More Never Trumpers waking up to the Russia collusion farce, when will you?

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: face23785

I now see this as an illegal attempted coup of a sitting president.

It would be difficult to reconcile the past 2 years without taking this into consideration - they stacked the deck in their(her) favour, then further attempted to rig the game right up until November, having all the TVs spouting the likes of '93% chance of winning' crap in all directions hoping it would stick.

Then on November 9th, suddenly the Russians were front page - weird!

Fact : The Russians played both sides against each other looking for discord. They got it. The left are far more emotional, and therefore gullible, and they fell for it.

This is pretty much the shortest summation anyone could make of the situation. The only ones doing Putin's bidding at this point are the ones who keep pushing this conspiracy theory and causing more division. Russian puppets, and they don't even know it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

Your source is an obvious piece of propaganda and is based on one giant assumption.

There you go with the logical fallacies.

Genetic fallacy

Can't refute anything she says, so just whine about the source. Classic you.

Incorrect. I pointed out the assumptions made.

The fact you are using a propaganda source is secondary to it's employment of actual logical fallacies.

It's absolutely correct. There you go again. Crying the source is propaganda, but not backing it up. When you tried to back it up earlier in the thread, your arguments were thoroughly taken apart by other posters. I realize these are trying times for you with this entire false narrative you were gullible enough to believe coming unraveled, but try to step your game up bud. You got fooled, the Democrats played you good. It's okay, happens to the best of us.

a reply to: face23785

It's absolutely correct. There you go again. Crying the source is propaganda, but not backing it up.

That's not what I said, but ok.

When you tried to back it up earlier in the thread, your arguments were thoroughly taken apart by other posters.

Actually, not one person directly addressed the specifics I mentioned.

Can you do that?

I realize these are trying times for you with this entire false narrative you were gullible enough to believe coming unraveled, but try to step your game up bud. You got fooled, the Democrats played you good. It's okay, happens to the best of us.

That doesn't mean anything of substance.

It seems like a piss poor attempt to trash talk, but it's nothing more than you talking out of your ass.

Stick to the specifics of what has been said and leave your teenage nonsense for someone who cares about such things.

a reply to: introvert

Yes, I showed that in fact your semantic game is ridiculous, and in fact the fbi did send a spy in to the trump campaign.

5 PAGES IN and we have people getting twisted over the definition of "spy" versus "informant". If that is all you have to fall back on, that these terms are so different that one would be justified to place in the campaign and the other not ok, then you have lost the argument, and quite frankly your sanity.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Grambler

I agree if there was corruption in the FBI then that would be worth worrying about. However, my point of view is that conservatives are desperately painting a picture that isn’t real. I am against disinformation like what has been coming out of conservative news outlets because I think they are trying to use it as illegitimate ammo to end the investigation unjustly, or even worse, ammunition to do a partisan attack on Democrats and the Justice Department.

I am going to sit back and try and unravel the web of lies conservatives are weaving these days. I admit I have a lot to look at, although what I’ve looked at so far supports my theory. It will be quite a project.

Is the NYT a conservtive oputlet? How about the washington post?

How about jimmy dore, Trump hating, bernie and jill stein supporting progressive?

How about the Intercept, ed snowden friend and progressive, trump hating publication?

Over the past several weeks, House Republicans have been claiming that the FBI during the 2016 election used an operative to spy on the Trump campaign, and they triggered outrage within the FBI by trying to learn his identity. The controversy escalated when President Trump joined the fray on Friday morning. “Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,” Trump tweeted, adding: “It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true – all time biggest political scandal!”

In response, the DOJ and the FBI’s various media spokespeople did not deny the core accusation, but quibbled with the language (the FBI used an “informant,” not a “spy”), and then began using increasingly strident language to warn that exposing his name would jeopardize his life and those of others, and also put American national security at grave risk.

...

To begin with, the New York Times reported in December of last year that the FBI investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia began when George Papadopoulos drunkenly boasted to an Australian diplomat about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was the disclosure of this episode by the Australians that “led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired,” the NYT claimed.

But it now seems clear that Halper’s attempts to gather information for the FBI began before that.

...

Equally strange are the semantic games which journalists are playing in order to claim that this revelation disproves, rather than proves, Trump’s allegation that the FBI “spied” on his campaign. This bizarre exchange between CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski and the New York Times’ Trip Gabriel vividly illustrates the strange machinations used by journalists to justify how all of this is being characterized:

...

Whatever else is true, the CIA operative and FBI informant used to gather information on the Trump campaign in the 2016 campaign has, for weeks, been falsely depicted as a sensitive intelligence asset rather than what he actually is: a long-time CIA operative with extensive links to the Bush family who was responsible for a dirty and likely illegal spying operation in the 1980 presidential election. For that reason, it’s easy to understand why many people in Washington were so desperate to conceal his identity, but that desperation had nothing to do with the lofty and noble concerns for national security they claimed were motivating them.

theintercept.com... ential-election/

These people hate trump[ and are as left as you can get, and they are calling this out.

So its not just conservative outlets lying.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
5 PAGES IN and we have people getting twisted over the definition of "spy" versus "informant". If that is all you have to fall back on, that these terms are so different that one would be justified to place in the campaign and the other not ok, then you have lost the argument, and quite frankly your sanity.

Exactly.

As I have said again and again, what these semantic sticklers are really saying is that trump is free to place as many "informants" as he wants in oppoinennts camps.

Of course these same people will wail IMPEACHMENT if trump did that.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
5 PAGES IN and we have people getting twisted over the definition of "spy" versus "informant". If that is all you have to fall back on, that these terms are so different that one would be justified to place in the campaign and the other not ok, then you have lost the argument, and quite frankly your sanity.

Exactly.

As I have said again and again, what these semantic sticklers are really saying is that trump is free to place as many "informants" as he wants in oppoinennts camps.

Of course these same people will wail IMPEACHMENT if trump did that.

What it looks like to me, is that some are looking for ANY reason (even one as ridiculous as the semantics game) to try and convince themselves this was justified. It is not justified, at least imho.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Yes, I showed that in fact your semantic game is ridiculous, and in fact the fbi did send a spy in to the trump campaign.

Still the definition of is people...
What a pile of refuse

I truly hope more of these "trump-eteers" pull their collective heads out of their asses and breathe air again. It's a sad, sick state that our union is in if our populace continues to ignore the obvious. Trump had help, and all of the disinformation and name-smearing can't do anything to cover up the fact that he got that help from Russians.

I'm betting he will be paying them back long after his term expires. I just hope that we as a people stand united against this sort of treasonous activity. Colluding with foreign powers in exchange for help in smearing a political opponent certainly came with a price, and it's up to every decent American to pull the roof down on every single individual who cheats.

The Office of the President is supposed to be held by an individual that is honorable, trustworthy, and most of all that represents our people's interests BEFORE that of any other nation. With all that he has shown, it's surprising to me that he hasn't been under more scrutiny since the ZTE bailout.

Make America great by protecting Chinese jobs? And then we are to ignore the reasons why they were cut off! Honestly, if he had a single shred of honor or decency he would resign. Commence your poop-flinging. I'll enjoy the festivies from the safety found on the other side of the glass.

Coined the phrase though:

Trump-eteers.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Yes, I showed that in fact your semantic game is ridiculous, and in fact the fbi did send a spy in to the trump campaign.

Still the definition of is people...
What a pile of refuse

Indeed. I made specific comments about the assumptions made. Not "semantics" and such.

No one seems to have addressed that aspect, despite the claims otherwise.

So no, it is not comparable to the definition of "is".

a reply to: Knightshadowz

More hot air.

You KNOW he had help.

Evidence please?

Well evidence doesnt matter to you and the rest of the trump haters.

The dems knew he must have broke the law to, so they justified putting spies in his campaign, using wiretaps, and all sorts of other things.

And you trump haters love it.

So maybe trump is just as certain as you are that his opponents are getting help.

So I guess that means its perfectly fine for him to place "informants" in their camp, use intel records to get phone records, get wiretaps, unmask opponents, etc.

And how cares if none of that shows proof, because just like you, he KNOWS that his opponents had help.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Yes, I showed that in fact your semantic game is ridiculous, and in fact the fbi did send a spy in to the trump campaign.

Still the definition of is people...
What a pile of refuse

Indeed. I made specific comments about the assumptions made. Not "semantics" and such.

No one seems to have addressed that aspect, despite the claims otherwise.

So no, it is not comparable to the definition of "is".

You made no such claims that werent answered.

You said your nromal tripe about how we couldnt prove the INTENT of the FBI, whiohc is irrelevant to the question of rather they spied on the trump camp.

Then you siad that spy wasnt the right word (the semantic argument) because Trumps team wasnt the target.

Which as we have showed you

1. is absurd because had they really not been targeting trumps campaign, they would have warned them of the russian efforts, and asked them questions on the record instead of sending a spy to get info from them.

and 2. this is the semantic argument that is laughable. It is still a spy because it was a person sent undercover to get info about people from the trump camp.

Again, your ridiculous semantic argument justifies trump sending "informants" to all of his opponents to stop russian interfernce.

Its not spying if he is trying to stop russians, right?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Knightshadowz

More hot air.

You KNOW he had help.

Evidence please?

Well evidence doesnt matter to you and the rest of the trump haters.

The dems knew he must have broke the law to, so they justified putting spies in his campaign, using wiretaps, and all sorts of other things.

And you trump haters love it.

So maybe trump is just as certain as you are that his opponents are getting help.

So I guess that means its perfectly fine for him to place "informants" in their camp, use intel records to get phone records, get wiretaps, unmask opponents, etc.

And how cares if none of that shows proof, because just like you, he KNOWS that his opponents had help.

Hi sunshine!

His opponents hired people to run ads and gather information, sure. That is to be expected. They didn't, however, conspire with foreign powers. It's already been concluded that they meddled in our election so I'm sorry if in your haste to defend your view you didn't do any research.

Foot >Mouth

I won't bother with links or supporting facts because they exist on countless threads regarding this same issue so I leave it to you to read up. Be sure to read the whole articles, and not just the opening statements. The facts.

It would be a change for us as Americans to call bull# for what it is, and every defense offered thus far has been nothing but a finger pointing contest.

In response to your "response", I respectfully submit that you need to do some research. Then you need to do the founding fathers a favor and think for yourself.

Trump is a scumbag, and is no president of my mine. I didn't elect him. Nor did I vote for anyone in the last two elections, and only because I didn't believe any of the candidates could match their promises for # in brown paper sacks. I'm not going to buy hype, and I'm not going to sniff said bag and call it roses.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Yes, I showed that in fact your semantic game is ridiculous, and in fact the fbi did send a spy in to the trump campaign.

Still the definition of is people...
What a pile of refuse

Indeed. I made specific comments about the assumptions made. Not "semantics" and such.

No one seems to have addressed that aspect, despite the claims otherwise.

So no, it is not comparable to the definition of "is".

You made no such claims that werent answered.

You said your nromal tripe about how we couldnt prove the INTENT of the FBI, whiohc is irrelevant to the question of rather they spied on the trump camp.

Then you siad that spy wasnt the right word (the semantic argument) because Trumps team wasnt the target.

Which as we have showed you

1. is absurd because had they really not been targeting trumps campaign, they would have warned them of the russian efforts, and asked them questions on the record instead of sending a spy to get info from them.

and 2. this is the semantic argument that is laughable. It is still a spy because it was a person sent undercover to get info about people from the trump camp.

Again, your ridiculous semantic argument justifies trump sending "informants" to all of his opponents to stop russian interfernce.

Its not spying if he is trying to stop russians, right?

Call it what you want—spy, informant, man-watching-his-back-now-that-he’s-been-outed-for-serving-his-country—the FBI sent him to speak to those individuals because they were on the radar of an active cointel investigation. These people had been observed meeting w/known Russian operatives by our allies—a “suspicious pattern.” If the FBI thought it was all on Russia, yes, they may have said something to the Trump campaign. Clearly they didn’t think that was the case. Is it OK with you if they do their job for a while, or are you going whine about Hillary, Obama, and the nonexistent liberal deep state and how they’re unfairly targeting your precious swamp king?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Well, the NYT and Washington post articles pretty much admitted that the FBI sent a spy to get info from trump team members.

And I havent seen that disputed in any credible way, only the claim it was an "informant" not spy, which is laughable.

Bit I dont mind people being skeptical.

So you are saying if it does come out that the FBI sent Stefan Halper to get info on people like Page Papadopoulos and others, then you will change your mind?

Links to those articles that say without a doubt that the FBI sent spies into the Trump campaign?

I have already told you, the articles use the term "informant" which is just a clever way to try to differentiate this from the word spy.

But yes the articles exist showing that.

Many of them.

Here is the first one from the NYT.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

So they were after one of his advisors, and not Trump. Anything saying they were after Trump personally? Or are we making the leap in logic that people Trump surrounds himself with being under surveillance means he, himself was the target?

Those are two different things, which the president is trying to conflate to control the narrative the way he wants.

Now wait, you are now changing what you said.

Allow me to remind you.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

You said if it was shown people in trups campaign were spied on, you would change your mind.

That is what this artilce showed.

Now you want proof they were directly after trump?

I think that is not necessary to show abuse. Were the watergate people spying on just directly documents from MCGovern, or were they disgusting and criminal for spying on behavior of the campaign in general?

If the FBI was spying on trumps team, it would have clearly effected trump himself in a very negative way.

And by your own standards of what you said about "Trumps campaign" potentially being spied on, this should change your mind.

The relevant parts for context are the words before the ones you bolded, and the ones after. Picking out two parts of that statement and trying to make it say what you want doesn’t work. And is part of the problem.

Nothing you or the article said leads toward any evidence of the Obama administration planting a spy in Trumps campaign. Which is what this is supposedly about. I mean, that’s what Trump himself said. And it’s what I said I wanted to see evidence of. If there is any.

Man you are all over the place.

SO your last post said basically prove that this spy spied on trump himself.

When I show you that you originally didnt say it had to be on trump himself, but his campaign, you now say this isnt proof of a spy.

So are you another claiming that Halper was only an "informant" and thus not a spy? Or are you denying the FBI ever sent Halper?

Don’t accuse me of being all over the place because I’m trying to hit the goalposts you are constantly dragging everywhere.

Informant doesn’t mean spy in this context. I know you don’t want to face that, because that’s the one thing this entire theory hangs on. But that’s what it is. It takes some nebulous definition of “spy” to make this even halfway work. Which is why I call crap on it.

Nebolous definition of spy?

What are you talking about?

from googles dictionary, number one entry.

spy

a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

www.google.com...=spy

from dictionary.com

spy

noun, plural spies.

a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs.
a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.
a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor:

www.dictionary.com...

Webster

Definition of spy
plural spies
1 : one that spies:
a : one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information
b : a person employed by one nation to secretly convey classified information of strategic importance to another nation; also : a person who conveys the trade secrets of one company to another

www.merriam-webster.com...

Please post the definition you are using.

In all three of these definitions, what the FBI did meets the criteria easily.

The FBI sent in a person to gather information in secret against their bosses (Obama) competitor.

Again, this argument is so stupid.

By your definition then, Trump should be allowed to place "informants" into any Democrats team he wants, because he wouldnt be spying.

Now what is the LEGAL definition of informant and spy?

If you look into those you might find the answer.

Feel free to post them

No this is something you need to learn for yourself otherwise you will just keep dismissing everything you read like you do in this thread.

You can start here.

US Code

Hint: its not as simple as you think it is.

I haven't really seen this mentioned anywhere, but it's a big question I have. Now, Please note that I believe that Brennan was behind all this blow up of the Russian stuff.

I think the Russian memes were probably real- I have looked closely at them and they look to have been sewing discord among Regional/Racial/Ethnic groups- something that Russia has been rumored to be interested in for years. Though I must say, it seemed at times like Obama took advantage of the rifts that were developing to push his own social agenda.

The whole Crowdstrike thing is questionable to me. That the DNC HIRED Crowdstrike, then did NOT let the FBI independently confirm their findings leave me feeling less than confident that whole thing wasn't a coverup for someone INSIDE the DNC stealing files....and it seems to mean they were hiding something...illegal.

But this whole idea of RUSSIAN collusion and the dossier, and ALL THAT- it is so complex, but it seems like if you follow ANY one thread of it back, it goes to Brennan.

Here's one thing that really makes me think the whole thing was an intelligence operation to discredit and cripple Trump:
Brennan took a very Hillary friendly CBS correspondent David Pues - who had previously been asked for BY NAME to cover "hack" on the CIA DIRECTOR'S JET with exclusive weekend access. Supposedly Brennan was going on a trip to encourage recruits at a college campus. Himself. He just happened to take Pues along for the trip.

I think Pues just drank it all in and accepted anything Director Brennan said as gospel fact. I mean, after all, probably Comey and Clapper and everyone else didn't question Brennan either. The intelligence services might be so compartmentalized no one really can say what might or might not be known. I think- just my suspicion, that it doesn't make sense for the CIA director to fly a private jet to go to a college campus to go try to recruit some new agents. It does make sense if that is a cover to start a media campaign to sell Russian Collusion though.

Trump had help, and all of the disinformation and name-smearing can't do anything to cover up the fact that he got that help from Russians.

Maybe.. but that doesn't mean he was aware of it. Those who wanted Trump in power may well have been at the bottom of the interference in the campaign, but Trump may have been oblivious to it. Should still be investigated.. it's funny how people who worship Trump feel any investigation should be called off, when ALL the alphabet agencies agree Russia was involved in some way. Regardless of WHO initiated it, we should find out the source.

What did Putin have to gain by Trump being in office? Look how divided the U.S. is now - it's everything Putin could have wanted. For supposedly creating a great, unified America again, Trump is the master of causing strife and division. I could see Putin greatly wanting this outcome.

a reply to: underwerks

Hang it up. You were shown proof, you denied and moved the goal posts. Now you're trying to redefine words. We get it, you want to present yourself as fair and open minded, but you're not. That's ok. Just admit you're a partisan and move on. Life is easier when you're honest with yourself and others.

a reply to: Knightshadowz

Translation:

I have no evidence but I am sure I am right

Sorry, I will need more than just your word

I have researched this extensively, and have seen not one piece of evidence that trump colluded with Russia

People like you keep claiming there is evidence of that, but can never provide it

Russia influenced the election. Yes they spent 150 thousand on Facebook ads.

Well that’s it then! That proves trump broke the law and is a stooge f Putin!

Oh wait no it doesn’t

Meanwhile you speak of the founding fathers while you applaud the the intel agencies spying on trumps campaign

The founding fathers would be disgusted with the intel community