Intelligence community shared details into investigation of Trump with Hillarys campaign

a reply to: Gryphon66

source please

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: shooterbrody

It is not against any law for trumps aids to talk to russians
it is against the law for the ic to use american citizens data picked up in such a manor

Not if those American citizens are under investigation as agents of a foreign power.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Okay.

Let's turn this around, for those who think that Mooks use of the pronoun "us" ... why do you think he was referring to the Clinton campaign?

Particularly given that in response to a specific question that the female interviewer (again, I don't know her name) on F&F asked "What did Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it" he responded that the information had come from Slate.

Because maybe she did learn info about the computer that they were referencing here from slate.

Or maybe he is lying here because he realizes admitting hillary was informed about classified info that she them tweeted would be bad for her.

This is irrelevant to him saying the IC told us" about Trump people being on wiretaps that were on the russians.

a reply to: UKTruth

He's stating his opinion as fact based on what he knows.

That's what most people in the media do on their shows.

If he had made incredibly specific remarks that included info he would not or should not be privy to, I'd say that would be worth investigation, but as it stands it's meaningless.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

source please

The actual video.

Perhaps you should watch it?

Also, I provided a transcript which has been verified by Grambler.

That's not what Mook said.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Okay.

Let's turn this around, for those who think that Mooks use of the pronoun "us" ... why do you think he was referring to the Clinton campaign?

Particularly given that in response to a specific question that the female interviewer (again, I don't know her name) on F&F asked "What did Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it" he responded that the information had come from Slate.

Because maybe she did learn info about the computer that they were referencing here from slate.

Or maybe he is lying here because he realizes admitting hillary was informed about classified info that she them tweeted would be bad for her.

This is irrelevant to him saying the IC told us" about Trump people being on wiretaps that were on the russians.

Maybe.

There's no evidence of that. The most we can say is that whoever made that tweet for Hillary had prior access to the Slate article. In fact, if you read them, the first lines are basically the same.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He's stating his opinion as fact based on what he knows.

That's what most people in the media do on their shows.

If he had made incredibly specific remarks that included info he would not or should not be privy to, I'd say that would be worth investigation, but as it stands it's meaningless.

Yes, I agree on that.. most people in the media do state things as facts when they don't know they are facts.
To be fair to Mook though, one of the quotes I linked from the Fox story is not correct.. he did say 'apparently' when discussing the meetings beyond the Russian Ambassador, but Fox deleted that word.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He's stating his opinion as fact based on what he knows.

That's what most people in the media do on their shows.

If he had made incredibly specific remarks that included info he would not or should not be privy to, I'd say that would be worth investigation, but as it stands it's meaningless.

Yes, I agree on that.. most people in the media do state things as facts when they don't know they are facts.
To be fair to Mook though, one of the quotes I linked from the Fox story is not correct.. he did say 'apparently' when discussing the meetings beyond the Russian Ambassador, but Fox deleted that word.

Well, there ya go.

Fox was a bit disingenuous in their reporting on this matter.

I think the origin of the "Mook said the IC gave the Clinton campaign intel" was The Gateway Pundit.

Does anyone know the group that created the "BREAKING NEWS" video?

Talk about a piece of fake news, sheesh.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This is a good conversation.

I think this is a huge point though.

Breitbart reports NYPD sources told them that they will be making arrests for sex crimes based off of weiners computer.

Do you think then Sean spicer would say "The NYPD told us they will be making arrests for sex crimes based off of weiners computer" based merely off of reading the breitbart report?

I don't think so. Spicers comment here means one of two things.

1. he means the NYPD told all of us ie the public, that they will be making arrests, or

2. Someone from the NYPD talked personally to spicer or someone on Trumps team.

Therefore, I don't think mook is referring to the public when he says "us".

a reply to: Grambler

I really don't follow you.

Why would there be any comparison between what two different people said on two different issues?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Without evidence of a crime it is
read the law
either way it is still illegal to leak it

they do not get to fish it is illegal

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Okay.

Let's turn this around, for those who think that Mooks use of the pronoun "us" ... why do you think he was referring to the Clinton campaign?

Particularly given that in response to a specific question that the female interviewer (again, I don't know her name) on F&F asked "What did Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it" he responded that the information had come from Slate.

Because maybe she did learn info about the computer that they were referencing here from slate.

Or maybe he is lying here because he realizes admitting hillary was informed about classified info that she them tweeted would be bad for her.

This is irrelevant to him saying the IC told us" about Trump people being on wiretaps that were on the russians.

Maybe.

There's no evidence of that. The most we can say is that whoever made that tweet for Hillary had prior access to the Slate article. In fact, if you read them, the first lines are basically the same.

But even you are speculating. How do you know someone from the clinton camp didn't release that iinfo to slate to help them write the article? none of us know what happened.

But that really has nothing to do with the OP

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I think the origin of the "Mook said the IC gave the Clinton campaign intel" was The Gateway Pundit.

Does anyone know the group that created the "BREAKING NEWS" video?

Talk about a piece of fake news, sheesh.

Can you link to that video? I still have not seen it.

Thanks.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

I really don't follow you.

Why would there be any comparison between what two different people said on two different issues?

The issues don't matter. I am pointing out no one would say "the intelligence community told us" based on an anonymous sourced newspaper article they read.

a reply to: introvert



Pay close attention to what the narrator says before the "quote" from Fox and Friends.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

I really don't follow you.

Why would there be any comparison between what two different people said on two different issues?

The issues don't matter. I am pointing out no one would say "the intelligence community told us" based on an anonymous sourced newspaper article they read.

The issues don't matter???

Okay.

Mook said in the same sentence that the info on the wiretaps had been widely reported for months.

The SAME sentence.

It's quite clear what he meant.

You're making general statements about what you think "people" would say.

I'm talking about what Mook SAID in the interview.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Are you serious?

Yes, because there are other facts pointing to her actually
being behind the fake news to begin with.

Kind of like how she actually wanted Donald Duck on the streets,
directing use of non candidate specific PAC money, which was
illegal, And she was caught doing that.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Are you serious?

Yes, because there are other facts pointing to her actually
being behind the fake news to begin with.

Kind of like how she actually wanted Donald Duck on the streets,
directing use of non candidate specific PAC money, which was
illegal, And she was caught doing that.

Start a thread on your beliefs.

I'm addressing what Mook said in the Fox and Friends interview, which is backed up by the wording and the timing of both the Slate article and Clinton's tweet.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

He's stating his opinion as fact based on what he knows.

That's what most people in the media do on their shows.

If he had made incredibly specific remarks that included info he would not or should not be privy to, I'd say that would be worth investigation, but as it stands it's meaningless.

Yes, I agree on that.. most people in the media do state things as facts when they don't know they are facts.
To be fair to Mook though, one of the quotes I linked from the Fox story is not correct.. he did say 'apparently' when discussing the meetings beyond the Russian Ambassador, but Fox deleted that word.

Well, there ya go.

Fox was a bit disingenuous in their reporting on this matter.

Yes that is true, as was Robby Mook.
At such a time as this, he would be wise not to use the situation to spread propaganda, which he did in at least two instances.