Intelligence community shared details into investigation of Trump with Hillarys campaign

a reply to: SBMcG

I think this is why many of us look at the Russian collusion reports with a healthy dose of skepticism until proven otherwise. It looks (or possibly even being made to look) as if selective leaks are being disseminated to media to cause disruption to the administration. Claims are being made, but no evidence is being brought forth. Considering all this, why would the intelligence agencies go to a SECRET COURT to get a SECRET WARRANT, then discuss an ACTIVE investigation with an opposition political campaign a few short months from election day, then Mook talks to media about a SECRET but ACTIVE investigation by intelligence agencies? None of that makes sense unless you are engaging in a political assassination within the court of public opinion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, that's what he said, your interpretation is completely skewed. He said nothing about any group he was part of, and he's very clear that "us" is the American public as he follows up with "that's what's been reported widely" in the same sentence. We have been told that for several months ... we the American public.

No, he didn't say or imply that he was part of any group other than the public.

Did he say "during the campaign" or "as part of a security briefing"? Nope.

Did you listen to the interview? The context is clear.

Other than that believe what you wish. Your entire thread is predicated on something that didn't happen; you read second hand biased reports, got excited, and made the thread.

Anyone can listen to the interview ... anyone interested in the facts of this matter should do so.

So your claim is that he meant the american public when he said "us".

If thats the case, can you provide any evidence of the intelligence community telling the american public that

"There was a wiretap of Russian agents, and the agents were communicating with Trump staff ... that's why they were picked up."

Did they hold a press conference, or did they put out some sort of official document that said this?

I am sure you will have no problem providing this seeing as how they told the American public.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Gosh, that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then.

Do you have any proof of what the Candidates received in their briefings?

The briefings will not include information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods or current covert operations, both officials added.

www.reuters.com...

Methods, such as wiretaps, would not be discussed.

a reply to: Grambler

The media has reported on this issue for quite some time now, using sources within the IC as the basis for their reporting.

At worst, what we can say is that Mook may have misspoke and in no way did he imply that the IC was communicating with the campaign directly.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Gosh, that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then.

Do you have any proof of what the Candidates received in their briefings?

The briefings will not include information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods or current covert operations, both officials added.

www.reuters.com...

Methods, such as wiretaps, would not be discussed.

That was quite an interesting part of that report, suggesting that the Trump investigations would not be part of the briefings in the first place, which brings us right back to the original issue... how did Mook know so much even if he was in the briefings (which there are no reports that he was, but reports to the contrary).. he is very specific in his allegations.

a reply to: Grambler

Sure ... remember the New York Times article we were discussing from January 19, 2017?

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The media has reported on this issue for quite some time now, using sources within the IC as the basis for their reporting.

At worst, what we can say is that Mook may have misspoke and in no way did he imply that the IC was communicating with the campaign directly.

But mook was making some pretty damn specific claims all through that interview that would seem that he has access to some information. He was saying these are "facts" not that he heard the reported by anonymous sources, when he had every opportunity to.

But I suppose you could be right.

However, why is the standard so hi for looking at the exact specifics of what Trumps says by the media, but Mook claim here can be written off as a misstatement.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The media has reported on this issue for quite some time now, using sources within the IC as the basis for their reporting.

At worst, what we can say is that Mook may have misspoke and in no way did he imply that the IC was communicating with the campaign directly.

It is possible he was trying to spread propaganda by using words that were more definitive than he just heard it from the press.. but he should be questioned to find out, because his statements are specific.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The media has reported on this issue for quite some time now, using sources within the IC as the basis for their reporting.

At worst, what we can say is that Mook may have misspoke and in no way did he imply that the IC was communicating with the campaign directly.

However, why is the standard so hi for looking at the exact specifics of what Trumps says by the media, but Mook claim here can be written off as a misstatement.

I must admit, I did think the same thing when I read that.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Gosh, that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then.

Do you have any proof of what the Candidates received in their briefings?

The briefings will not include information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods or current covert operations, both officials added.

www.reuters.com...

Methods, such as wiretaps, would not be discussed.

So you know what wasn't in the briefings ... information on wiretaps.

LIke I said (and you quoted) "that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then."

originally posted by: Grambler

However, why is the standard so hi for looking at the exact specifics of what Trumps says by the media, but Mook claim here can be written off as a misstatement.

Red herring. How you think people interpret Trump is not even remotely part of this issue.

Mook said, very clearly that we know that the Russians were wiretapped because it has been widely reported, and it has been, for months.

Occam's Razor applies.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Gosh, that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then.

Do you have any proof of what the Candidates received in their briefings?

The briefings will not include information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods or current covert operations, both officials added.

www.reuters.com...

Methods, such as wiretaps, would not be discussed.

So you know what wasn't in the briefings ... information on wiretaps.

LIke I said (and you quoted) "that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then."

The briefings will not include information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods or current covert operations, both officials added.

I suppose the 'officials' could have been making it up, which you always need to watch out for with the MSM.

a reply to: Grambler

But mook was making some pretty damn specific claims all through that interview that would seem that he has access to some information. He was saying these are "facts" not that he heard the reported by anonymous sources, when he had every opportunity to.

Can you quote the specific claims he made that cannot be found to have been revealed by the media earlier?

However, why is the standard so hi for looking at the exact specifics of what Trumps says by the media, but Mook claim here can be written off as a misstatement.

I don't think he did misspeak. I said at worst that was what he did. What I think he did was use the term "use" in a generalized sense and it is being blown out-of-proportion.

No matter. He did not say what has been claimed.

As far as the "standard" you speak of, I think we all should pay close attention to how and what people say but it is not relevant to this.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

However, why is the standard so hi for looking at the exact specifics of what Trumps says by the media, but Mook claim here can be written off as a misstatement.

Red herring. How you think people interpret Trump is not even remotely part of this issue.

Mook said, very clearly that we know that the Russians were wiretapped because it has been widely reported, and it has been, for months.

Occam's Razor applies.

It was you who said he misspoke.

Hang on... no, it was Introvert.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Gosh, that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then.

Do you have any proof of what the Candidates received in their briefings?

The briefings will not include information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods or current covert operations, both officials added.

www.reuters.com...

Methods, such as wiretaps, would not be discussed.

So you know what wasn't in the briefings ... information on wiretaps.

LIke I said (and you quoted) "that intel must not have been part of the security briefings then."

The briefings will not include information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods or current covert operations, both officials added.

I suppose the 'officials' could have been making it up, which you always need to watch out for with the MSM.

I've said that the security briefings must not have included the intel, which is what the cited quote says.

What's your point here?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

However, why is the standard so hi for looking at the exact specifics of what Trumps says by the media, but Mook claim here can be written off as a misstatement.

Red herring. How you think people interpret Trump is not even remotely part of this issue.

Mook said, very clearly that we know that the Russians were wiretapped because it has been widely reported, and it has been, for months.

Occam's Razor applies.

It was you who said he misspoke.

Quote it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Sure ... remember the New York Times article we were discussing from January 19, 2017?

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

Thats not what mook said. he said he knew this because the intelligence community told us (the american public)
that "There was a wiretap of Russian agents, and the agents were communicating with Trump staff ... that's why they were picked up."

He didn't say "Anonymous sources have told reporters that there were intercepted communications..."

This is leaked info to a newspaper, not the intelligence community telling the American people something.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

However, why is the standard so hi for looking at the exact specifics of what Trumps says by the media, but Mook claim here can be written off as a misstatement.

Red herring. How you think people interpret Trump is not even remotely part of this issue.

Mook said, very clearly that we know that the Russians were wiretapped because it has been widely reported, and it has been, for months.

Occam's Razor applies.

It was you who said he misspoke.

Quote it.

It was Introvert - apologies.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Sure ... remember the New York Times article we were discussing from January 19, 2017?

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

Thats not what mook said. he said he knew this because the intelligence community told us (the american public)
that "There was a wiretap of Russian agents, and the agents were communicating with Trump staff ... that's why they were picked up."

He didn't say "Anonymous sources have told reporters that there were intercepted communications..."

This is leaked info to a newspaper, not the intelligence community telling the American people something.

Where did the information come from that was leaked to the Times?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The media has reported on this issue for quite some time now, using sources within the IC as the basis for their reporting.

At worst, what we can say is that Mook may have misspoke and in no way did he imply that the IC was communicating with the campaign directly.

It is possible he was trying to spread propaganda by using words that were more definitive than he just heard it from the press.. but he should be questioned to find out, because his statements are specific.

Can you please provide me with a specific statement he made that brings up an issue that has not been reported on by the press?