Trey Gowdy: FBI’s Use of Informant for Trump Campaign Was Appropriate
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said on Tuesday that the FBI’s use of an informant for the Trump campaign in 2016 was appropriate, joining top Democrats in disputing President Donald Trump’s characterization of the informant as a spy.
“I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got, and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump,” Gowdy said during an interview on Fox News.
In recent days, Trump has parroted misleading claims about the FBI’s use of the informant as part of its counter-intelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, dubbing the individual a “spy” and referring to the controversy as “Spygate.”
Gowdy’s comments were notable because the former federal prosecutor participated in a classified briefing about the informant last week that was conducted by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray. The so-called “Gang of Eight”—which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to the top Republicans and Democrats on the intelligence committees—also joined the briefing. The Democrats present at the meeting previously released a joint statement saying they heard “no evidence” from Rosenstein and Wray that a “spy” was placed within the Trump campaign.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has also backed Gowdy’s and other congressional leaders’ characterization of the FBI’s activities as part of the counter-intelligence investigation. On Sunday, the senator said the FBI was right to look into “individuals with a history of links to Russia that were concerning.”
One of the president’s top lawyers, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, said on Sunday that the use of the informant means special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is no longer “legitimate.” Giuliani raised serious doubts about whether the president would ever sit for an interview with the special counsel.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
I don't like Gowdy's politics but, this is one time I can say that Gowdy actually decided not to drink the Koolaid.
I would have to agree, now that he seems to have gotten Benghazi out of his system. I was actually a bit taken aback as he has been one of the few GOP members that seems to support the Mueller investigation overtly.
I think he supports letting it end naturally rather than having the president end it and, end up like Nixon with impeachment for obstruction but, I think he might be too late for that to not happen.
Because he is not running for re-election.
Behar: "I ask you, was the FBI spying on Trump's campaign?"
Clapper: "No, they were not. They were spying on — a term I don't particularly like — but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage and influence which is what they do."
Behar: "Well, why doesn't he like that? He should be happy."
Clapper: "He should be."
Any way you look at it, it was spying on Trump and his campaign. Starting with Flynn and a few others. It is what it is. And illegal spying is what it was.
No it wasn't.
Flynn and, "a few others" are foreign agents.
No it wasn't illegal, it was investigating what foreign actors were doing meddling in our elections and, one of our campaigns.
ny way you look at it, it was spying on Trump and his campaign.
Yeah, there's nothing more disingenuous then claiming the FBI wasn't spying. At the very least, they sent an informant under false pretenses to obtain confidential information. That's textbook spying.
The questions is whether the spying was legally justified or not. Gowdy, who has long appeared to be the most honest person in politics, says it was, so I tend to believe him.
"Spying on the Trump campaign" would be things like trying to find out Trump's strategies for the election, or trying to find a sex scandal in Trump's inner circle.
The only way that asking Carter Page and George Papadopolous questions about Russians constitutes spying on Trump is if the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians.
Whatever else you want to call it, it was spying. As Gowdy made clear, it was spying on what the Russians might be up to, and did not center on Trump himself. Pretty much absolved Trump of any wrong doing. A few of his subordinates might have gotten themselves into a perjury trap, though
It was INVESTIGATING how deep into the Trump campaign the Russians were, so far, it looks like they were pretty far into the campaign. Again, ask yourself this question, "What did Trump know and, when did he know it."
And, here you prove it wasn't spying on the Trump campaign or, "infiltrating" the Trump campaign, it was investigating what the RUSSIANS were doing.
Not really, Trump is still on the hot seat, as Gowdy has said, "If Trump and, his lawyers think he is innocent of this, then why are they acting like Trump is guilty?"
No perjury trap here, they lied to the Mueller investigation and, got caught, they could have told the truth but, chose to lie.
There is no proof that it happened... NONE.
So you are saying that if an American citizen is suspected of conspiring with a foreign power, the FBI should just ignore it?
Well, not sure if he is the most honest person in politics, he has lied several times, but on this we agree, he is right.
No it wasn't illegal. There were warrants...ie it was perfectly legal.
There is no such thing as a "perjury trap". You either tell the truth or you don't. If you don't when under oath, then you've perjured yourself.
Perjury: noun - the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.
Trap: noun - a situation in which people lie in wait to make a surprise attack.
The two are incongruous together. You cannot "willfully" lie under oath and be "surprised" by at attack on your truthfulness. The whole idea of "traps" being laid by the Mueller investigation is ridiculous. If those on the Trump campaign have nothing to hide and did everything above board, then they have no fear of "perjury". I hear this from many Trump supporters who claim if Trump testifies it will be a "perjury trap", but what they really are saying is "I don't believe the President can tell the truth when asked about his behavior and his campaign, thus he's at risk of perjury". They are effectively admitting that they support a known liar. Oh how the supposedly morally superior religious right have fallen.
So if a police task force "spy" on some prostitutes and pimps in an attempt to stop their illegal activity, when the local mayor and several councilmen are picked up for paying the prostitutes for sex, was the police department "spying" on the mayor? Of course not. No one forced them to pick up prostitutes, just as no one forced the Trump campaign team to accept the Russians solicitations.
Trump cornered himself by going on TV to explain why he fired Comey. He now cannnot say it wasn't about the Russia investigation. when asked why he fired Comey in an interview, his only option would be to repeat what he said on TV in order to not be lying.
That's not a perjury trap, that's shooting your own foot off.
If that was the case, why weren't there any informants in the Clinton campaign? She was a far more likely target of foreign subversives as she was a former Obama Administration official, had many contacts with many different foreign governments as Secretary of State and US Senator, and was the one leading in the election. Plus, she was getting donations into the Clinton Foundation from many foreign governments as well. The fact that they only planted an informant with the Trump campaign actually should be worrisome as it IS SPYING on an American citizen and was not investigating anything actually related to Russian meddling into US elections; otherwise, ALL the candidates would have had informants implanted into their campaigns.
Maybe it was because, the Clinton campaign's computers had been hacked by the Russians and, Clintons people reported it to the FBI and, maybe it was because, none of Clintons people were under a FISA warrant like Carter Page was.
Maybe it was because, Clinton didn't like Putin and, planned on hitting him with sanctions as soon as she was in office and, Putin didn't like her and, didn't want her to win the election.
The foundation is separate from the Clinton campaign so, what ever money's went into the foundation didn't find its way into her campaign....per the rules of running a campaign.
Once again, there was no informant "planted" in the Trump campaign, Carter Page had a FISA warrant on him that allowed the FBI to listen to his phone calls, look at his emails, and, read his texts. Also, any Russians that had a FISA warrant on them, like the Ambassador from Russia did, then anyone who contacted him was listened to by the FBI so, if anyone from the Trump campaign contacted any of these people that had a FISA warrant on them then the conversation was over heard by the FBI.
Who says the Russians didn't plant informants into other campaigns?
Do you have any proof that the FBI introduced Russians to the Trump campaign? Because, that is the only thing that could make what you are saying make any sense at all.
Please provide any actual evidence of this. Who introduced Mike Flynn to the Russian ambassador? Who set up the meeting between the Trump campaign team and Russian operatives with offers of dirt on Hillary? It wasn't the supposed "spy" aka informant, they merely got some on the Trump team to admit they had been in contact with Russian operatives and were actively seeking dirt on Hillary. The Trump team was desperate at the time because all the polls showed them losing by large margins, especially after the Access Hollywood tape came out. It would take something like a political bombshell being dropped on the Hillary campaign at the right moment, say the afternoon of the Access Hollywood tape release, that could sink the Hillary campaign. And lo and behold, like magic Russia drops the stolen DNC emails that very afternoon taking all the fire out of the Access Hollywood tape. Coincidence? I think not.
So back to the analogy, law enforcement sent an informant to the mayors office to ask what all the prostitutes were doing at their offices trying to find out whether it was something innocuous or whether they were actively trying to purchase sex, and multiple sources within the mayors office confirmed, they were hoping to get laid and were more than willing to pay for it. All law enforcement had to do from there was get an actual transaction recorded to prove it. That's what Mueller has been investigating, what did team Trump pay for the sex, because we all watched them get laid by Russia.
OK-- so you seeit differently than Gowdy. (But I wonder-- what makes you think you have so much better access to information about what went on than Trey Gowdy?)
So, you are denying this story by The New York Times?:
That's why the FBI should have planted informants in ALL the campaigns not just Trump's. And, you missed that point in the context of my comments, somehow. Remember, this entire article is about how the FBI planted informant(s) into the Trump campaign and whether government officials thought it was legal and appropriate. Frankly, it is only appropriate if there is an equitable set of informants for all the other campaigns like Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton, I forget the other candidates in the general election.
LOL, the story confirms what I've been saying.
NO INFORMANTS WERE PLANTED IN THE CAMPAIGN. What part of that don't you understand?
Only because he, like several other GOP senators/reps, are retiring and so no longer have to toe the line. They're trying to go out in a blaze of (a little more) honesty.
I wonder how many have thought about everything in that sentence?
“I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got, and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump,”
Gowdy doesn't know that for sure, what we do know is that key members of the Trump campaign met with Russians and, that the Republicans changed their party platform just before the convention to make it more conducive to the Russians.
Say what? Gowdy severing the party line by speaking TRUTH?
GOP will be throwing him under the bus, like the other conservatives...Flake, Corker. Of course, not running for re-election provides the cover truth requires in our political quagmire!
I'm not givin Gowdy the benefit of a Big R yet but there are reports of Big R Republicans again.
The once Grand Old Party of Lincoln devolved unto the gop but there is hope for a comeback...
Funny how all the wingers disappear when Trump's lies about spies turned out to be mud pies.
Slowly they turn. Step by step. Inch by inch. Then POW! Right in the kisser just like Dick Nixon.
At this point I'm unable to identify the platforms of big R, little R, big D, little D. Single issue and party American's are driving this country over a cliff.
There is no leadership offering a big picture platform for our country. We're on a 2-year plan cycle, swaying in the wind. Selfishly, I'll be fine...concern for those I'll be leaving behind is what drives me.
So trump says he wants to do "anything we can do" to prevent Russia from influencing or meddling in our election process....but then whines and cries when the FBI, (allegedly), keeps a close eye on his campaign because they suspect that he is conspiring with Russia to win the election?
Oh, I get it!!!!!!!! "Do anything to prevent Russia from influencing our election process, BUT ALLOW ME TO DO IT...." Got it.
After all this, and people are still in denial about this shit? Really?
And, the Rights answer to your post is,
"But, but, Hillary!" LOL
Who considered him capable of truth telling? I sure didn't.
Ain't it funny, how Liberals are all giddy about the most "secretive police" in the world infiltrating an opponent, without letting them know, as being AOK ?
If they had only "Infiltrated" Trumps campaign to let them know that Russians may be infiltrating the Trump campaign, like they did Hillaries campaign so.....ummmm….okay.....ummmmm….so they could give a heads up....ummmmm…..okay.....WAIT.....Was that the "Secret Polices" plan all along ?
All your phony outrage here is really telling, you know that there was no "infiltration" of any campaign by anyone except the Russians, what was done was a smart informant listening into what was being said by loud mouthed campaign officials who worked for the Trump campaign and, an FBI that happened to have already gotten a FISA warrant on Carter Page as well as a few Russians so, they were able to pick up on conversations on the phone and, emails sent to these people from other people in the campaign, it was never the intention of the FBI to "spy" on any campaign or, to "infiltrate" any campaign.
I have no OUTRAGE about anything what-so-ever. That's YOUR "Fake news moment" !
I just noted "Reality".
If our "American Secret Police" knew about an infiltration by a foreign entity into an "American Citizens" campaign, their "FIRST FUCKING DUTY" is to notify that "AMERICAN CITIZEN", not infiltrate them for the opposing Ideologs gain !
The FBI, which isn't the secret police, that would be Russia who has them, knew about the Russia meddling in the elections and, informed both campaigns.
"Senior FBI officials warned Donald Trump last year that Russia would likely try to spy on and infiltrate his presidential campaign team and that he should report any suspicious overtures to the bureau, NBC News reported on Monday.
A similar counterintelligence briefing was given to the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. "
Which, as you can see, if you read the article I posted that is from December 2017 will tell you that they did inform both candidates.
There is no proof of this, none.
Bull !
"Senior FBI officials warned Donald Trump last year that Russia would likely try to spy on and infiltrate his presidential campaign team and that he should report any suspicious overtures to the bureau, NBC News reported on Monday."
And who decides what is a suspicious overture ?
Seems the FBI didn't even know "Who was Who", if they asked simple Trump and his campaign to give them some lead, any lead !
"Which, as you can see, if you read the article I posted that is from December 2017 will tell you that they did inform both candidates."
Apparently the FBI didn't know Shit ?
According to the FBI, they've been trying to look into this way before the election cycle. Still didn't have Shit !
If someone comes to a campaign and, says "I have dirt on your opponent and, I will give it to you for a favor.", and, that someone is from another country, then that is a suspicious overture, you know, like the Russian lawyer did with Trump Jr. and, Manafort.
They were giving them a warning, not asking for a lead. Do you know the difference?
They knew enough to warn Trump and, Clinton that the Russians were trying to get into Trumps campaign.
Yeah, right, that's how they knew to warn the campaigns ahead of the election.
And what were they supposed to do on their own, that was better than what the FBI could do ?
I didn't know Trump had better intelligence than OUR OWN "Secret Police" FBI agents....did you ?
For one thing, when the Russian lawyer contacted Trump Jr. he could have gone to the FBI and, told them about it.
There's a saying that has been around since 9/11, "If you see something, say something." All any member of the campaign had to do was inform the FBI about any contact the Russians made to the campaign.
Very true. Plus we now know that the Trump campaign was reaching out to the UAE, Saudis and Israel for help rigging the election. So their efforts to get Russia to help weren't exactly unique.
Trumped up spygate, it seems the logic here is by extension, someone is suspected of interacting with iSIS then the suspect should be informed that they are being looked at. Good thing none of the keyboard wizards don't work in law enforcement.