FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

Props to Diane Feinstein for releasing the transcript!

So in it, here is this little tidbit from page 175.

2 intelligence. Essentially what he told me was they
3 had other intelligence about this matter from an
4 internal Trump campaign source and that -- that
5 they -- my understanding was that they believed
6 Chris at this point -- that they believed Chris's
7 information might be credible because they had
8 other intelligence that indicated the same thing
9 and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human
10 source from inside the Trump organization.

www.feinstein.senate.gov... cted.pdf

At first glance, it seems like good news for the anti trump crowd. This is referring to Papdopolous and the story the NYT broke a week ago.

The press is on to show that the dossier was not the impetus for the investigation or fisa warrants, and instead it was Papadopolous drunkenly telling an Australian that a Russian told him they had emails on Hillary. (this story even if true is an asinine reason to start and investigation and get Fisa warrants against people like Carter page but not Papadopolous, but thats for another thread).

So Simpson seems to be backing up that the FBI already had evidence before the dossier was presented to them.

But step back and think about this for a moment.

The FBI, which is supposed to be a non political entity, tasked with keeping our country safe, apparently was giving details of looking into election interference between Trump and russians to a former spy from another country that they knew to be getting paid by an oppo research firm working for Trumps opponent, Hillary.

That is appalling.

Imagine the outrage had this been done the other way. What if Trump paid a firm that the FBI contacted and said "Yeah we got all sorts of statements from hillary people about her email, like this guy Paul Combetta that was on message boards saying a VIP asked him to delete names off of emails, and then bleach bitted it the next day" How inappropriate would it be for the FBI to leak details of this ongoing investigation directly to hillarys opponent.

It would be unthinkable.

But the FBI doing this aginst Trump, no problem. I guess when you are having meetings in McCabes office about needing an insurance policy in case Trump wins, is makes sense.

Not only is this an outrage because it is the FBI acting politically, but also because it could have jeopardized the entire investigation into Trumps team.

Lets say for a minute that Trumps team did collude with russians illegally to steal the election.

Why in the world would the FBI leak to steele, who they knew was working with Fusion that was leaking info to the press to hurt Trump?

They had to know that there was a good chance that this info would get back to Trumps team.

Now if there was a chance of catching trumps team acting illegally, they knew there was someone within there own team that tipped someone off to the FBI, and they would clam up.

So the FBI put its interest in making trump look bad by telling an oppo firm against him details of the investigation before actually trying to keep our elections safe.

The oversight committee should immediately demand that the FBI release who it was that told Steele this info, and if they deny it, Simpson who claimed steele said that should be charged with lying to the committee.

the Obama administration corrupted every fiber of the government more than it was already corrupted, even if trump serves for 8 years that won`t be enough time to weed out the traitors and undue all that corruption.

a reply to: Grambler

I have to say I usually understand your threads and appreciate them but the last 5-6 paragraphs I am having trouble integrating into the whole.

Maybe it is just late for me.

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: Grambler

I have to say I usually understand your threads and appreciate them but the last 5-6 paragraphs I am having trouble integrating into the who.

Maybe it is just late for me.

I assume you mean the part about harming the investigation.

Let me try to explain it better.

Lets say you are the fBI, and you have info that came from a trump source that they may be working with russians to steal hillarys emails, etc.

So you start an investigation into this.

Why would you divulge details of that investigation to an oppo firm that you know is shopping information to the media?

Wouldn't the best strategy to actually find the truth of rather or not Trumps team were breaking the law be to keep the investigation as quiet as possible so that if people were breaking the law they wouldnt be tipped off that the FBI was looking at them?

For example, remember when Papadopolous was indicted, and the were rumors that he may have wore a wire?

That would only work up too the point that Trumps team knew he was cooperating with the feds. After that, tehy wouldn't say anything remotely damaging in front of him.

By the same token, If trumps team was breaking the law in dealing with russians, once they found out that the FBI had a source inside their own team and was actively looking at criminality with trumps team and russia, they would adjust their behavior to not get caught.

So IF trumps team was breaking the law, the FBI considerably hampered their own chances of catching them by blabbing details to groups trumps opponents were paying to contact the media to smear trump.

I hope that clears it up.

a reply to: Grambler

So what my weak mind can discern at this point is FBI moves to an opo firm that will leak it to the media and remove FBI from involvement. I know that is simple but i am two winks away from falling asleep. Thank you. And if I am wrong it will have to wait.

a reply to: Grambler

So, hear me out a little bit here.

Grand Jury indictments hinge upon 'the people' seeing and hearing the evidence as it exists. Without the quorum fulfilling the number in agreement, there is no charge. Now suppose you wanted to give a pre-disposed biased long before you brought charges. Who could deliver that information? Well, the media.

I'm of the opinion that this has been going on for a very long time. Given that this is such a highly viewed area, they may have gotten caught.

a reply to: Grambler


Wonderful Opening Post. Thanks for spelling out Feinstein's attempt at sabotage in clear terms. The MSM description sounded like piglatin today. Looks like she didn't "read what's in it". Feinstein and Pelosi must drink at the same bar.

a reply to: JinMI

I think you are right, but it's probably even simpler than that.

Whoever at the fbi that told Simpson and Steele about the details of their investigation cared more about hurting trump politically than stopping or investigating any crime.

So it wasn't just to influence a grand jury panel, but to influence the media and voters in general against trump. You know, an insurance policy.

Or it could be that Simpson is flat out lying.

Either eay, time for oversight to demand both Simpson and the fbi release the name or names of the fbi people that divulged details of the investigation into trumps team to an oppo firm.

a reply to: Grambler

Whoever at the fbi that told Simpson and Steele about the details of their investigation cared more about hurting trump politically than stopping or investigating any crime. So it wasn't just to influence a grand jury panel, but to influence the media and voters in general against trump. You know, an insurance policy.

That is true.
Were the trump administration caught doing this there would be public hangings in berkeley.
It makes sense now that the fbi would walk away from Steele AFTER this was leaked to the media.
Why were no questions asked about employee Nellie Ohr spouse of Bruce Ohr(former deputy associate ag)?
Ohr has been demoted for failing to disclose his meetings with Steele and Simpson, why no questions about these meetings?
And dont forget Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing manaforts case AFTER allowing manafort to plead guilty. Judge Rudolph Contreras also is a FISA judge.

This is a mess of WATERGATE proportions. The weaponization of the justice system against political opponents must not be allowed to continue NO MATTER WHO IS IN OFFICE!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler


Wonderful Opening Post. Thanks for spelling out Feinstein's attempt at sabotage in clear terms. The MSM description sounded like piglatin today. Looks like she didn't "read what's in it". Feinstein and Pelosi must drink at the same bar.

My idiom would have been "feed at the same trough"

a reply to: Grambler

Where do you get they shared information with them???

There is nothing in the quote that said that???

Or are you counting Chris telling them stuff as “sharing information” and really you are just trying to pretend the FBI gave data to Steele????

Maybe I missed it, but I see noting in your quote that says the FBI gave out info???

Which is the whole crux of your OP...

Good analysis. Feinstein's transcript proves that the FBI did collude with a political research firm, who they knew had been hired to dig up dirt on Trump.

a reply to: bluechevytree

You mean..

“Even though trump/gop runs every branch of government and law enforcement, and there is a paper trail to EVERYTHING. So it would be impossible for someone to restrict trump without trump knowing who they were and he has the ability to fire them.

But still nothing that happens can ever be trumps fault.. he should be able to strawman these mysterious obama appointees that trump can replace at any moment.. but chooses not to.. I guess”


Lmao...

Man that is rich..

a reply to: JoshuaCox


The fbi told Simpson and or Steele that not only did they have info from other sources that backed up the dossier, but that one of the sources was human intelligence from inside trumps team.

This sharing of details of an investigation not only proves a political motivation of true to hurt trump, but also jeopardized the investigation, as I have pointed out.

a reply to: liveandlearn

I think it is that what he is claiming is not in the quote he posted..

Maybe it is somewhere else, but the quote says nothing even remotely like ..

“The fbi gave out info on the trump investigation to oppo research groups..”

Which is the whole claim of the OP.. so why wouldn’t that be what was quoted??

a reply to: Grambler

Just pointing out.

Not pointing fingers at grambler.. I doubt seriously he would have anything to do with it.

This is a pro trump thread got 30+ flags in an hour..

I’m telling y’all there are bots flagging pro trump stuff.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Where????

Could you please quote where it says ANYTHING like that??

I don’t see it in the quote posted..

That is the whole point of the OP, so where is it?

a reply to: Grambler

Where does it say that???

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler

Just pointing out.

Not pointing fingers at grambler..

This is a pro trump thread got 30+ flags in an hour..

I’m telling y’all there are bots flagging pro trump stuff.

Well I posted it at 1130pm last night so it's been about 10 hours.

But yes, I have contacted several Russian Pokemon to flag this thread.

I myself am worried less about flags and more about the content.

a reply to: Grambler

My bad on the time jump and I edited my post to reiterate you would have nothing to do with it.

If you look down the “new page” the only thing with even close to this many flags is “dad beats kids molesor to death” something you will get everyone to flag.