There's a storm brewin over the FBI

By:  vic-eldred  •  6 months ago  •  68 comments

There's a storm brewin over the FBI

10 Takeaways From Glenn Simpsonâs Fusion GPS Senate Testimony

       Some may recall last August when Sen. Dianne Feinstein released a partially redacted transcript of "testimony" Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Simpson said that Christopher Steele was told by an FBI official that they had a confidential informant in the Trump campaign. At the time the claim was shot down by Ken Dilanian, an NBC reporter who helped Fusion GPS disseminate stories for its clients, claimed that “a source close to Fusion GPS” told him that Simpson "mischaracterized" the Australian tip about Papadopoulis. Nothing further was made of it at the time.

More recently, House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy have been pressuring the DOJ to release documents, which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has steadfastly refused to hand over. On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that Nunes was denied access to the information on the grounds that it "could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a US citizen that has provided intelligence to the FBI and CIA.

On Wednesday afternoon, however, it was revealed that Nunes and Gowdy  would recieve a classified briefing Thursday at the DOJ on the documents. Now it appears that the FBI may have had a mole embedded in the Trump campaign.

Authored by Kimberley Strassel, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal,

About That FBI ‘Source’

Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents 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.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

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 superspook 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.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?
And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.

We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid."


Thanks to Kimberley Strassel for blowing "the whistle", however the story is being ignored by the MSM, which is busy covering the "Stormy Daniels" story like it was the greatest news story of our time. This story has legs and soon even the liberal media won't be able to ignore it. 

Update: 9AM Saturday, May 12, 2018

It's time to draw some conclusions:

1) The FBI lied about Carter Page being the reason for launching the investigation (they backed away from that because it meant the Steele Dossier was being used as "intelligence") and they are lying with the secondary story of a boozed up Papadopolous being the origins of the investigation. Remember,  for many months, the House Intelligence Committee sought disclosure of the “electronic communication”  by which the FBI opened its counterintelligence-investigation file on Papadopoulos, - reportedly in July 2016. However, when Nunes finally, at long last, got to see the EC, (only after threatening contempt proceedings against Rod Rosenstein & others) he learned that the FBI didn't have any foreign intelligence input at all!

So we are back to the Dossier. Was the Dosier used not only to launch the investigation, but also as a pretext for the FBI to infiltrate a political campaign with a spy?

2) Papadopoulos has been charged and it's been alleged that he's cooperating, may have worn a wire - could this be the cover story for an FBI spy? And the bigger story would be if he was spying prior to July of 2016.

3) The Justice Department has been defiant in the face of Congressional subpoenas. They are in full resistance and the Congress is moving to hold them in contempt. The IG will be releasing his report soon. The day of reckoning is at hand for the DOJ & FBI 


Update: 5:50AM Saturday, May 26, 2018

House GOP sets three FBI interviews in Clinton probe

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/389189-house-gop-sets-three-fbi-interviews-in-clinton-probe




    

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Vic Eldred
1  author  Vic Eldred    6 months ago

At the very least the FBI and DOJ has hidden information from Congressional oversight Committees. Now we are on the verge of learning more improper/illegal activity by the FBI. Isn't this the way Daniel Ellsberg escaped prosecution?

 
 
cjcold
1.1  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    6 months ago

Interesting how Trump supporters (who are supposed to be all about fidelity, law and order) are so willing to ignore his breaches of the law, morals, sanity, his daily lies and obvious incompetence.

 
 
Rmando
1.1.1  Rmando  replied to  cjcold @1.1    6 months ago

Oh yeah- the great economy, breakthroughs with North Korea, standing by our true allies in the Middle East... I don't think I can handle much more of Trumps "incompetence".

 
 
cjcold
1.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Rmando @1.1.1    6 months ago

The economy is tanking, Kim is playing Trump, and which ME allies are you talking about that Trump hasn't trashed with his idiotic big mouth?

 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  cjcold @1.1.2    6 months ago

We have the best economic numbers in more than 40 years

Trump is succeeding with N Korea compared to the bungling by past presidents

Trump has restored our relationships with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Arab Emirates to name a few

its wonderful to have a real pro American leader in the White House again

 
 
Texan1211
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @1.1.2    6 months ago

tanking??

Got any facts or numbers to back that claim up?

 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    6 months ago

It's just more of the regurgitated left wing propaganda. It seems they are OK with a DOJ and a FBI than out of control and appear to be in cover up mode. What in the world could be in that heavily redacted memo that they are so reluctant to reveal? The name of the mole, for instance?? Trump can declassify that thing any time he wants, I think he is just playing with them at this point.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @1.1    6 months ago

And it's even more interesting how liberals who used to be so concerned about civil liberties have all but given up on them when it comes to Donald Trump.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @1.1.2    6 months ago

Your'e living in a strange world

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.5    5 months ago

What are the odds that the mole was a junior campaign worker, who went to Britain and met with Chris Steele, Russians and an Australian diplomat?

 
 
Colour Me Free
1.1.9  Colour Me Free  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.8    5 months ago

I admit to liking a good conspiracy - and the Papadopoulos 'connection' makes lil sense, have you read the indictment against him?  It reads like a story book tale...

Papadopoulos travels to Italy March 14, 2016 - and just [Ta Da] happens to meet a 'London based' professor, that has lil interesting in Papadopoulos, UNTIL he is informed of the Trump campaign affiliation and [Ta Da] the professor has Russian 'connections' ....... and the story rolls along.

I do not know that a 'mole' was planted - yet it could possibly make sense out of somethings ... 

Seems there is an on going theme here, and amazingly the Trump campaign never received dirt on H. .... go figure huh?

Documents reveal that Papadopoulos secretly pleaded guilty to misleading the FBI about his April 2016 communications with a Kremlin-linked "professor" who hoped to set up a meeting between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign. The professor had told Papadopoulos that Russia could provide damaging information about Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” Papadopoulos falsely told investigators that his communications with the professor had predated his involvement with the Trump campaign.

“In truth and in fact, however, defendant Papadopoulos learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant Papadopoulos because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant Papadopoulos about the “thousands of emails” on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant Papadopoulos had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month,” previously sealed documents read.

Papadopoulos’s repeated attempts to establish a meeting between Trump and the Kremlin, which the Washington Post first reported in August, were reportedly rejected by more senior campaign aides, including campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis and Paul Manafort himself, who worried about the possible legal concerns such a meeting would entail.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-manafort-indictment-papadopoulos-and-the-professor/article/2010256

The professor with the 'Kremlin' contacts is never named, neither is the woman described as 'Putin's Niece' ... then there is the 'Kremlin' connected lawyer that meets at the Trump tower ... never dishes out dirt, and is not questioned by Mueller ... most likely all coincidences (?) 

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Colour Me Free @1.1.9    5 months ago

I see youv'e been giving this a lot of thought.  Isn't it exciting when the pieces to the puzzle start to fit?

 
 
Colour Me Free
1.1.11  Colour Me Free  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    5 months ago

I did a great deal of research on Carter Page, and things just kept coming back to the same theme over and over again ... even before there was a Special Counsel investigation, there was a seemingly desperate attempts to try and connect the Trump campaign to a Russian anything - without success........ Papadopoulos's clandestine meeting of the professor the same day he arrives in Italy fails to establish a connection with Russia and the campaign

Even Manafort after being indicted, and pleading guilty .. the charges have nothing to do with Russia .. go figure once again!

 
 
magnoliaave
1.1.12  magnoliaave  replied to  Colour Me Free @1.1.11    5 months ago

Hi.  I am always interested in what you report.  Based on info from other sources you form a valid opinion on which I rely;..

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  magnoliaave @1.1.12    5 months ago

Smart Woman

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Colour Me Free @1.1.11    5 months ago
I did a great deal of research on Carter Page

Maybe an article should be done on him sometime. What a character he was. It's amazing how many could easily enter the Trump campaign (if it can be called that - basically it was Trump holding rallies). The deep state thought they struck gold with Page, but they ran into someone who was totally honest, even when it hurt. The man without a lawyer and always says more than necessary.

carter-page-800x430.jpg

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Colour Me Free @1.1.11    5 months ago

I'm happy to hear that Page has filed a lawsuit against the federal government

 
 
Colour Me Free
1.1.16  Colour Me Free  replied to  magnoliaave @1.1.12    5 months ago

Thank you mags, I sincerely appreciate that you find my hours of reading useful.

Article was locked yesterday when I came back..

Happy Mother's Day

 
 
Colour Me Free
1.1.17  Colour Me Free  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.15    5 months ago

 I was unaware that he had filed, after the Judge in March threw out his suits against Yahoo and the Huffington Post - guess I have missed some things .. need to do some reading,,

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Colour Me Free @1.1.17    5 months ago

It was fairly recent.

 
 
Colour Me Free
1.1.19  Colour Me Free  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.18    5 months ago

I cannot find anything current .. everything I am finding dates back to the suits filed in February 2018 - perhaps I am not asking the correct question, do you have a link?

 
 
Spikegary
1.1.20  Spikegary  replied to  cjcold @1.1    5 months ago

So, tell us about the unmasking of people being surveilled and thei rnames given to those in the Left's Presidential Campaign..........is that legal, in your book?

 
 
Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    6 months ago

Apropos of nothing, I highly recommend this @ChuckRossDCfrom March on a U.S. citizen with CIA and MI6 ties who for some weird reason started asking to meet with Trump affiliates about hacked Russian e-mails. https://t.co/pTGT1lPOmB

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 9, 2018

Oh, and this person who might fit the definition of a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI just so happens to be a close associate of the former MI6 chief who personally met in 2016 with Christopher Steele about his dossier.

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav)May 9, 2018

Then the question becomes why? Obviously, part of the operation, the shopping of the Trump dossier to tame media outlets, was to create negative stories on Trump. But the intelligence operation run to give the impression of Russian collusion and the subsequent counterintelligence operation was of no immediate use. It was of use, though, if someone was hedging their bets against the outside chance that Trump might be elected. In fact, one might even call it an insurance policy.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/05/11/devin-nunes-trail-mysterious-insurance-policy/

 
 
cjcold
2.1  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    6 months ago

And since it comes from redstate we all know it has to be true.

 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  cjcold @2.1    6 months ago

And since it comes from redstate we all know it has to be true.

Links are Hard!

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/25/george-papadopoulos-london-emails/

 
 
Texan1211
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    5 months ago

They attack the source instead of merely looking for other sources that could have told them the same exact thing.

It must be easy to debate when you simply ignore content and attack the source.

Isn't that an Alinsky rule?

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    6 months ago

It seems there were some zealots at the FBI who thought they would protect us from Donald Trump.

 
 
Rmando
3  Rmando    6 months ago

Rod Rosenstein certainly seems to be eager to cover up all the misdoings of the FBI.

 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    6 months ago

The Trump Campaign and Trump apologists are seemingly over eager to distract everything concerning Russian influence on Donald J. Trump.

If Trump has nothing to hide then why is Trump so--------------------defensive?

Clinton testified publicly, under oath for 21 hours in front of a congress looking for anything.  They found nothing.

I would like to see Trump testify under oath, publicly---------for two hours.  Bet a thousand to one he couldn't do it.

 
 
NORMAN-D
4.1  NORMAN-D  replied to  bbl-1 @4    6 months ago
Clinton testified publicly, under oath for 21 hours...

Wow.....TWO lies in ONE sentence. Not bad. 

1. She was NOT under oath. 

2. It was just shy of 11 hours. 

 

 
 
bbl-1
4.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  NORMAN-D @4.1    6 months ago

CoC Violation "BF"

 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  NORMAN-D @4.1    5 months ago
Wow.....TWO lies in ONE sentence. Not bad.
  1. Define the difference between a typo and a lie.
  2. Even if she wasn't under oath, it is still illegal to lie to Congress.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  bbl-1 @4    6 months ago
The Trump Campaign and Trump apologists are seemingly over eager to distract everything concerning Russian influence on Donald J. Trump.

There is an ongoing investigation of Trump. Why no investigation of obvious wrongdoing?

Clinton testified publicly, under oath for 21 hours in front of a congress looking for anything.  They found nothing.

The Clinton campaign colluded with the Russians. Where is Mueller?

I would like to see Trump testify under oath, publicly---------for two hours.  Bet a thousand to one he couldn't do it.

I'm sure you would. Maybe we can settle on yanking in Hillary a few more times

 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    5 months ago
There is an ongoing investigation of Trump. Why no investigation of obvious wrongdoing?

Because unlike the Whitehouse, Mueller doesn't have leaks.

The Clinton campaign colluded with the Russians. Where is Mueller?

Yeah, riight......

I'm sure you would. Maybe we can settle on yanking in Hillary a few more times

And if subpoena'd I'm sure she would testify...again. 

Trump has already indicated, through his lawyers, that he would fight the subpoena, so as not to testify.  If he lost, he'll take the fifth.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.1    5 months ago
Because unlike the Whitehouse, Mueller doesn't have leaks.

Oh, I see, You seem to think that Mueller is looking into all these FBI officials & DOJ officials, without a single indictment or statement in over a year. How about how the investigation originated? Do you think he's looking at that? The fact that the Steele Dossier was used for FISA warrants had to be dragged out of the mouth of Andrew McCabe...Remember? McCabe told the Congressional Committee in closed session that "There wouldnt have been an investigation without the Dossier"!

Yeah, riight......

Don't think so? I'd say it was the epitome of collusion (ah, I know, they used an intermediary)

Trump has already indicated, through his lawyers, that he would fight the subpoena, so as not to testify.  If he lost, he'll take the fifth.

Trump happens to be the President of the United States. Mueller would have to prove he has no other way to get the info before Trump would be required to sit for an interview. If Mueller wants to push it, the SCOTUS may end up deciding it.

 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.2    5 months ago
Remember? McCabe told the Congressional Committee in closed session that "There wouldnt have been an investigation without the Dossier"!

laughing dude

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bbl-1 @4    5 months ago
The Trump Campaign and Trump apologists are seemingly over eager to distract everything concerning Russian influence on Donald J. Trump.

Provide some actual proof of "russian influence" then we'll talk.  

I would like to see Trump testify under oath, publicly

Under oath?  It would be two hours more than Clinton did.

 
 
Ozzwald
4.3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.3    5 months ago
Provide some actual proof of "russian influence" then we'll talk.

You mean like Russian oligarchs paying Trump's personal lawyer half a million dollars?

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @4.3.1    5 months ago
You mean like Russian oligarchs paying Trump's personal lawyer half a million dollars?

Didn't they also give Clinton $154 million?

 
 
Ozzwald
4.3.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.3.2    5 months ago
Didn't they also give Clinton $154 million?

No they didn't, but thank you for deflecting as usual.

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @4.3.1    5 months ago
actual proof of "russian influence"

I believe I said "actual proof of "russian influence" ".  

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.3.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @4.3.3    5 months ago

So you are ignoring facts.  Have a nice day.  

 
 
Ozzwald
4.3.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.3.5    5 months ago
So you are ignoring facts.  Have a nice day.

Haven't heard any to ignore, and you have a nice day as well.

 
 
NORMAN-D
5  NORMAN-D    6 months ago

This is all starting to make sense now.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?

And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.

We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both.

The FBI planted a spy on the inside of the Trump campaign during the election. This is huge! So even with a spy on the inside they have nothing on Russia or any other crimes committed by Trump. This is a very embarrassing time for the FBI. Obama weaponized all our intelligences

deepstate2800x416.jpg

 
 
Greg Jones
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  NORMAN-D @5    6 months ago

Yep, nobody gives a damn about Russian collusion-gate anymore. The real breaking story and scandal seems to be about the misdeeds and crimes committed by Obama's DOJ and FBI and the apparent cover up that is going on. Can't wait for more details.

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  NORMAN-D @5    6 months ago
Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe.

Yup, there it is! 

If the FBI was spying on Trump before then, we have a group of rogue leaders at the FBI committing illegal acts. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
6  author  Vic Eldred    6 months ago

Back at noon

 
 
Vic Eldred
7  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

171030-george-papadopoulos-national-secu

How did a junior campaign worker talk his way into a meeting like that?  I guess, he wasn't as innocent as he looked.

 
 
Jasper2529
7.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    5 months ago
How did a junior campaign worker talk his way into a meeting like that?  I guess, he wasn't as innocent as he looked.

That meeting was held on March 31, 2016. Do I see Jeff Sessions at the foot of the table? As AG, he's been awfully quiet.  An FBI/DoJ spy within Trump's campaign could be anyone.  Hmmmm!

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/23/george-papadopoulos-trump-role/

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @7.1    5 months ago

How many people sitting at that table?  A lot of interaction going on. I'm not sure that Jeff Sessions hears or even gives much credence to everything being said, if that is your point.

On the other hand that first sentence strikes me as very interesting:

"When a Russian news agency reached out to George Papadopoulos to request an interview shortly before the 2016 election, the young adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump made sure to seek approval from campaign headquarters."

If Papadopoulos was an FBI mole at that time, that would constitute entrapment - am I correct?

 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    5 months ago
If Papadopoulos was an FBI mole at that time, that would constitute entrapment - am I correct?

Nope, not even close.

American Law.

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.2    5 months ago

It seems that it was. From your own Law Dictionary:

: the state or condition of being entrapped; also : the affirmative defense of having been entrapped by a government agent (as an officer or informant) — see also predispose

NOTE: Entrapment is available as a defense only when an agent of the state or federal government has provided the encouragement or inducement.

Thanks for the info.

 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.3    5 months ago
It seems that it was. From your own Law Dictionary

Care to explain how he provided the encouragement or inducement?  This is a legal definition, so please do be specific.

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.4    5 months ago

I can't improve on the English language, so let me state the obvious - Here is the example:

"On June 3, 2016, music publicist Rob Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr. and said, "The Crown prosecutor of Russia … offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

http://www.businessinsider.com/george-papadopoulos-trump-russia-wikileaks-emails-clinton-2017-10

If Rod Goldstone turned out to be an FBI agent, that would be entrapment, because he was suggesting the Trump campaign do something - something the Trump campaign didn't plan to do on their own.
The same would go for Papadopolous if he offered to do the same and it turned out he was an FBI agent
The same would be true of the Russians who went out of their way to engage Jarod Kushner if it turns out they were FBI agents.

Entrapment is but one of the ways the FBI can cross the line. Another way is coercion - like the way people have the threat of family members charged.
The most famous example: 
When Ethel Rosenberg (the wife of Julius Rosenberg) was convicted of giving secret information to the Soviet Union. Both faced the death penalty. I'm sure Ethel was charged in order to get Julius to confess, but the funny thing about Communists is that their ideology comes first, so Julius never flinched and both were executed

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
8  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    5 months ago

It's becoming more clear that the Obama administration was spying on the Trump campaign. The Russia Hoax narrative is a cover so they won't be held responsible.

It's time to remove every establishment political hack in the DOJ and FBI and start indicting the swamp. These animals have put us in cages for years for petty offenses. Time to indict them with High Crimes against this country.

 
 
lennylynx
8.1  lennylynx  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @8    5 months ago

Congratulations on your promotion to Moderator fishy! applause

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
8.1.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  lennylynx @8.1    5 months ago

Just here to help the community homeslice....

 
 
Vic Eldred
8.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @8    5 months ago
It's becoming more clear that the Obama administration was spying on the Trump campaign.

Do you know when I realized that?  

Way back in March of 2017, when an Obama spokesperson needed to carefully word a response to the Trump "off the cuff" comment that "Obama had wiretapped him.":

Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president, said in a statement.

"As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen," Lewis said. "Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."


In other words Obama never specifically ordered it. Either someone else did or a wink & and nod was given, but Trump's gut reaction to everything he said, did or even things imagined being leaked meant his campaign was under surveillance was correct. Now we find there was surveillance and most likely a spy within the campaign. BTW the White House has given the Mueller team over a million documents. No political campaign has ever been examined and dissected as the Trump campaign has!

 
 
Vic Eldred
9  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

Back at 6PMEST

 
 
Vic Eldred
10  author  Vic Eldred    5 months ago

This just in:

"Following Kimberly Strassel’s bombshell reporting at the Wall Street Journal that alleges the FBI may have placed a spy in the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election, a well-known investigative reporter dropped another bomb.

Paul Sperry, who writes for RealClearPolitics and the New York Post, reported Friday the Obama administration set spy “traps” for low-level officials in the Trump campaign."

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/05/12/obama-admin-spied-on-trump-campaign-more-than-previously-known-set-spy-traps-new-reporting-says

 
 
Sparty On
10.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @10    5 months ago

Like many, i’ve been saying for a long time now heads are going to roll from this Mueller investigation.    Just not the heads the haters from the left think

We’ll see how much they like Mueller then.    They liked Comey, then they didn’t.    Now they like him again.    Same shit will happen with Mueller you watch.

The lack of Character and Integrity on display by this group is astounding actually.

 
 
Vic Eldred
10.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @10.1    5 months ago

I am with you. I await the judgement that is coming down on these rogue agencies. Public opinion has already turned against the Mueller investigation AND the democrats have lost their lead in the mid term elections. The American people have said "ENOUGH"

 
 
Sparty On
10.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    5 months ago

Yeah unlike many who have an agenda I just want the truth to come out and let the cards fall where they may.

Mueller can’t win public opinion with anything but the truth anyway since no matter which way this goes 40-50% of the people will likely be pissed off at the findings.

I hope he chooses truth over partisanship.    Time will tell ....

 
 
Vic Eldred
10.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.2    5 months ago
Time will tell ....

It would be nice if it could have been handled in a timely fashion

 
 
Fireryone
10.1.4  Fireryone  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.2    5 months ago
I hope he chooses truth over partisanship.

Since he is a republican, I hope so too. 

 
 
Sparty On
10.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Fireryone @10.1.4    5 months ago

Meh, I expect truth from both controlling parties and yet we so rarely get it.   Not the whole truth anyways.

Too many others only expect answers that agree with their narrative otherwise they consider the answer wrong.

 
 
Fireryone
10.1.6  Fireryone  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.5    5 months ago
Meh, I expect truth from both controlling parties and yet we so rarely get it.   Not the whole truth anyways.

Agreed.  I fear the politicization of the justice department is going to get worse before it gets better. 

Too many others only expect answers that agree with their narrative otherwise they consider the answer wrong.

Agreed here too.  I really do not care what the findings are and who they hurt so long as they are the truth.  

 
 
Sparty On
10.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Fireryone @10.1.6    5 months ago

Agreed, unlike others here, like usual, you are a smart woman in this regard .....

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

It Is ME
Sparty On
Misty Mountain
321steve
Phoenyx13
Ed-NavDoc
Dismayed Patriot
Dulay
Dean Moriarty
Tacos!

PJ
arkpdx
zuksam


54 visitors