public.

Who here thinks the FBI should not investigate the possibility that the advisor is a possible foreign agent working for a Presidential candidate? Who here thinks the FBI should reveal to a possible foreign agent that he is being investigated?

#35 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-05-04 02:08 PM | Reply

You are funny jon. Who bragged the ruskies had e-mails? Investigated is one thing but planting spies in the trump campaign is something different. That is spying.

#36 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-04 07:16 PM | Reply

#34 you have no idea what the Mueller report says.

It says there wasn't enough evidence to support criminal conspiracy charges. It goes to great lengths to lay out the extensive connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.

As usual, you're ---- posting because you're too dumb to know how ignorant you are.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-04 07:32 PM | Reply

#36 you don't even understand what you're commenting on. Just STFU and please, don't vote.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-04 07:33 PM | Reply

Personally, I don't believe there was a coordinated conspiratorial effort to surveil/spy/undermine Team Trump.

Having said that, what has happened here is uncharted territory.

The predicate for this "spying" absolutely needs to be snuffed out.

Unveil it and let the chips fall where they may.

Had the Bush administration done this to the Obama campaign (and nascent administration) the cries for transparency would have been deafening,

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 12:13 AM | Reply

LOL could you be any more of a mealy mouthed spineless windsock, Jeff?

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-05 12:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

...having said that, what has happened here is uncharted territory.
The predicate for this "spying" absolutely needs to be snuffed out...
#39 | POSTED BY JEFFJ A

That's because no other Presidential candidate has ever waltz with law breaking so close. There only reason the Mueller Report doesn't harshly condemn Trump is because Trump's actions were criminal in a way that Congress never imagined that should need to explicitly outlaw because any somewhat reasonable law making body should recognize these actions as beyond the pale

#41 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-05-05 01:55 AM | Reply

So, by this article's reasoning, the FBI also spied on the Clinton campaign by investigating Sec. Clinton's handling of emails.

#9 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2019-05-03 04:44 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1: If you cannot tell the difference between surreptitious spying as opposed to an open investigation then you definitely are not as intelligent as I thought you were - good to know.

#42 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-05 10:04 AM | Reply

LOL could you be any more of a mealy mouthed spineless windsock, Jeff?

#40 | POSTED BY JPW

How am I wrong?

BTW - I am not expecting an actual answer or an adult conversation from you on this issue, so my question is probably a waste of time but who knows, maybe you'll surprise me.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#34 you have no idea what the Mueller report says.

It says there wasn't enough evidence to support charges. It goes to great lengths to lay out the extensive connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.

As usual, you're ---- posting because you're too dumb to know how ignorant you are.

#37 | Posted by jpw

As usual, you're ---- posting because you're too dumb to know how ignorant you are. The report said NO COLLUSION which you in your ignorance call criminal conspiracy. It said there wasn't enough evidence to file obstruction charges. Kind of hard to cover up a non crime don't you think?

Try to pay attention next time j.

#44 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-05 12:02 PM | Reply

So funny. mAndrea is Sniper with a Trust Fund.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-05 12:44 PM | Reply

If you dont want to be investigated by the FBI, then dont meet with Russian spies and lie.

That is what Trumps team did on many occasions after being warned that Russia was trying to compromise them.

#46 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-05 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trumps team cooperated with Russia and lied about it many times.

#47 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-05 12:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#9 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2019-05-03 04:44 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1: If you cannot tell the difference between surreptitious spying as opposed to an open investigation then you definitely are not as intelligent as I thought you were - good to know.

#42 | POSTED BY MSGT

This is amazing. So when trump is caught up in an investigation into foreign interference it is now called "spying".

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

An FBI agent investigating Russian interference is not a spy.

It was an investigation. He was an investigator. In a legally authorized investigation.

I very much look forward to the IG's Report. Will Barr try to "summarize" redact this report to try and protect trump from the truth and try everything possibly including lying to Congress to make trumpy look innocent?

It's the job of the FBI to investigate foreign interference.

The CIA spies. On foreign governments. Not ours.

There are laws in place to prevent that. You know the FBI carefully followed the law and the IG Report will show that and none of you will apologize and neither will trumpy.

Lie and Deny.

This is all part of Humpy's delay and distraction tactics.


#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-05 12:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

If you dont want to be investigated by the FBI, then dont meet with Russian spies and lie.

I didn't realize Halper, Misfud and Azra Turk were Russian spies.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 01:20 PM | Reply

I very much look forward to the IG's Report...

#48 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2019-05-05 12:59 PM | FLAG:

Same here. It's been teased out that the focus of this report is on the Steele dossier and the extent to which it was utilized to get FISA warrants on Carter Page.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 01:21 PM | Reply

#49 Kislyak, Gorkov and Berkowitz are.

Flynn and coffee boy plead guilty to lieing to the FBI about their Russia contacts.

Why lie to the FBI?

#51 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-05 01:55 PM | Reply

FTA:

"Secrecy was paramount for the F.B.I. officials because of the sensitivities of investigating campaign advisers during a presidential race. Had the investigation into Trump advisers' contacts with Russia become public, it could have devastated the Trump campaign."

Clearly an attempt to destroy Trump's candidacy!

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-05 02:02 PM | Reply

Clearly an attempt to destroy Trump's candidacy!
#52 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Would have actually destroyed his campaign, or made Obama look horrible?

Imagine you are the President and news gets out you are "investigating" an opponents campaign, for collusion where obviously none existed?

#53 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-05 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"for collusion where obviously none existed?"

Collusion, like skateboarding, is not a crime.
I doubt the FBI was looking for non-crime.
What do you think the FBI was looking for?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-05 02:30 PM | Reply

That is what Trumps team did on many occasions after being warned that Russia was trying to compromise them.

#46 | Posted by bored

fbi spies ace.

#55 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-05 02:41 PM | Reply

An FBI agent investigating Russian interference is not a spy.

Like someone said before.. an investigator will show you his badge. A spy will pretend to be something else.

#56 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-05 02:43 PM | Reply

I very much look forward to the IG's Report...

#48 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

and if it says what you don't like you will call it a pack of republican lies. You are funny dinnie.

#57 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-05 02:45 PM | Reply

What do you think the FBI was looking for?

#54 | Posted by snoofy

Anything to get rid of Trump.

#58 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-05-05 02:46 PM | Reply

"and news gets out you are "investigating" an opponents campaign, for collusion where obviously none existed?"

The FBI warned both camps the Russians were trying to influence, and were told to alert the FBI.

The FBI kept surveiling Russians, who kept having contacts with Team Trump, yet Trump's campaign never followed the FBI's instructions to contact them.

You'd have to be a moronic idiot to believe there were no reasons to investigate.

More to the point, if the tables were turned and Russia helped HRC get elected, your head would've exploded had the FBI not investigated.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-05 02:47 PM | Reply

Like someone said before.. an investigator will show you his badge.

First thing you learn in FBI undercover school... flash your badge.

#60 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-05-05 02:56 PM | Reply

Try to pay attention next time j.
#44 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Try actually reading some of the report instead of regurgitating falsehoods you heard on Fox.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-05 03:21 PM | Reply

How am I wrong?
BTW - I am not expecting an actual answer or an adult conversation from you on this issue, so my question is probably a waste of time but who knows, maybe you'll surprise me.

#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You speak out of both sides of your mouth and expect the trite "let the chips fall where they may" platitude to cover it.

There's nothing to "snuff out" in this story except the administration that was so in bed with a foreign adversarial government it sparked a counter intelligence investigation.

It's truly amazing how much has been confirmed and revealed and the right is more concerned about how it was revealed instead of what happened and is happening.

As for an adult conversation, whatever. Your misdirection makes it a conversation that really isn't worth having.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-05 03:27 PM | Reply

an opponents campaign, for collusion where obviously none existed?

#53 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

God you fools keep brazenly lying and expect everybody to take you seriously.

It wasn't obvious as you claim, it was a wish by sycophants like yourself who continue to misstate what we know and have known for some time.

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-05 03:30 PM | Reply

Like someone said before.. an investigator will show you his badge. A spy will pretend to be something else.

#56 | POSTED BY SNIPER

So undercover cops who their badges before trying to buy narcotics? Or are they spies?

You're an idiot.

Anything to get rid of Trump.

#58 | POSTED BY SNIPER

And a sycophantic idiot at that.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-05 03:32 PM | Reply

Do undercover investigators show their badges? You mean to say that the FBI actually uses undercover investigators that don't show their badges? Shocking!! Must have been shocking to Barr, too, I guess. He thinks FBI undercover investigators are "spies." So, let's get rid of FBI undercover investigators! All a part of making America great again.

#65 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-05-05 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's nothing to "snuff out" in this story ...

#62 | POSTED BY JPW

If (big IF) the IG report that will be here within a few weeks turns up something serious, are you willing to retract that statement?

You seem awfully confident, even in light of what was just revealed on this very thread.

It's truly amazing how much has been confirmed and revealed and the right is more concerned about how it was revealed instead of what happened and is happening.

Had this happened in a vacuum, given all things Trump, I'd probably agree with you.

However, I remember those 8 years of the Obama administration and how it operated. More prosecutions under the Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.

The targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.

Spying on AP reporters and James Rosen, in Rosen's case it included family members.

The serial unmasking of people under investigation.

Hundreds of unmasking requests by Samantha Power, who was a UN ambassador and suggested that most of them were made in her name, but not by her. That was an utterly amazing and stunning admission that got virtually no play in the MSM.

The IG has already recommended criminal charges against Andre McCabe for lying to investigators.

I could go on....

You seem really bothered by "snuffing out" whether or not all of this was properly predicated. For the life of me, I don't know why.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 04:07 PM | Reply

"The targeting of conservative groups by the IRS."

That's now been debunked TWICE.

I even linked to the TIGTA report, the words used, and the explanations for each word chosen. The list showed more "left" leaning words than "right" leaning words.

Stop repeating that lie.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-05 04:17 PM | Reply

#67

The federal government paid out over $100 million and admitted wrongdoing on multiple occasions over what you categorize as a lie.

Quit lying about it.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 04:23 PM | Reply

The BOLO list is only a fraction of the story and you know it.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 04:23 PM | Reply

[Barr] thinks FBI undercover investigators are "spies."
#65 | Posted by nimbleswitch

There's spin then there's quotes:

I'm not going to abjure the use of the word spying. I think, you know, my first job was in CIA and I don't think the word spying has any pejorative convert connotation at all. ... [T]o me the question is always whether or not it's authorized and adequately predicated, spying. I think spying is a good English word that in fact doesn't have synonyms because it is the broadest word incorporating really all forms of covert intelligence collections. So I'm not going to back off the word "spying" to -- except I will say I'm not suggesting any pejorative.
Then there's sober analysis:
Barr also added that his original remark was "off the cuff" but that he "commonly" uses the term "spying" in this way. (For what it's worth, Senator Whitehouse, among many others, has used the term "spying" in this way too -- see here and here.)

I have no idea if Barr is being candid here or winding people up -- or both. But he has signaled, especially in his original "spying" pronouncement, that he has concerns about the origins and operation of the investigation of the Trump campaign. And he says he plans to investigate it.

This is in theory an appropriate thing for the Justice Department to do, for two reasons. First, while there is plenty of prima facie evidence of potentially untoward Trump campaign-Russia contacts, there is also plenty of prima facie evidence of potentially untoward intelligence agency activity in connection with its investigation of the Trump campaign and presidency.

www.lawfareblog.com

#70 | Posted by et_al at 2019-05-05 04:36 PM | Reply

"over what you categorize as a lie"

Over what you categorize as a lie too, because you keep ignoring the left-leaning groups affected.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-05 05:09 PM | Reply

"So I'm not going to back off the word "spying" to -- except I will say I'm not suggesting any pejorative."

There were good spies on both sides.

"First, while there is plenty of prima facie evidence of potentially untoward Trump campaign-Russia contacts, there is also plenty of prima facie evidence of potentially untoward intelligence agency activity in connection with its investigation of the Trump campaign and presidency."

In other words, there were good spies on both sides.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-05 05:11 PM | Reply

#71

Which left leaning groups had to wait beyond 90 days for approval/denial? Which left leaning groups were asked all sorts of invasive questions? Which left leaning groups had multiple agencies swoop down on them like a pick of vultures like Katherine Engelbrecht with True the Vote?

Which left leaning groups were included in the $100+ million settlement with the federal govt?

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 05:35 PM | Reply

I could go on....
You seem really bothered by "snuffing out" whether or not all of this was properly predicated. For the life of me, I don't know why.

#66 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You shouldn't have started.

Was there enough evidence to warrant a counter intelligence investigation into Trump campaign members and family? That is the only question that matters as far as this conversation is concerned. Everything else is irrelevant partisan BS.

#74 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-05 06:02 PM | Reply

#74

So if the answer to your is yes then there is zero possibility of investigative abuse? Anything and everything is justified?

Like I said, the IG report is coming. You may not like it but it's coming whether you want it to or not.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 06:15 PM | Reply

I'm fine with the report and will accept it's findings without distortion or deception as we've seen with the Mueller report.

But everything else that's being drug into it is just noise and political muck.

#76 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-05 06:18 PM | Reply

Fair enough.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 06:49 PM | Reply

"Which left leaning groups were included in the $100+ million settlement with the federal govt?"

Which left leaning groups were party to the lawsuit?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-05 06:57 PM | Reply

Do you not realize you're being dishonest?

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-05 06:57 PM | Reply

"The federal government paid out over $100 million and admitted wrongdoing on multiple occasions over what you categorize as a lie."

By "The federal government", you mean the Treasury Department, led by Secretary Mnuchin, who answers to Donald Trump. Sorry, but them capitulating to purposely make The IRS look bad is a sad miscarriage of justice, nothing more.

Any reading of the TIGTA report, or the algorithm used, makes it clear the only reason more "right" leaning groups got targeted was more "right" leaning groups applied.

Claiming right leaning groups were targeted is true; claiming they were targeted more than left leaning groups Is malarkey..

Suggesting right-leaning groups were targeted, while leaving out the other half of the analysis, is woefully dishonest.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-05 09:05 PM | Reply

Here's the TIGTA report.
www.treasury.gov

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-05 09:20 PM | Reply

"The federal government paid out over $100 million"

Huh?!? Link, please. Methinks you're using Republican Math™.

Or yen. You're off by over 95%.

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-05 09:40 PM | Reply

"Like I said, the IG report is coming."

That's the "IG" in TIGTA.

#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-05 09:41 PM | Reply

"the only reason more "right" leaning groups got targeted was more "right" leaning groups applied."

JeffJ, what to do you think about that?

This is what I mean about not even realizing you're being dishonest.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-05 09:44 PM | Reply

By "The federal government", you mean the Treasury Department, led by Secretary Mnuchin, who answers to Donald Trump. Sorry, but them capitulating to purposely make The IRS look bad is a sad miscarriage of justice, nothing more.

That's pure spin and you know it. The courts presided over this "sad miscarriage of justice". Stop defending the indefensible.

Suggesting right-leaning groups were targeted, while leaving out the other half of the analysis, is woefully dishonest.

#80 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You know what is woefully dishonest? It's what you are doing. You are acting as if the BOLO algorithm is the entire story, when it's only a fraction of the story.

I asked a series of pointed questions. All of which you avoided like the plague. I'll ask them again....

Which left leaning groups had to wait beyond 90 days for approval/denial? Which left leaning groups were asked all sorts of invasive questions? Which left leaning groups had multiple agencies swoop down on them like a pick of vultures like Katherine Engelbrecht with True the Vote?

Which left leaning groups were included in the $100+ million settlement with the federal govt?


I was wrong about the amount of the settlement - it was $3.5 million. Sorry about that.

By "The federal government", you mean the Treasury Department, led by Secretary Mnuchin, who answers to Donald Trump.

Actually, it was the DOJ.

After a multiyear legal battle, the Justice Department settled with the conservative groups last October. Earlier this month, a judge gave preliminary approval to a $3.5 million settlement between the department and a class-action lawsuit against the government launched on behalf of more than 400 groups.

www.washingtonpost.com

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-05 11:21 PM | Reply

"Which left leaning groups had to wait beyond 90 days for approval/denial? Which left leaning groups were asked all sorts of invasive questions? Which left leaning groups had multiple agencies swoop down on them like a pick of vultures like Katherine Engelbrecht with True the Vote?"

What are the answers to these questions, JeffJ?

I'll wait.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-06 12:01 AM | Reply

"Actually, it was the DOJ. "

So actually...Trump.

#87 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-06 01:35 AM | Reply

"The courts presided over this "sad miscarriage of justice"

But they didn't say they targeted one political group over another. Neither did the TIGTA report.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-06 01:36 AM | Reply

"I asked a series of pointed questions."

All of which were a google search away:
www.chicagotribune.com
www.npr.org
www.newsweek.com

Stop pretending one political group was targeted over another. It wasn't. I posted the key words a few days ago from the TIGTA report, which debunks your claim. Here they are again:

ACORN
(Unnamed)
CA politics
Border Patrol
Emerge
Green Energy
Medical Marijuana
(Unnamed)
Occupy
Occupied Territory Advocacy
Paying National Debt
Pink Slip Program
Progressive
Rally Patriots
(Unnamed)*

*since this list is alphabetical, my guess is "Tea Party", or some variant. "Unnamed", as far as I can tell, might be due to pending litigation.

So what's your conclusion? Did the IRS target conservatives, or did conservatives apply more often? My math says the latter. So does the IG.

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-06 01:46 AM | Reply

"I was wrong about the amount of the settlement - it was $3.5 million."

Well you were close: only off by 2,750%.

Vernon's Calculator™ meets Republican Math™.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-06 01:52 AM | Reply

#89

Please answer my questions.

You won't because you don't want to.

The answers to those questions ruins your narrative.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 09:35 AM | Reply

What are the answers to these questions, JeffJ?
I'll wait.

#86 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Like Danforth, you know what the answers are. Also, like Danforth, you absolutely refuse to answer those questions. Both of you have a narrative to defend and that is far more important to both of you than admitting and acknowledging the truth.

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 09:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#49 Kislyak, Gorkov and Berkowitz are.
Flynn and coffee boy plead guilty to lieing to the FBI about their Russia contacts.
Why lie to the FBI?

#51 | POSTED BY BORED

Did Papadloulos speak to any of them?

Also, Kislyak is an ambassador.

You act like Trump promised Putin more flexibility after he won the election, or something...

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 10:12 AM | Reply

A Trump campaign advisor drunkenly bragged about getting help from Russia in the form of materials that were stolen from Americans. The FBI would be derelict in its duty if they didn't follow through on this to see what it was about. And now Trumpers want to call a valid counterintelligence operation "spying."

#94 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 10:14 AM | Reply

And now Trumpers want to call a valid counterintelligence operation "spying."

#94 | POSTED BY JOE

It absolutely was "spying". The question is whether or not it was adequately predicated. "Spying" isn't a pejorative.

A Trump campaign advisor drunkenly bragged about getting help from Russia in the form of materials that were stolen from Americans.

Did that occur before or after he was approached by US "spies"? I'm asking because I don't know - it's not a 'gotcha' question.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 11:04 AM | Reply

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Papadapoulus was at the lowest tier of the Trump team and his Russian "source" was Misfud, who isn't Russian.

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 11:17 AM | Reply

""Spying" isn't a pejorative."

It was until Barr started pretending.

You'll regurgitate any crap, won't you?

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-06 11:22 AM | Reply

""Spying" isn't a pejorative."
It was until Barr started pretending.
You'll regurgitate any crap, won't you?

#97 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Words have meaning.

Here is the definition of "spy":

verb
gerund or present participle: spying
work for a government or other organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors.
"he agreed to spy for the West"
observe (someone) furtively.
"the couple were spied on by reporters"
synonyms: observe furtively, keep under surveillance, watch, keep a watch on, keep an eye on, keep under observation, follow, shadow, trail; More
discern or make out, especially by careful observation.
"he could spy a figure in the distance"
synonyms: notice, observe, see, spot, sight, catch sight of, glimpse, catch/get a glimpse of, make out, discern, pick out, detect, have sight of; More
collect information about something to use in deciding how to act.
"he would go and spy out the land"

Yep. It's an accurate description of what took place. The only question is whether or not it was properly predicated. The IG report will hopefully shed some light on that when it's released in a few weeks.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 11:28 AM | Reply

#93 Flynn did, and lied about it to the FBI.
Why?

Trump hired a bunch of people doing corrupt things with Russia, while he was negotiating a hotel deal with bribes for Putin, and they all lied about it.

When you saw Putin's ---- on Trampy's chin in Helsinki, where you jealous?

#99 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-06 11:34 AM | Reply

"The only question is whether or not it was properly predicated."

That's only a question for morons who are trying to defend Jeff Sessions showing up in Kislyak's office, or Team Trump ignoring FBI instructions to alert them if the Russians tried any more contacts.

Try this in the future: pretend it was Obama. Or HRC.

See, it's not a question any more is it?

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-06 11:35 AM | Reply

"Words have meaning."

And "spy", in the intelligence community, is what one country does to another country.

But since you're there, be sure to check Barr for polyps.

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-06 11:42 AM | Reply

Did that occur before or after he was approached by US "spies"?

Papadopouls' drunken remarks were what spawned the initial CI investigation. This is well-documented, Jeff. It's not still a "question."

The FBI's counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump campaign officials had improper contacts with Russia was triggered by information the bureau obtained about George Papadopoulos, a former adviser to the campaign, according to the memo released Friday by House Intelligence Committee Republicans.
thehill.com

#102 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 11:57 AM | Reply

#101

The definition I provided also includes "opponent".

But then, you are well known to cherrypick in order to further a narrative.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 12:38 PM | Reply

I thought it was interesting that our intelligence services attempted to use a hottie to try and ply information out of Padapoulos.

The problem with that strategy was that he already had a smoking hot girlfriend.

www.google.com

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 01:22 PM | Reply

It absolutely was "spying". The question is whether or not it was adequately predicated. "Spying" isn't a pejorative.

LOL When did you get the Bill Barr Pull Cord installed?

#105 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 01:39 PM | Reply

Yep. It's an accurate description of what took place. The only question is whether or not it was properly predicated. The IG report will hopefully shed some light on that when it's released in a few weeks.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ

The only people playing the "is it predicated" game are Trump stooges.

The campaign had a multitude of characterized contacts to the government that was known to be hacking/influencing the election.

It's funny how Trump supporters are less concerned with DOTUS selling out to Russia than they are that we know he did.

#106 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 01:42 PM | Reply

The definition I provided also includes "opponent".

The assumption of the FBI being in opposition to Trump is such a massive ridiculous assumption it flags you as so biased you're not even really worth debating on this.

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 01:44 PM | Reply

LOL When did you get the Bill Barr Pull Cord installed?

#105 | POSTED BY JPW

I have the ability to comprehend the definition of words.

The only people playing the "is it predicated" game are Trump stooges.

IG Horowitz is a Trump stooge? Who knew? Just a few posts prior you said you'd accept the outcome of his impending report. "Was it properly predicated" is a fair question to ask and it's one that deserves an answer. I am glad it's being looked into and if the answer to the question is "yes", I will be totally fine with that - relieved, actually.

The assumption of the FBI being in opposition to Trump is such a massive ridiculous assumption it flags you as so biased you're not even really worth debating on this.

#107 | POSTED BY JPW

Are you actually suggesting that Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and James Comey were NOT in opposition to Trump? To suggest otherwise is such a massive ridiculous assumption it flags you as so biased you're not even really worth debating on this.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 02:00 PM | Reply

"I didn't realize Halper, Misfud and Azra Turk were Russian spies."

Only Misfud:

Maria Bartiromo @MariaBartiromo

most important from @GeorgePapa19 interview @SundayFutures @FoxNews was the London Cntr for int'l law reached out to him on LinkedIn w job offer, suggesting entrapment from the start. Then before he resigns to work for @realDonaldTrump they say wait-1st, go to Rome & meet Misfud

John Schindler @20committee

John Schindler Retweeted Maria Bartiromo
To buy this BS, you have to believe that, many years before Donald Trump decided to run for the White House, the FBI & US IC clairvoyantly established LCILP & Misfud as their spy fronts/agents that looked and acted EXACTLY like Russian spy fronts/agents.

If Joseph Mifsud was "really" a US agent rather than a Russian one, designed to entrap innocent Republicans -- this is the new Trumpist #hottake -- @realDonaldTrump , as POTUS, can declassify & release all the Top Secret facts in this case with just 1 pen-stroke.

We're waiting.

#109 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-06 02:22 PM | Reply

"Like Danforth, you know what the answers are."

No, I really don't. That's why I asked.
But I do know it wasn't only right-wing groups targeted, as Danforth clearly demonstrated.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-06 02:46 PM | Reply

"The question is whether or not it was adequately predicated."

Serious question:

At this point, what difference would it make?

More specifically, what different would it make with respect to the thing that was spied on; Trump's dealings with Russia?

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-06 02:50 PM | Reply

"The problem with that strategy was that he already had a smoking hot girlfriend."

You must be joking.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-06 02:51 PM | Reply

No, I really don't. That's why I asked.

The answer is zero. I've seen zero liberal groups allege the same treatment that conservative groups received from the IRS.

Danforth likes to hide behind an algorithm and pretend it tells the entire story.

He's being dishonest and he knows it.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 02:53 PM | Reply

"The problem with that strategy was that he already had a smoking hot girlfriend."
You must be joking.

#112 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I am not joking.

He does have a hot girlfriend.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 02:54 PM | Reply

So Jeff, did you miss #102 or do you just not care that your "question" has been answered for months?

#115 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 02:59 PM | Reply

How old are you Jeff? 19? What 40 year old man still talks about women the way you do? And you're raising sons. God help them and all of us.

#116 | Posted by blackheartsun at 2019-05-06 03:03 PM | Reply

Comrade Dirk always stalks Jeff as some kind of misogynist.

#117 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-06 03:10 PM | Reply

So Jeff, did you miss #102 or do you just not care that your "question" has been answered for months?

#115 | POSTED BY JOE

I saw it and I appreciate you providing an answer. I asked because I didn't know. Now I know. Thank you.

#118 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 03:17 PM | Reply

I'm 48, BoyDirkBlackheartsunBarneyCooperSteppWillBadweek

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have the ability to comprehend the definition of words.

Oh please. Apparently your throwing that faux objectivity completely out the window, aren't you?

IG Horowitz is a Trump stooge? Who knew? Just a few posts prior you said you'd accept the outcome of his impending report. "Was it properly predicated" is a fair question to ask and it's one that deserves an answer. I am glad it's being looked into and if the answer to the question is "yes", I will be totally fine with that - relieved, actually.

IG is impartial and is likely only doing it because he's asked. He's not going to say "that's political, I won't do it".

And no, it's a garbage question asked by those looking for political retribution. That's all it's about. Period.

Are you actually suggesting that Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and James Comey were NOT in opposition to Trump? To suggest otherwise is such a massive ridiculous assumption it flags you as so biased you're not even really worth debating on this.

Awww how cute. You twisted my statement to push it back with your garbage argument.

Those are 4 people. In the entire FBI.

Also, are you so buried up Trump's ass you can't fathom the concept of professionalism?

Every FBI agent who ever worked a case had private feelings and opinions about the case they were working. You're a fool if you don't acknowledge that certainty. Does that make you question every outcome of every investigation the FBI has ever worked? If not, then why? Explain your answer.

#120 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 03:20 PM | Reply

Did Dirk get the boot? Why else wouldn't he just post as dirk?

#121 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 03:21 PM | Reply

Why else wouldn't he just post as dirk?

#121 | POSTED BY JPW

He has a long history of changing his DR name.

As to why is anybody's guess.

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And no, it's a garbage question asked by those looking for political retribution. That's all it's about. Period.

Yet you claim you will accept the outcome of his report. That is increasingly looking like a lie.

Those are 4 people. In the entire FBI.

2 of whom were #1 and #2 in the agency at the time.

Also, are you so buried up Trump's ass you can't fathom the concept of professionalism?

Of course I can.

Every FBI agent who ever worked a case had private feelings and opinions about the case they were working.

No ----, Sherlock.

Does that make you question every outcome of every investigation the FBI has ever worked?

No.

If not, then why? Explain your answer.

#120 | POSTED BY JPW

I'll answer with a question: Do you think law enforcement never abuses authority and always does things the right way?

The IG has already recommended criminal charges against McCabe. Strzok was removed from the investigation by Mueller for obvious conflicts of interest and Page was reassigned.

Comey and McCabe offered 180 contradictory testimonies which means one or both of them were lying.

Throw in Brennan and Clapper as well, both of whom lied to Congress.

There is PLENTY to look into as to the origins of all of this as well as the conduct as it unfolded. The results of one investigation will be here within weeks, much to your chagrin. I honestly hope the IG report mostly exonerates the investigators and we can just put this crap to bed.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 03:31 PM | Reply

#122

BoyDirk probably forgot that he had established that particular sock puppet and is trying it on for size.

#124 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-06 03:32 PM | Reply

JPW,

What's amazing to me is that team Trump just went through a 2+ year political/legal colonoscopy with you cheering the entire way.

The conspiracy/collusion claim has been blown out of the water and yet you act like these characters walk on water and should face ZERO scrutiny of their actions and decisions.

#125 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 03:33 PM | Reply

Yet you claim you will accept the outcome of his report. That is increasingly looking like a lie.

Or I don't think the report will show much of anything.

2 of whom were #1 and #2 in the agency at the time.

One of whom kneecapped Hillary's campaign 10 days before the election.

And neither of them have the power to grant FISA warrants or unilaterally authorize surveillance (as far as I know, I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong on that one...).

Also, are you so buried up Trump's ass you can't fathom the concept of professionalism?

Of course I can.

Every FBI agent who ever worked a case had private feelings and opinions about the case they were working.

No ----, Sherlock.

Does that make you question every outcome of every investigation the FBI has ever worked?

No.

Then why throw the long shot to hell Faux News talking point of those guys into the mix? You're picking and choosing information for consideration when synthesizing the full idea.

I'll answer with a question: Do you think law enforcement never abuses authority and always does things the right way?

Yawn.

The IG has already recommended criminal charges against McCabe.

For misleading investigators regarding a leak, not investigative misconduct. Stop using that misleading line.

Strzok was removed from the investigation by Mueller for obvious conflicts of interest and Page was reassigned.

Yeah, because of, you know, professionalism.

The results of one investigation will be here within weeks, much to your chagrin.

Hardly.

#126 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 03:42 PM | Reply

with you cheering the entire way.

"Cheering" is more than a little bit of an overstatement.

Incidences and information reported throughout the past two years was confirmed to be true by Mueller. Anybody paying attention wasn't terribly surprised by Vol I of the report.

Therefore, it wasn't particularly hard to see where things were going.

The conspiracy/collusion claim has been blown out of the water

Either stop lying or stop objecting to being called a Trump stooge.

and yet you act like these characters walk on water and should face ZERO scrutiny of their actions and decisions.

#125 | Posted by JeffJ

Nice strawman.

I'm not for investigations motivated by political revenge.

You seem to be under the impression that so long as you can concoct some BS question it demands an investigation.

I simply don't share in that delusion.

#127 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 03:45 PM | Reply

Or I don't think the report will show much of anything.

That's a possibility and it's the outcome I'm hoping for.

Then why throw the long shot to hell Faux News talking point of those guys into the mix? You're picking and choosing information for consideration when synthesizing the full idea.

I'm not sure what you are driving at. Can you clarify?

For misleading investigators regarding a leak, not investigative misconduct. Stop using that misleading line.

I wasn't attempting to be misleading, but I now see why you construed it that way. Apologies for a lack of clarity.

#128 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 03:46 PM | Reply

Either stop lying or stop objecting to being called a Trump stooge.

Based upon my reading of Mueller's summary in Volume I that was a factual statement.

I'm not for investigations motivated by political revenge.

Nor am I.

You seem to be under the impression that so long as you can concoct some BS question it demands an investigation.
I simply don't share in that delusion.

#127 | POSTED BY JPW

There is nothing BS about the question given all that is publicly known about the origins of the investigation and the conduct along the way.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 03:49 PM | Reply

IThe IG has already recommended criminal charges against McCabe.

As you put it, "Do you think law enforcement never abuses authority and always does things the right way?"

#130 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 03:51 PM | Reply

There is nothing BS about the question given all that is publicly known about the origins of the investigation and the conduct along the way.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ

Why are you more suspicious of the FBI for doing their jobs and investigating russian psy ops attacks than you are of the american politicians who learned of those attacks and kept them secret from the authorities?

#131 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-05-06 03:55 PM | Reply

There is nothing BS about the question given all that is publicly known about the origins of the investigation and the conduct along the way.

What Barr (And ANYONE) Should Already Know About the Origins of the Russia Investigation

Your facts are not supported by the evidentiary record compiled since and your understanding of what Mueller reported is missing key footnotes and statements of facts that destroy any supposition of bias or a political targeting of Trumpers based on the chronology of events already documented in full public disclosures.

And to top it off, there's this indisputable analysis: One Simple Fact That Explodes the GOP's ‘Deep State' Nonsense

#132 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 03:55 PM | Reply

For those too lazy to read, the indisputable fact that the Trump-persecution crowd ignores is that during the entire course of the election Trump used the public investigation of Hillary Clinton has his principle weapon to bludgeon her over and over again, and the multiple statements by FBI Director Comey only amplified the public's concerns that there was probable criminal intent within Clinton's actions surrounding her emails.

Yet from July 2016, no one from within the entire DOJ ever leaked nor released any information to the public that a counterintelligence investigation was being undertaken of the Trump campaign due to evidence going back to at least 2015 that some of its personnel may have been complicit with hostile foreign powers. If any 'deep state' worth its salt wanted to cripple Trump's electoral chances, that information would have been made public so that it could have colored the public's opinion of Trump's campaign.

It begs common sense that if individuals were corrupted to the point they wanted to insure Trump's failure they would have made public disclosures of the TRUTH (the factual existence of investigations and numerous illicit contacts that the entire Trump team lied about and denied over and over again publicly) before the election, not afterwards.

#133 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 04:06 PM | Reply

...as his principal weapon....

#134 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 04:07 PM | Reply

Tony,

You should be welcoming the IG report as much as anybody.

If everything you are saying is actually true (it might be) then this report will vindicate you and this issue can be put to rest.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 04:09 PM | Reply

#135

Why should anyone have faith in the DOJ at this point when its leader (appointed by an unindicted co-conspirator to a crime for which the former financial chair of the RNC and Trump's personal attorney is going to jail for as we speak) himself publicly goes against the collective conclusions of not only Robert Mueller but all these prosecutors?

I have read that the IG may very well be Trump-sympathetic and not a fair arbiter of the circumstances. Regardless if present or former DOJ personnel wanted to harm Trump and to stop him from elected President then the easiest and likely most effective thing to have done would have been to go public with the fact he was under multiple investigations in the months leading up to the election.

No one did this, ergo the things that individuals did and said privately amongst themselves which occurred in the same timeframe really are no one's business but their own unless there are direct links to those things tangibly compromising the integrity of their work. Trump supporters are trying to deligitimize the professionalism of anyone that didn't themselves support him or supported his opponent, and that is unfair and unfounded based on the fact any of them could have caused him irreparable harm but DID NOT.

#136 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 04:45 PM | Reply

I have read that the IG may very well be Trump-sympathetic and not a fair arbiter of the circumstances.

I see that the Democratic Talking Points on the IG report have already been released.

#137 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-06 05:20 PM | Reply

I see that the Democratic Talking Points on the IG report have already been released.

#137 | Posted by Rightocenter a

I see that trump's cult's talking points are to ignore his actions over the past 2 years.

Unless you think he suddenly decided to obey rules instead of trying to corrupt anything he touches. But there is zero evidence of that so far.

#138 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-05-06 06:03 PM | Reply

#138

I think that there is enough evidence of obstruction to impeach him, but the Democrats don't have the cajones to start proceedings.

#139 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-06 06:14 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 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort