Spy is the wrong term, and plays into the PR wishes of Orange Mussolini's team.
The person was a law enforcement agent from the federal government sent in to investigate and monitor the Trump campaign's ties to the Russian government, possible connections that were apparent enough for high ranking officials to determine that sending in an investigative agent was an appropriate action.
“there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Peter Strzok to Lisa Page (counsel and confidant to the bureau’s No. 2 official, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe)
“I’m worried about what happens if HRC is elected...everything Sanders said about Clinton is true. This is clear and utter bias by the media
especially the NYTIMES, WAPO, and CNN who if you look at all of them have large donors for Clinton."
-peter strzok
Cherry picking is easy, Thom.
Yes, a Reasonable Prosecutor Would Have Ordered an Investigation of the Trump Campaign
By DAVID FRENCH
May 22, 2018 4:54 PM
I simply don’t know if Mueller has any “goods” on Trump or his campaign. He has obviously exposed a troubling degree of real and alleged criminal misconduct surrounding Trump, but he has not yet exposed evidence of actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. To the extent that I have a view on the ultimate outcome of his investigation, I’m skeptical that it will find that Trump or campaign officials actively conspired with Russians. The best investigative journalists in the world have been attacking this story for more than a year, with the help of a White House that leaks like a sieve. Yet no substantial evidence of campaign collusion — legal or otherwise — has emerged.
At the same time, however, I find the notion that the Russia investigation itself was corrupt from the beginning to be so bizarre as to border on fantastical. There was amplereason to investigate whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russians.
Consider what we know, now widely verified through bipartisan sources.
We know that at the very least the Russian government engaged in a disruption operation to sow discord and chaos in the 2016 election. The CIA, NSA, FBI, and the Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee agree that this disruption operation morphed into an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.
At the same time that Russia was attempting to help Trump, the candidate had surrounded himself with a constellation of advisers who possessed problematic ties with the Putin regime. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, had long been on the payroll of Putin allies, receiving millions of dollars in compensation for his work on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. One of Trump’s closest military advisers, Michael Flynn, had received tens of thousands of dollars in compensation from Kremlin-affiliated sources. One of the campaign’s foreign-policy advisers, Carter Page, had been actively recruited by Russian intelligence (to his credit, he apparently rebuffed those advances) and had long sought business relationships in Russia.
And that’s not all, not by a long shot. We also know that Kremlin-connected Russians reached out to the Trump campaign, and that key members of the campaign team were enthusiastic about receiving Russian help.
Donald Trump Jr. responded positively to a direct invitation to collude with Russia, taking a meeting with a Russian lawyer after being promised information that could hurt Hillary Clinton as part of an official Russian effort to help Trump. Trump brought Manafort and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the meeting.
Campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had contact with a Russian-affiliated professor who told him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He received this information months before the first WikiLeaks releases rocked the Clinton campaign, and he later lied to the FBI about it.
Trump confidante Roger Stone apparently had advance knowledge that WikiLeaks had obtained damaging emails from John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee.
Notice that none of the evidence above connects to the so-called Steele Dossier — the document at the heart of what has been called “FISA-gate.” I agree wholeheartedly with Trey Gowdy. The Russia investigation would exist without the dossier:
The dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos’s meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn’t have anything to do with obstruction of justice.
But to the extent that the dossier matters — or the extent that the Carter Page FISA warrant matters — the proponents of the FISA-gate theory have not proven their case. Republican-appointed judges approved the warrant application and subsequent renewals. A Trump appointeesigned off on the application to extend surveillance of Page. As for the merits of the application and its renewals, the public has only seen the smallest, most selective quotations from those documents. No one can make a reasonable assessment of their legality on the basis of publicly available information.
Compounding all of these red flags, Trump officials have routinely hidden their Russian contacts and concealed their motivations behind a bodyguard of lies. Trump misled Americaabout his reasons for firing James Comey, Michael Flynn lied to the FBI even about non-criminalcontacts with Russia, and various administration officials have issued a truly extraordinary number of false or materially incomplete statements about their communications and actions.
Now, I ask you, fellow conservatives: If the parties were reversed, and the Clinton campaign had engaged in similar conduct — even as it was known that Russians were trying to help Hillary win the election — would you believe those contacts and relationships merited further investigation? Would you be outraged if you learned the intelligence community had used FISA warrants or informants to uncover the facts?
None of this means that the FBI or any other American agency hasn’t committed acts of misconduct. American agencies often make mistakes or overstep their bounds, even in the most valid of investigations. Nor does it mean that there weren’t partisans, like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who may well have improperly put their thumbs on the scales. These concerns are worth investigating. Expanding the existing inspector-general’s investigation of potential FISA abuse into a wider probe of FBI conduct during the Trump administration is a prudent and necessary step.
At the same time, however, it’s necessary to discount and disregard much of the the hysterical language that’s dominating talk radio and entire segments on Fox News. There is nothing inherently scandalous about using informants when investigating a presidential campaign, nor about seeking FISA warrants. Republican candidates and their campaigns are just as subject to the rule of law as Democrats, and it’s no less legitimate to investigate Trump than it was to investigate Hillary Clinton. Proving that the FBI investigated various Trump-campaign officials (even using informants or surveillance orders) is a long, long way from proving the FBI did anything wrong.
In short, the Russia investigation has always been necessary, and it’s not over.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smokestack
fake news
fake news
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
Can't be fake news. Its
Can't be fake news. Its been the top story here for days:
http://www.foxnews.com/
The GOP is demanding answers.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
https://twitter.com/Comey
https://twitter.com/Comey/status/999294071683268609
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/999289140700237824
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
.
.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Sun so hot, clouds so low
Late for supper>Spygate>Eep
Late for supper>Spygate>Eep Hour
I can hardly wait for the Video release!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Strangha
Spy is the wrong term, and
Spy is the wrong term, and plays into the PR wishes of Orange Mussolini's team.
The person was a law enforcement agent from the federal government sent in to investigate and monitor the Trump campaign's ties to the Russian government, possible connections that were apparent enough for high ranking officials to determine that sending in an investigative agent was an appropriate action.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Jelly roll
I guess Donny Brasco was a
I guess Donny Brasco was a spy....the stupidity is amazing..
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
“there’s no way [Trump] gets
“there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Peter Strzok to Lisa Page (counsel and confidant to the bureau’s No. 2 official, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe)
Denial isn't just a river in the Amazon.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
Thom is such a good little
Thom is such a good little Trumpkin.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
Thom sides with traitors.
Thom sides with traitors. Thom is a traitor. He should addressed accordingly as Traitor Thom.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
“I’m worried about what
“I’m worried about what happens if HRC is elected...everything Sanders said about Clinton is true. This is clear and utter bias by the media
especially the NYTIMES, WAPO, and CNN who if you look at all of them have large donors for Clinton."
-peter strzok
Cherry picking is easy, Thom.
Yes, a Reasonable Prosecutor Would Have Ordered an Investigation of the Trump Campaign
By DAVID FRENCH
May 22, 2018 4:54 PM
I simply don’t know if Mueller has any “goods” on Trump or his campaign. He has obviously exposed a troubling degree of real and alleged criminal misconduct surrounding Trump, but he has not yet exposed evidence of actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. To the extent that I have a view on the ultimate outcome of his investigation, I’m skeptical that it will find that Trump or campaign officials actively conspired with Russians. The best investigative journalists in the world have been attacking this story for more than a year, with the help of a White House that leaks like a sieve. Yet no substantial evidence of campaign collusion — legal or otherwise — has emerged.
At the same time, however, I find the notion that the Russia investigation itself was corrupt from the beginning to be so bizarre as to border on fantastical. There was amplereason to investigate whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russians.
Consider what we know, now widely verified through bipartisan sources.
We know that at the very least the Russian government engaged in a disruption operation to sow discord and chaos in the 2016 election. The CIA, NSA, FBI, and the Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee agree that this disruption operation morphed into an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.
At the same time that Russia was attempting to help Trump, the candidate had surrounded himself with a constellation of advisers who possessed problematic ties with the Putin regime. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, had long been on the payroll of Putin allies, receiving millions of dollars in compensation for his work on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. One of Trump’s closest military advisers, Michael Flynn, had received tens of thousands of dollars in compensation from Kremlin-affiliated sources. One of the campaign’s foreign-policy advisers, Carter Page, had been actively recruited by Russian intelligence (to his credit, he apparently rebuffed those advances) and had long sought business relationships in Russia.
And that’s not all, not by a long shot. We also know that Kremlin-connected Russians reached out to the Trump campaign, and that key members of the campaign team were enthusiastic about receiving Russian help.
Donald Trump Jr. responded positively to a direct invitation to collude with Russia, taking a meeting with a Russian lawyer after being promised information that could hurt Hillary Clinton as part of an official Russian effort to help Trump. Trump brought Manafort and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the meeting.
Campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had contact with a Russian-affiliated professor who told him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He received this information months before the first WikiLeaks releases rocked the Clinton campaign, and he later lied to the FBI about it.
Trump confidante Roger Stone apparently had advance knowledge that WikiLeaks had obtained damaging emails from John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee.
Notice that none of the evidence above connects to the so-called Steele Dossier — the document at the heart of what has been called “FISA-gate.” I agree wholeheartedly with Trey Gowdy. The Russia investigation would exist without the dossier:
The dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos’s meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn’t have anything to do with obstruction of justice.
But to the extent that the dossier matters — or the extent that the Carter Page FISA warrant matters — the proponents of the FISA-gate theory have not proven their case. Republican-appointed judges approved the warrant application and subsequent renewals. A Trump appointeesigned off on the application to extend surveillance of Page. As for the merits of the application and its renewals, the public has only seen the smallest, most selective quotations from those documents. No one can make a reasonable assessment of their legality on the basis of publicly available information.
Compounding all of these red flags, Trump officials have routinely hidden their Russian contacts and concealed their motivations behind a bodyguard of lies. Trump misled Americaabout his reasons for firing James Comey, Michael Flynn lied to the FBI even about non-criminalcontacts with Russia, and various administration officials have issued a truly extraordinary number of false or materially incomplete statements about their communications and actions.
Now, I ask you, fellow conservatives: If the parties were reversed, and the Clinton campaign had engaged in similar conduct — even as it was known that Russians were trying to help Hillary win the election — would you believe those contacts and relationships merited further investigation? Would you be outraged if you learned the intelligence community had used FISA warrants or informants to uncover the facts?
None of this means that the FBI or any other American agency hasn’t committed acts of misconduct. American agencies often make mistakes or overstep their bounds, even in the most valid of investigations. Nor does it mean that there weren’t partisans, like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who may well have improperly put their thumbs on the scales. These concerns are worth investigating. Expanding the existing inspector-general’s investigation of potential FISA abuse into a wider probe of FBI conduct during the Trump administration is a prudent and necessary step.
At the same time, however, it’s necessary to discount and disregard much of the the hysterical language that’s dominating talk radio and entire segments on Fox News. There is nothing inherently scandalous about using informants when investigating a presidential campaign, nor about seeking FISA warrants. Republican candidates and their campaigns are just as subject to the rule of law as Democrats, and it’s no less legitimate to investigate Trump than it was to investigate Hillary Clinton. Proving that the FBI investigated various Trump-campaign officials (even using informants or surveillance orders) is a long, long way from proving the FBI did anything wrong.
In short, the Russia investigation has always been necessary, and it’s not over.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/russia-investigation-robert-muell...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: gypsy tailwind
Thom - You might as well have
Thom - You might as well have said Jeff Bezos isn't just a river in the Amazon.
You're just a 7 Layer derp word salad.
But, it seems to work for you and some people around here,
just don't give a shit.
Keep on truckin'...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Highnote
Traitors gonna trait . ...
Traitors gonna trait . ...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
Yep... I also consider the
Yep... I also consider the 'NO HILLARY AT ALL COST' traitors as well.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
pretty sure there's agents in
pretty sure there's agents in every campaign...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Jelly roll
He is a crook Thom...always
He is a crook Thom...always has been..crooks get investigated...end of story.. u backed a crap bucket ..it happens ..cut ties bud
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
Thom
Thom
you were a good little boy for a bit and had reduced your blind reactionary deflecting inane delusional but loyal retorts
please just post about your seating arrangements and some good Grateful Dead music and STFU on all the rest
Your orange Mussolini does not believe in the Free speech
The worlds biggest ego (and crook) really has several screws loose
but at least he's anti-democratic and anti-democracy so you have that going for you
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Fly
must. resist. piling. on.....
must. resist. piling. on.....
THOM LOVES ALEX JONES!!
damn. I tried, sorry
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Johnny D
GOP buying time for their
GOP buying time for their failing/flailing President and their upcoming mid-term elections.
DOJ buying time for their Special Counsel to get as much of the investigation completed before heads roll.
^EDIT: before more heads roll....
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: (~)};)StealYourFace
http://thehill.com/policy
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/389250-white-house-lawyer-br...
Emmet Flood, Trumps defense attorney drops in...
seriously, WTF
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Fly
So who do you think will be
So who do you think will be viewed worse in the history books- Nixon or Trump?
What a shitty administration we have with this fake POTUS
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: (~)};)StealYourFace
future history books will be
future history books will be banned...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Fly
451
451
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino