The Constitutional Crisis is Here!

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 03:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it doesn't.  None of the information about the investigation into the Russian connection came out before the election.  Yet if there was even a hint of a reason to reopen the investigation into Clintons emails it was made public.

The FBI had information that one of Trumps campaign advisers was bragging about getting access to Clintons emails from the Russians.  How could they NOT investigate this?

Really nothing came out about Manafort before the election? I'm sure I could find several more instances before the General Election as well, but why bother?

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 03:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Really nothing came out about Manafort before the election? I'm sure I could find several more instances before the General Election as well, but why bother?

Why bother?  Really?  I guess that is one big benefit of living in an echo chamber.  People tell you what to believe and you don't have to look anything up yourself.

The stuff that was coming out about Manafort during the campaign involved investigations by Caymen Island officials, prior lawsuits, and other dealings with Ukranian and Russian oligarchs.  The FBI was not involved in any of that.  The media was digging it all up because of the way Trump was fawning over Putin.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why bother?  Really?  I guess that is one big benefit of living in an echo chamber.  People tell you what to believe and you don't have to look anything up yourself.

The stuff that was coming out about Manafort during the campaign involved investigations by Caymen Island officials, prior lawsuits, and other dealings with Ukranian and Russian oligarchs.  The FBI was not involved in any of that.  The media was digging it all up because of the way Trump was fawning over Putin.

As I said why bother, cause you know none of that information was obtained by members of the FBI or DOJ, but yeah, silly echo chamber states nothing came out about the Trump Campaign and Russia prior to the election.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 04:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said why bother, cause you know none of that information was obtained by members of the FBI or DOJ, but yeah, silly echo chamber states nothing came out about the Trump Campaign and Russia prior to the election.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, but it is clear that there was no news about any FBI investigation released before the election.  All of the info on Manafort and his Russian connections came from ongoing investigation by officials in the Ukraine and Caymen Islands.  Those investigations had nothing to do with the FBI.

So what is your point?

Oh wait, I knw.  your point is that you are not going to look for the truth because you are going to let the echo chamber rumors control what you think.  The crooked FBI and DOJ were secretly controlling investigations in other countries just to get dirt on Trumps campaign advisor, right?

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 04:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what you are trying to say here, but it is clear that there was no news about any FBI investigation released before the election.  All of the info on Manafort and his Russian connections came from ongoing investigation by officials in the Ukraine and Caymen Islands.  Those investigations had nothing to do with the FBI.

So what is your point?

You do realize not everyone publishes the fact that they are part of the FBI don't you? Hell, they might even alert the media if it was to their benefit.

Seems kind of silly to assert the FBI had nothing to do with it, we don't know, hence calls for investigation. 

WTS, your original assertion was nothing came out about the Trump Campaign and Russia prior to the election, when that was easily shown to be a lie, you moved to source and asserting you know the FBI had nothing to do with any information obtained.

So like I said: Why bother. And with that I will take my advice. 

[SunsetBengal]

Another great opinion piece.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/388978-growing-signs-of-a-counterintelligence-operation-deployed-against-trumps

[quote It may be true that President Trump illegally conspired with Russia and was so good at covering it up he’s managed to outwit our best intel and media minds who've searched for irrefutable evidence for two years. (We still await special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings.)
But there’s a growing appearance of alleged wrongdoing equally as insidious, if not more so, because it implies widespread misuse of America’s intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
Here are eight signs pointing to a counterintelligence operation deployed against Trump for political reasons.

Code name
The operation reportedly had at least one code name that was leaked to The New York Times: “Crossfire Hurricane.”
Wiretap fever
Secret surveillance was conducted on no fewer than seven Trump associates: chief strategist Stephen Bannon; lawyer Michael Cohen; national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn; adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner; campaign chairman Paul Manafort; and campaign foreign policy advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.
The FBI reportedly applied for a secret warrant in June 2016 to monitor Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos and Flynn. If true, it means the FBI targeted Flynn six months before his much-debated conversation with Russia’s ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
The FBI applied four times to wiretap Page after he became a Trump campaign adviser starting in July 2016. Page’s office is connected to Trump Tower and he reports having spent “many hours in Trump Tower.”
CNN reported that Manafort was wiretapped before and after the election “including during a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Trump.” Manafort reportedly has a residence in Trump Tower.
---
MORE FROM SHARYL ATTKISSON
For Mueller, a question of three conflicts
Facts continue supporting Trump's decision to fire James Comey
Legal patchwork does little to keep foreign interests out of American politics
---
Electronic surveillance was used to listen in on three Trump transition officials in Trump Tower — Flynn, Bannon and Kushner — as they met in an official capacity with the United Arab Emirates’ crown prince.
The FBI also reportedly wiretapped Flynn’s phone conversation with Kislyak on Dec. 31, 2016, as part of “routine surveillance” of Kislyak.
NBC recently reported that Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, was wiretapped. NBC later corrected the story, saying Cohen was the subject of a “pen register” used to monitor phone numbers and, possibly, internet communications.

National security letters
Another controversial tool reportedly used by the FBI to obtain phone records and other documents in the investigation were national security letters, which bypass judicial approval.
Improper use of such letters has been an ongoing theme at the FBI. Reviews by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General found widespread misuse under Mueller — who was then FBI director — and said officials failed to report instances of abuses as required.

Unmasking
“Unmasking” — identifying protected names of Americans captured by government surveillance — was frequently deployed by at least four top Obama officials who have subsequently spoken out against President Trump: James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence; Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Susan Rice, former national security adviser; Sally Yates, former deputy attorney general.
Names of Americans caught communicating with monitored foreign targets must be “masked,” or hidden within government agencies, so the names cannot be misused or shared.

However, it’s been revealed that Power made near-daily unmasking requests in 2016.
Prior to that revelation, Clapper claimed ignorance. When asked if he knew of unmasking requests by any ambassador, including Power, he testified: “I don't know. Maybe it's ringing a vague bell but I'm not — I could not answer with any confidence.”
Rice admitted to asking for unmasked names of U.S. citizens in intelligence reports after initially claiming no knowledge of any such thing.

Clapper also admitted to requesting the unmasking of “Mr. Trump, his associates or any members of Congress.” Clapper and Yates admitted they also personally reviewed unmasked documents and shared unmasked material with other officials.
Changing the rules

On Dec. 15, 2016 — the same day the government listened in on Trump officials at Trump Tower — Rice reportedly unmasked the names of Bannon, Kushner and Flynn. And Clapper made a new rule allowing the National Security Agency to widely disseminate surveillance material within the government without the normal privacy protections.
Media strategy

Former CIA Director John Brennan and Clapper, two of the most integral intel officials in this ongoing controversy, have joined national news organizations where they have regular opportunities to shape the news narrative — including on the very issues under investigation.
Clapper reportedly secretly leaked salacious political opposition research against Trump to CNN in fall 2017 and later was hired as a CNN political analyst. In February, Brennan was hired as a paid analyst for MSNBC.

Leaks
There’s been a steady and apparently orchestrated campaign of leaks — some true, some false, but nearly all of them damaging to President Trump’s interests.

A few of the notable leaks include word that Flynn was wiretapped, the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” of political opposition research, then-FBI Director James Comey briefing Trump on it, private Comey conversations with Trump, Comey’s memos recording those conversations and criticizing Trump, the subpoena of Trump’s personal bank records (which proved false) and Flynn planning to testify against Trump (which also proved to be false).

Friends, informants and snoops
The FBI reportedly used one-time CIA operative Stefan Halper in 2016 as an informant to spy on Trump officials.
Another player is Comey friend Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor, who leaked Comey’s memos against Trump to The New York Times after Comey was fired. We later learned that Richman actually worked for the FBI under a status called “Special Government Employee.”

The FBI used former reporter Glenn Simpson, his political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele to compile allegations against Trump, largely from Russian sources, which were distributed to the press and used as part of wiretap applications.

These eight features of a counterintelligence operation are only the pieces we know. It can be assumed there’s much we don’t yet know. And it may help explain why there’s so much material that the Department of Justice hasn’t easily handed over to congressional investigators.

Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program, “Full Measure.”][/quote]

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 04:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, your original assertion was nothing came out about the Trump Campaign and Russia prior to the election, when that was easily shown to be a lie, you moved to source and asserting you know the FBI had nothing to do with any information obtained.

So like I said: Why bother. And with that I will take my advice. 

Why bother?  Maybe to keep yourself from looking stupid.  If you had "bothered" to read my original assertion you would see there was no lie.

(05-23-2018, 03:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  None of the information about the investigation into the Russian connection came out before the election. 

But I guess that is what they call "easily shown to be a lie" in the echo chamber.  

Keep taking your own advice.  It makes it much easier for me.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 04:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Another great opinion piece.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/388978-growing-signs-of-a-counterintelligence-operation-deployed-against-trumps

Looks like an investigation to me.  

Papodopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat about getting access to Clintons emails from Russia in May of 2016.  That is what started the investigation.

So where is the "insidious wrongdoing"?

[hollodero]

(05-23-2018, 04:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Another great opinion piece.

Not really, no.

Quote:Here are eight signs pointing to a counterintelligence operation deployed against Trump for political reasons.

Eight. OK then. Just keep in mind the premise "deployed for political reasons". 8 things pointing to that.

Quote:Secret surveillance was conducted on no fewer than seven Trump associates: chief strategist Stephen Bannon; lawyer Michael Cohen; national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn; adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner; campaign chairman Paul Manafort; and campaign foreign policy advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

So. Now does that prove "political purposes" or does it rather prove Trump chose a bunch of very dubious advisers? You can say it's politics, but there's no evidence supporting that, so that's just an assumption - based on desire. I'd say the latter is undeniably true though.

Michael Cohen is in deep legal problems, and the more we know the more obvious is that he's not clean.
Paul Manafort got indicted and faces a lifetime in jail. It's not the FBI's fault trump hired a guy like that.
Carter Page was in the FBI's crosshairs loooong before Trump. Not the FBI's fault Trump chose someone already on their list.
George Papadopulos pleaded guilty. And bragged about Russian connections in a way that had to draw attention.
Michael Flynn now is a witness for the prosecution. Also, guilty plea. Also, undeclared foreign agent.
And Kushner? He just made a sweet exortion deal with Qatar, he can't get a security clearance, he met with several russian bankers, including sanctioned ones, he has so much shade surrounding him that the FBI would have to deliberately look away to not take interest.

So there's objectively a there there, in almost all cases. Bannon, I don't know why that was, but can one really argue a political motivation when 6 of 7 surveilled people are clearly or at least likely involved in several crimes. I say one can't.

Quote:Electronic surveillance was used to listen in on three Trump transition officials in Trump Tower — Flynn, Bannon and Kushner — as they met in an official capacity with the United Arab Emirates’ crown prince.
The FBI also reportedly wiretapped Flynn’s phone conversation with Kislyak on Dec. 31, 2016, as part of “routine surveillance” of Kislyak.
NBC recently reported that Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, was wiretapped. NBC later corrected the story, saying Cohen was the subject of a “pen register” used to monitor phone numbers and, possibly, internet communications.

Where's the political purpose? Getting caught up phoning the Russian ambassador who is wiretapped. Of course he is. One can also safely assume that the FBI takes an interest in those Arab crown princes. And in Flynn and Kushner. 

Quote:Another controversial tool reportedly used by the FBI to obtain phone records and other documents in the investigation were national security letters, which bypass judicial approval.
Improper use of such letters has been an ongoing theme at the FBI. Reviews by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General found widespread misuse under Mueller — who was then FBI director — and said officials failed to report instances of abuses as required.

I don't know about the merit of that claim, but for the argument itself, this part doesn't work. It clearly states Mueller used that practice all the time. So using it now has nothing to do with Trump in particular. That's just logic 101. Where's the political purpose?

Quote:“Unmasking” — identifying protected names of Americans captured by government surveillance — was frequently deployed by at least four top Obama officials who have subsequently spoken out against President Trump: James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence; Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Susan Rice, former national security adviser; Sally Yates, former deputy attorney general.

So, people who were involved in lawful unmasking processes spoke out against Trump. What does the one have to do with the other? Nothing, that's what.

Quote:However, it’s been revealed that Power made near-daily unmasking requests in 2016.
Prior to that revelation, Clapper claimed ignorance. When asked if he knew of unmasking requests by any ambassador, including Power, he testified: “I don't know. Maybe it's ringing a vague bell but I'm not — I could not answer with any confidence.”
Rice admitted to asking for unmasked names of U.S. citizens in intelligence reports after initially claiming no knowledge of any such thing.

Clapper also admitted to requesting the unmasking of “Mr. Trump, his associates or any members of Congress.” Clapper and Yates admitted they also personally reviewed unmasked documents and shared unmasked material with other officials.

They did nothing inproper or out of the ordinary. From what I know at least, and I haven't heard about any measures taken against those officials for misconduct. Even if they did something not by the book though, that does not mean an FBI investigation was started for political purposes. They unmasked some folks.

Quote:Former CIA Director John Brennan and Clapper, two of the most integral intel officials in this ongoing controversy, have joined national news organizations where they have regular opportunities to shape the news narrative — including on the very issues under investigation.
Clapper reportedly secretly leaked salacious political opposition research against Trump to CNN in fall 2017 and later was hired as a CNN political analyst. In February, Brennan was hired as a paid analyst for MSNBC.

So these two got media appearances. That doesn't prove an investigation was started for political purposes. In fact, these things have nothing to do with each other, unless of course you accuse Clapper of starting a fake investigation so he could cash in as CNN contributor on that subject afterwards. But no one really would want to believe that, right. OK Brennan, sure, but not Clapper :)

Quote:There’s been a steady and apparently orchestrated campaign of leaks — some true, some false, but nearly all of them damaging to President Trump’s interests.
A few of the notable leaks include word that Flynn was wiretapped, the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” of political opposition research, then-FBI Director James Comey briefing Trump on it, private Comey conversations with Trump, Comey’s memos recording those conversations and criticizing Trump, the subpoena of Trump’s personal bank records (which proved false) and Flynn planning to testify against Trump (which also proved to be false).

Yep, many leaks, mainly about his daily conduct and most coming from his own inner circle. And sure, quite a lot of other leaks too, no denying that. Yet unexplainably, there were zero leaks about the investigation before the election, not even about its very existence. Zero.
So, also zero evidence that an investigation's deployment was politically motivated.

Quote:The FBI reportedly used one-time CIA operative Stefan Halper in 2016 as an informant to spy on Trump officials.
Another player is Comey friend Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor, who leaked Comey’s memos against Trump to The New York Times after Comey was fired. We later learned that Richman actually worked for the FBI under a status called “Special Government Employee.”

The FBI used former reporter Glenn Simpson, his political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele to compile allegations against Trump, largely from Russian sources, which were distributed to the press and used as part of wiretap applications.

So the FBI uses informants. That proves the FBI is the FBI doing FBI stuff. And only that.
That the investigation doesn't stem from the Steele dossier is common knowledge by now. It also isn't a result of Comey's memos. So this point is completely moot.

Quote:These eight features of a counterintelligence operation are only the pieces we know. It can be assumed there’s much we don’t yet know. And it may help explain why there’s so much material that the Department of Justice hasn’t easily handed over to congressional investigators.

Uh, uh, I know that one! Because everything that makes it to Congress immediately is leaked to the media. In more severe cases, Nunes goes through Trump to declassify. Sure, hand over all kinds of sensitive information to these guys, or else you're clearly guilty of hiding something... :)

[SunsetBengal]

(05-23-2018, 04:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Looks like an investigation to me.  

Papodopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat about getting access to Clintons emails from Russia in May of 2016.  That is what started the investigation.

So where is the "insidious wrongdoing"?

You keep saying that, but I really don't think it is what you think it is.

Quote:Despite being “so alarmed” by young Papadopoulos’s barroom braggadocio with the Australian diplomat, and his claimed Russia connections, there is no indication that the Obama Justice Department and FBI ever sought a FISA-court warrant to spy on him.

No, the FISA warrant was sought for Carter Page, after his trip to Moscow. The trip the [i]Times[/i] used to say incited the Trump-Russia probe.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 05:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You keep saying that, but I really don't think it is what you think it is.

You need to get your story straight.

The last one you posted said this

"The FBI reportedly applied for a secret warrant in June 2016 to monitor Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos and Flynn."


So which is it? 

[SunsetBengal]

(05-23-2018, 06:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You need to get your story straight.

The last one you posted said this

"The FBI reportedly applied for a secret warrant in June 2016 to monitor Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos and Flynn."


So which is it? 

My story?  I didn't write any of those stories.  I merely post them to show that there are a variety of different opinions on the matter.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 06:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My story?  I didn't write any of those stories.  I merely post them to show that there are a variety of different opinions on the matter.

These are not opinions.  They are facts.  They either got a warrant to monitor Papadopoulos or they didn't.

[Belsnickel]

Interesting weigh in from Judge Napolitano.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/29/napolitano_trumps_spygate_claims_seem_to_be_baseless_no_evidence_of_that.html

[Griever]

(05-30-2018, 08:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interesting weigh in from Judge Napolitano.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/29/napolitano_trumps_spygate_claims_seem_to_be_baseless_no_evidence_of_that.html

i think everyone with a working brain knew it was baseless with no evidence

so basically everyone aside from his base knew

[Nebuchadnezzar]

There is a Constitutional Crisis but not the way you think.

I believe the Obama Administration and the FBI planted spies into the campaign not only to spy on the campaign but it will be found that the spy/informant was sent in to create evidence, plant stories and implicate Trump just in case he won the Election.

In other words, the FBI sent a spy to commit crimes in the name of Trump and without Trumps knowledge so he could be impeached and possibly jailed once it was found out, lol.

It's conspiracy theory time folks, let's get down and dirty, lol.

[JustWinBaby]

tl:dr.....you know who you are

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pretty much all of it.  It is written from a completely one sided point of view.  Never mind that many Americans feel like the entire Special Counsel's Investigation is a farce, based upon plots and lies by jaded intelligence departments.

I'm late here, but most polling shows broad support for the probe.

With regards to the OP, Trey Gowdy came out yesterday and claimed the FBI's use of informants in investigating the crimes of numerous Trump campaign staffers was standard practice and, as far as he can tell at the time, conducted properly. 

[hollodero]

(05-31-2018, 11:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm late here, but most polling shows broad support for the probe.

With regards to the OP, Trey Gowdy came out yesterday and claimed the FBI's use of informants in investigating the crimes of numerous Trump campaign staffers was standard practice and, as far as he can tell at the time, conducted properly. 

Oh no! The deep state democrats got to Gowdy! Who would have thought he's one of them too.

[fredtoast]

(05-31-2018, 11:39 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh no! The deep state democrats got to Gowdy! Who would have thought he's one of them too.

Almost exactly what Giuliani said.  he claimed that Gowdy was "Drinking the Koolaid."