It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI’s Own General Counsel Suspected of Being An Anti-Trump Leaker

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
"Sources" close to the possibilities say that there's an ongoing Attorney General investigation into the "possibility" that a high ranking lawyer in the FBI may have leaked damning info to the "press".

The target is James A. Baker who has been active since the 1990s Clinton Administration.

The article goes off on multiple tangents, but says it's "possible" an announcement might be forthcoming soon.

Well? Connect the invisible dots.

FBI’s Own General Counsel Suspected of Being An Anti-Trump Leaker

FBI General Counsel James A. Baker is purportedly under a Department of Justice criminal investigation for allegedly leaking classified national security information to the media, according to multiple government officials close to the probe who spoke with Sara Carter, an investigative reporter.

The FBI told Carter that the bureau won’t comment on Baker and will not confirm or deny any investigation. This comes as Department of Justice Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he would soon be making an announcement regarding the progress of leak investigations. A DOJ official declined to comment on Carter’s inquiry into Baker but did say the planned announcement by Sessions is part of the push by President Donald Trump to end the leaks coming out of the White House, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and other federal government departments.

“President Trump can and should smash the leftist coalition,” police adviser and firearms expert John M. Snyder said Friday. “The failure so far to deal effectively with the health care issue shows that political and government issues must be dealt with head on.”


Confusing enough for you ?




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Nice find.s&f.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
You'd think that the "damning evidence" would be worth looking at but apparently we're shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Oh boy
The current administration needs to clean house, and all of these appointees from the former administration need to be removed.
edit on 2/8/2017 by shooterbrody because: wrong baker



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


leaked damning info to the "press".


So let's focus on who the leaker might be rather than the ''damning information'' on Trump.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: xuenchen


leaked damning info to the "press".


So let's focus on who the leaker might be rather than the ''damning information'' on Trump.



The news is FAKE but the leaks are REAL!




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


according to multiple government officials close to the probe who spoke with Sara Carter, an investigative reporter.


Anonymous sources? Fake news!

That's how this works right?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

But doing that would shatter the illusion! Best to focus on the messenger rather than the message to avoid that altogether.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
It makes cents!

Sources sources sources

Kelly is righting the ship



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: xuenchen


leaked damning info to the "press".


So let's focus on who the leaker might be rather than the ''damning information'' on Trump.


wasn't that what we were taught to do last summer and fall?
why change a winning strategy?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: xuenchen


leaked damning info to the "press".


So let's focus on who the leaker might be rather than the ''damning information'' on Trump.



No lets focus on the "damning information"

Any proof of Trump russian collusion? Nope. But these leakers must just be holding back the really juicy stuff, right?

Now lets think about the fact that high ranking people in our intelligence service are acting in a politically partisan way.

And how about the fact that the former FBI head Comey leaked info to the press to get an independent investigator? And if the OP is true, then isn't it odd that Comey who leaked to the press couldn't find the leakers within his own department.

Almost as if the partisanship ran clear to the top. But I am sure they were fair with the Hillary investigation, right?


edit on 2-8-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

But doing that would shatter the illusion! Best to focus on the messenger rather than the message to avoid that altogether.


Why are you just repeating what the MSM wants you to talk about.

Can't you see you are falling for what they want?

(Isn't this what you say on every thread that is remotely damaging to the left? Funny how your standards change when its against Trump.)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Being anti-Trump isn't being partisan. At this point, it's common sense.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Grambler

Being anti-Trump isn't being partisan. At this point, it's common sense.


Yes we know, you are all for the intelligence services committing felonies to overthrow the elected leader of the country.

But you are also the person who felt that Berkeley rioters had a constitutional right to riot and punch political opponents, so no big surprise.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Grambler

Being anti-Trump isn't being partisan. At this point, it's common sense.


Yes we know, you are all for the intelligence services committing felonies to overthrow the elected leader of the country.

But you are also the person who felt that Berkeley rioters had a constitutional right to riot and punch political opponents, so no big surprise.



Umm, ok.



If you could point out where I've ever said I support intelligence agencies committing felonies to overthrow the president, that'd be great.

Putting words in other people's mouth doesn't make them correct..




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Not trusting the press,I take what is pushed by media lightly, that includes what some of the press says about ''this, and what other areas of the press say about ''that. What my question to OP was, was simple. OP claimed the information was ''damning'', and if that is what OP believes, then why focus on the leaker and not the information itself. OP made no defense against the ''damning info'' just against possible leaker.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Grambler

Being anti-Trump isn't being partisan. At this point, it's common sense.


Yes we know, you are all for the intelligence services committing felonies to overthrow the elected leader of the country.

But you are also the person who felt that Berkeley rioters had a constitutional right to riot and punch political opponents, so no big surprise.



Umm, ok.



If you could point out where I've ever said I support intelligence agencies committing felonies to overthrow the president, that'd be great.

Putting words in other people's mouth doesn't make them correct..



I said the intelligence agencies if they were leaking this info (which is a felony) would be acting partisan.

You say that is just common sense, implying its not a big deal.

Or if you would like to clarify and condemn these partisan leaks, thats fine by me.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

is that the heat talking?
hope you are one of those up there with ac



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Grambler

Being anti-Trump isn't being partisan. At this point, it's common sense.


Yes we know, you are all for the intelligence services committing felonies to overthrow the elected leader of the country.

But you are also the person who felt that Berkeley rioters had a constitutional right to riot and punch political opponents, so no big surprise.



Umm, ok.



If you could point out where I've ever said I support intelligence agencies committing felonies to overthrow the president, that'd be great.

Putting words in other people's mouth doesn't make them correct..



I said the intelligence agencies if they were leaking this info (which is a felony) would be acting partisan.

You say that is just common sense, implying its not a big deal.

Or if you would like to clarify and condemn these partisan leaks, thats fine by me.


Why do you assume the leaks have anything to do with partisanship? Is it that hard to believe there are people who's dislike for Trump has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat?

Criticism doesn't equal partisanship, despite the narratives on /pol telling you otherwise.




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Grambler

Not trusting the press,I take what is pushed by media lightly, that includes what some of the press says about ''this, and what other areas of the press say about ''that. What my question to OP was, was simple. OP claimed the information was ''damning'', and if that is what OP believes, then why focus on the leaker and not the information itself. OP made no defense against the ''damning info'' just against possible leaker.


Thats fair. I agree that if the leaks are true, the source shouldn't stop us from being concerned about the material.

This was what I said with the wikileaks releases, and I will stand by it here.

I won't speak for the OP, but I think he may have meant damning as in hurting his approval and agenda, not damning as in criminality.

Every administration has dirty laundry that if constantly leaked would make them look bad.

So yes, I have no looking at the material leaked.

But the two bigger points to me are.

1. With all of these leaks, possibly at very high levels of the FBI, there is still no evidence of Russian collusion.

2. Our intelligence agencies are partisan and abusing their power to attack an administration they don't like for political reasons, which to me is a far bigger deal than even russian collusion if true.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join