Trump Campaign aid says was offered Hillary emails by US government agency in May 2016

a reply to: Grambler

But it seems most likely that this was sort of a fishing attempt by a government agency to get someone on trumps team to bite, and then be accused of trying to get classified materials on Hillary.

Yep. Material they would be accusing Russia of linking, thus he had contact with Russsia...somehow.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Relax.

They have all the deleted emails.

Some have been checked and released and some do have classified material.

Some are still "in review" by the State Department.

Judicial Watch had to sue to get them.

The FBI had them in Oct 2015 (which means others had them too).

You can search and find.

🎁🚬

a reply to: xuenchen


Right, I linked you all to one of the FIOA releases of 47 multi-document Clinton SOS emails.

So, the guy in the video said he thought that they may have been the deleted emails, but the FBI already had them and they were destined to be recorded with the National Archives. I just don't see the "Bombshell, if true".

Hillary pissed off a lot of people by refusing to copy her emails over to the National Archives. So, it doesn't surprise to think someone might help that release along, during the campaign.

a reply to: Grambler

Steve McIntyre over at climate audit has done some work on the subject and had turned up some interesting data . He mentions the leaks as being similar to what the Climategate Emails as far as a who done it goes.

a reply to: Grambler


Doing your usual stellar investigative reporting, I see. Great job once again Grambler!

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Your stories got the meat and potatoes, Anti's got the air filled vanilla puffs.

Said in a thread with Fox News as a source.

What sort of steep learning curve are you on!!!???!!

You got picked last a lot, didn't you??

Don't bother answering - we already know.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Your stories got the meat and potatoes, Anti's got the air filled vanilla puffs.

Said in a thread with Fox News as a source.

The "source" is the guy's name and his statements, you know a real source not an anonymous source.

Or people "familiar with that person's thinking..."

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Good indication the Trump Campaign saw these people coming a mile away and let them expose themselves to The.Sun.Burn

🔆💡

Amazing.

No need to worry about collision with the Russians. We ARE the Russians.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Your stories got the meat and potatoes, Anti's got the air filled vanilla puffs.

Said in a thread with Fox News as a source.

So dispute it... debate it.

"If news that comes out that is contrary to the narrative, demonize the source, destroy the journalist in the court of public opinion, blame the other side for doing the same thing until they are on the defensive. Then you have won."

Simple rules for radicals here. Your bias is hanging out for all to see, by the way.

By Any Means Necessary.

originally posted by: Lumenari

Simple rules for radicals here. Your bias is hanging out for all to see, by the way.

By Any Means Necessary.

Says the side who consistently attacks any news from anyone but Brietbart, Fox news or any conservative site.

originally posted by: dwaynedabigguy
originally posted by: Lumenari

Simple rules for radicals here. Your bias is hanging out for all to see, by the way.

By Any Means Necessary.

Says the side who consistently attacks any news from anyone but Brietbart, Fox news or any conservative site.

I'm not attacking them sweetheart. I don't have a side in the left/right thing. My side is with America. It's citizenry. Keeping the Grand Experiment alive, despite the current ideology that wants to mold it into something that has never worked and never will.

So if you would like to actually debate what the news brings up, why not debate it? No matter what the source?

You know, deny ignorance. Not define ignorance.

a reply to: Grambler

And we should believe this guy over the U.S. Intelligence agencies huh?

Ok. Why?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Oh he's his own source. That's good. For a second there I thought he had nothing.

a reply to: Sillyolme

It truly baffles me how so many seem willing to put their blind faith behind the 'intelligence agencies' like it was some sort of religion.

Given the verified examples of government and intelligence abuses in our own history, what on earth makes you think we are magically immune from them now?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

And we should believe this guy over the U.S. Intelligence agencies huh?

Ok. Why?

U.S. Intelligence agencies ...,

under and directed by a corrupt administration as has been proven.

😎

The.Sun.Light.is.Burning

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

And we should believe this guy over the U.S. Intelligence agencies huh?

Ok. Why?

Clap and Bren were caught lying before ...,

(article from WP July 2014)
Obama should fire John Brennan

remember the Senate spying scandal ?

and the "National Security Agency did not collect any kind of data on millions of Americans" scandal

😁

I could actually see people that live and die by their clearance wanting to expose how bad Hillary's emails were.


When you live by the clearance that you hold and faithfully abide by all the rules that come with it, it leaves a very bitter taste in your mouth to see someone skate when they so blatantly violate all the rules that you have followed for years to maintain your livelihood.

You can count me in on that group.

a reply to: Grambler

First show the entire FBI narrative of the Papadopoulos story starting the investigation in July of 2016 is a lie.

Secondly and more importantly, it would mean that this government agency was not trying to stop russian interfernce, but was actively trying to setup the trump campaign, which would be unconscionable.

Remember that one argument that you made to me repeatedly about how it should have been assumed that Misfud was talking about emails from Hillary Clinton's server? Well you're in luck because he says he thought that the guy was referring the "missing emails." And he very well may have been referring to Clinton emails (whether he had the goods or not).

Let's take a look at what he actually claimed (and he has specific dates):

On May 9th, 2016 an "intermediary" (a friend of his) told him that on May 6th, a former contractor for an unnamed alphabet agency told the friend that the staff of an unnamed agency had Clinton emails that he wanted to get to Caputo.

The claimed identity of this person was a former contractor for the unnamed agency. He claims all of the dealing was done through the intermediary. This person who *wasn't* part of the Trump campaign. He also claims that on May 16th, he determined that he didn't want to take possession of the emails.

It's far from certain that even if ALL of what he claims is 100% true, that it means what you've concluded that it *must* mean.

1. None of this actually proves that person was working for the FBI. Does it?

2. He assumed the emails were from the Clinton server. I'm sure there was enough discussion that there wouldn't have been any confusion about what the emails were. Don't you think? This is a person claiming firsthand knowledge of the goods.

3. This person claimed that the emails were in the possession of a government agency. Not the Russians. It also sounds like he was presenting himself as an intermediary for staff of this agency. Why else would he make a point of saying that the "staff" of the agency had them?

There are a number of possibilities here (assuming Caputo and his friend aren't lying):

1. The guy was on the level, who he said he was, and there were emails from the Clinton email server that he was trying to get to the Trump campaign. Only some emails have been released in batches, over time. Out of tens of thousands that have been in the possession of the FBI/DOJ. What happened to the "deep state" all of a sudden?

2. There were no emails. It could have been a con. You know how many people were actively hunting for Hillary's "missing emails?" I can name a few, including a couple on Team Trump. Some of them found people who claimed to have the goods but it never panned out.

Was this guy trying to give them or sell them. If he wanted to give them, wouldn't he have just done so? What were they negotiating?

3. The guy had the goods but he was lying about where they came from. This was on May 6th? Did they vet this person? Could have been a cutout. This might even have been the Russians trying to aid the Trump campaign directly.

4. This was an attempt at some sort of entrapment.

Now if it were some form of entrapment, to what end? That # would have never have held up in court. What would be the goal?

I think that Trump supporters are primed with a basic set of preconceived notions through which they will obviously view this. Which will lead them to jump to unsupported conclusions while ignoring equally or more plausible explanations. It's confirmation bias.

I can see the headlines now "DNC Gets Played by Itself".