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.

 

Gowdy: FBI Acted Properly With Use of Informant

page: 10
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: luthier

You don't need to put words in my mouth to show how wrong you are, in general.

Re-read what I wrote about CI's and assets: THAT is the important part to take away from what I wrote. Not the pile of BS you tried to deflect with.

Got anything of substance, or are you really this weak minded?


Speaking of weak minded all you can do is use logical falacies to prove a point you think you have.

If you had any knowledge you wouldn't have the ad hominem crutches.

The point is there was no spy, this is common practice in Intel and criminal investigations, and Rudy himself admitted to this being spin to help stave off an impeachment..

By the way Judge Napolitano is further right than nearly anyone in Congress or the white house.




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77


What we know is that the DOJ and FBI briefed these guys on the classified info they were seeking—a highly unusual occurrence in and of itself


Wrong. Congress has the Constitutional right of oversight, which overrules secrecy, classification, asset safety, investigations, etc.

Further, ALL federal agencies work under the Executive branch. Therefore Trump has the direct authority to command them in any way he sees fit (or to terminate them entirely).

Nothing unusual about EMPLOYEES following the directions of their superiors.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Deetermined

Never fails. Bad news for Team Trump? Deploy whataboutism about Hillary!


You're damned right. Why hasn't her a$$ been indicted or thrown in jail yet?! Why do you think Hillary's been wearing a bullet proof vest under her clothes everywhere she turns up these days?!!

Last I checked they said that there wasn't enough of a case to indict her, but you already knew that and are just judging her guilty without a trial (which is unamerican).


Not guilty in advance according to Obama Adminiztration "Standards" of verbal assumptive law.

😎🚬


I don't see anything changing with the Trump admin. Though I know you like to pretend otherwise.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




FYI, this is how ALL human intelligence operations work. Career officers do not infiltrate these groups and collect intelligence. They recruit "assets" (aka spies, private persons) to collect their intelligence (by either obtaining dirt on them, feeding an addiction, reduced sentencing, money, help fleeing hostile countries, etc). So when Clapper, et al specified that no "case officers or recruiting or classic spy-craft" took place, that was VERY telling. That they did, in fact, deploy "assets" (aka CI's) against Trump's campaign therefore they DID spy on his campaign.

well posted
semantics won't get the former administration out of this one



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


By the way Judge Napolitano is further right than nearly anyone in Congress or the white house.


Again with your mentally weak deflections. Re-read. You'll see I never mentioned Judge Nap one time. Not one single time. So you will stop putting words in my mouth and making yourself look even more uninformed.


The point is there was no spy, this is common practice in Intel and criminal investigations, and Rudy himself admitted to this being spin to help stave off an impeachment..


Once again, I never said a word about Rudy. Is your argument so intellectually deficient that putting words in my mouth is the only way you can segue in your logically bankrupt deflections?

I ONLY mentioned the fact that Clapper et al are lying about not spying on Trump's campaign. Use of CI/Assets is the ONLY way the government spies during a HUMINT operation. They NEVER use their case officers for intelligence collection, only logistics/organization. Therefore, the fact an "informant" was sent in MEANS THEY DID SPY ON THEM. Period. End of my point. None of your deflections/mentions of other people are relevant. YOU brought Rudy/Judge Nap up (several times, to set up your dishonest and inappropriate deflections)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sillyolme

Gowdy was just talking spontaneously.

😎🔑🔓




Kinda like how after the briefing last week about the spy being planted adam shiff came out after the meeting and stated that in the meeting they were shown absolutely zero evidence that a spy was planted. Then they interviewed another member who stated that they were not shown any papers cause it was only a verbal meeting.

This is how they spin the truth any chance they get and trey has been doing crap like this ever since he decided to gain everyones support for him to serve justice to the clintons and such then he comes out and announces his retirement and begins to shill much.


Until we hear or see compelling evidence to the contrary, it’s reasonable to assume Gowdy is telling the truth. He listened to the information they presented and came to a logical conclusion that the FBI acted appropriately. Under normal circumstances, that wouldn’t be too surprising. But his conclusion doesn’t support the narrative Trump & his supporters are trying to push in order to sway public opinion against the investigation. Notice how even Nunes hasn’t had much to say? Granted, after the murky memo fell apart, he lost a lot of credibility. But if there was one bit of info he could use to try to muddy the waters, I’m pretty sure he would have. He still might.


Also what investigation are you speaking of? A counter intel investigation where there is no need to question trump or an investigation into actual crimes that they have evidence of showing trump was involved but they can't have that cause they already cleared trump of any criminal investigation.

so was it cointel or criminal investigation?????????????????


This whole thing began as a cointel investigation. Papdoupalas got drunk and ran his mouth to the Australian ambassador, who notified the US. Also, allied intel services notified US intel that they’d observed a suspicious pattern of contacts between members of the Trump campaign and known Russian operatives. Hence, the FBI launched a cointel investigation. Given what they had, I’m guessing they needed to understand if this was all Russia or something more. So one of the next steps was to have an asset make contact with these people to gather more information. Depending on what he learned, they may have decided to take more aggressive steps, such as surveillance. They were just running the playbook.

After the special counsel was appointed, I don’t think the investigation can be classified as ‘cointel’ anymore for the obvious reason that the scope has been greatly expanded.
edit on 31-5-2018 by Gandalf77 because: Typo



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: luthier


By the way Judge Napolitano is further right than nearly anyone in Congress or the white house.


Again with your mentally weak deflections. Re-read. You'll see I never mentioned Judge Nap one time. Not one single time. So you will stop putting words in my mouth and making yourself look even more uninformed.


The point is there was no spy, this is common practice in Intel and criminal investigations, and Rudy himself admitted to this being spin to help stave off an impeachment..


Once again, I never said a word about Rudy. Is your argument so intellectually deficient that putting words in my mouth is the only way you can segue in your logically bankrupt deflections?

I ONLY mentioned the fact that Clapper et al are lying about not spying on Trump's campaign. Use of CI/Assets is the ONLY way the government spies during a HUMINT operation. They NEVER use their case officers for intelligence collection, only logistics/organization. Therefore, the fact an "informant" was sent in MEANS THEY DID SPY ON THEM. Period. End of my point. None of your deflections/mentions of other people are relevant. YOU brought Rudy/Judge Nap up (several times, to set up your dishonest and inappropriate deflections)


Triggered much.

You replied to my quote from napalitano.

A former libertarian federal judge..

Like he said no proof

Get a grip man.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

No, he was drugged and forced into a suggestive conversation.

🤫🎑



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

How does one use a cointel operation to justify the appointment of a special council?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Gandalf77


What we know is that the DOJ and FBI briefed these guys on the classified info they were seeking—a highly unusual occurrence in and of itself


Wrong. Congress has the Constitutional right of oversight, which overrules secrecy, classification, asset safety, investigations, etc.

Further, ALL federal agencies work under the Executive branch. Therefore Trump has the direct authority to command them in any way he sees fit (or to terminate them entirely).

Nothing unusual about EMPLOYEES following the directions of their superiors.


No, it's not wrong. By most accounts, it is indeed highly unusual for politicians to muscle in on an ongoing investigation involving classified information, sources, etc. Why? Because it crosses a line and gives the appearance of political interference. It's not without precedent, though: Tricky Dicky had his people get right in the middle of that investigation. And they used the same lame excuses--transparency, blah blah blah.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: howtonhawky

I just want to know where the evidence of Trump's ""collusion"" is at? We were promised evidence, told unequivocally it existed. Yet despite how leaky Schiff, et al are, we've seen no such evidence.

Where's the evidence? Proof or it never happened, and this never happened!


They're not going to release evidence during an ongoing investigation for what should be obvious reasons--law enforcement 101.
edit on 31-5-2018 by Gandalf77 because: Typo



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yawn

And like I said, Clapper, Comey, et al are both PROVEN liars and perjurers. Regardless, your pathetic attempts to bring unrelated others into this discussion proves what I was saying about you all along.


Again, those reading this thread should know that assets/spies/spooks/informants/"confidential-informants"/CIs are all versions of a "spy" or "asset"

Whereas in spycraft (using Clapper's ridiculous cloak&dagger terminology), case officers/access officers/career employees/AKA real "agents" run the show. The CI's/assets/AKA "spies" (whatever you want to call them) do the "spying."

Together, they produce raw intelligence for analysts who make a finished product out of it. But where does finished product go? To decision makers: like former "President" Obama. NO one spies just to spy. It is always done to meet some objective set by the decision makers.

Regardless, Clapper's denials are meaningless semantic drivel. Agency employees (aka AGENTS) never do actual spying despite the media/disinfo portrayals. Whereas "assets" are not "agents" or actual employees, they still operate at the behest of their agency handlers.

I make it a point to never take seriously statements made by known and provable liars though.

All this spying, yet Obama still did NOTHING about "the Russian problem"
So much for that being a real threat/problem (it isn't)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I saw no such reaction as triggered.

What I saw was a deft skewering of someone with no arguments other than a pack of weakly based logical fallacies.

Rebut his points or admit you have nothing.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

How does one use a cointel operation to justify the appointment of a special council?


Well, I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that firing the FBI director had something to do with it. Couple that with what may have been learned in the meantime and the need for a special counsel becomes pretty apparent. That is, if they had just allowed the FBI to do their job without fear of political pressure there wouldn't be the need to safeguard the investigation. If they didn't do anything wrong, they don't have anything to worry about.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Where's the evidence of "collusion" all these impotent liars have been droning on about?

I only ask, because I still have yet to see any. In fact, no one even seems to mention it any more. Wonder why that is....

Could be that the liars have been outed and thoroughly discredited for the traitors they are

Can't wait to see the pasting we deliver at the MT's over this BS though.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Wrong again. Both Lincoln and Johnson used the powers of the Presidency (including issue of orders to US Atty Gen.) to pardon/grant amnesty to Confederate soldiers following their surrender in the war.

Norms/etc are meaningless. They are not legally binding. In fact, you should look at the organizational chart of the Executive branch. Further, you do realize "separation of powers" ONLY has to do with separation of powers between the THREE branches of government, right?

Executive->Legislative->Judicial (in any order). However, nearly ALL Federal agencies (including FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, etc) falls under the Executive branch. Therefore, it is NOT in violation of "separation of powers" for the CHIEF EXECUTIVE to run his branch however he sees fit. Again, plenty of historical precedent. The fact you only look to recent history for examples demonstrates your lack of knowledge regarding this topic, however.

Please take a civics lesson.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

So this is you ignoring me?
What are you forgetful?
I don't think you are real clear on what bipolar is but it sure doesn't apply here.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: luthier

I saw no such reaction as triggered.

What I saw was a deft skewering of someone with no arguments other than a pack of weakly based logical fallacies.

Rebut his points or admit you have nothing.


He has nothing
And this was the impression I got as well. Starts throwing all these random names at me (which I never even mentioned) and then refuses to address the points made

Then again, I talk to leftists frequently so I'm fairly used to. Thankfully, there are a handful of intellectually honest lefties on here I genuinely enjoy having discussions with. But I have little tolerance for the cultish trash talking/"puts words in your mouth" weak deflections luthier and others frequently engage in. I try to call out this intellectually dishonest behavior whenever possible, and force them to address the facts or admit they're in way over their head

But hey, maybe he wants to pretend that real life is Hollyweird. Maybe he wants to believe that career CIA/FBI employees are infiltrating secret Russian Kremlin Hacking camps
Without realizing the truth behind intelligence operations, and without recognizing Clapper's (et al) blatant lies and distractions

We tried my friend Those who still live with their bitter heads buried in the bitter sand will never see the objective truth no matter what you do



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Donald Trump is NOT the "TARGET" of the investigation.

Uncovering and prosecuting individuals involved in Russian interference and collusion is the Target.
Uncovering and prosecuting individuals involved in obstructing and interfering with the above investigation is also within the mandate.
Any significant criminal activity uncovered in the above investigation can be prosecuted.
If it has nothing to do with Russia, hand it off.
If it involves Russian Agents or Interests, the Special Counsel can prosecute.

If Trump is not involved with any of the above, then he has nothing to worry about.

That is pretty straight-forward. It is strange how Trump and his acolytes keep trying to make this a personal prosecution of Trump.
That is only true if Trump is guilty of crimes.
The right wing and Trump himself seem to begin with that assumption.






edit on 31-5-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Gandalf77

Wrong again. Both Lincoln and Johnson used the powers of the Presidency (including issue of orders to US Atty Gen.) to pardon/grant amnesty to Confederate soldiers following their surrender in the war.

Norms/etc are meaningless. They are not legally binding. In fact, you should look at the organizational chart of the Executive branch. Further, you do realize "separation of powers" ONLY has to do with separation of powers between the THREE branches of government, right?

Executive->Legislative->Judicial (in any order). However, nearly ALL Federal agencies (including FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, etc) falls under the Executive branch. Therefore, it is NOT in violation of "separation of powers" for the CHIEF EXECUTIVE to run his branch however he sees fit. Again, plenty of historical precedent. The fact you only look to recent history for examples demonstrates your lack of knowledge regarding this topic, however.

Please take a civics lesson.


I'm not talking about pardons, and I'm not talking about legalities.
To force the DOJ to reveal information in an ongoing investigation is unusual. Legal or not, it crosses a line. The optics are bad. Why? Because they're doing it for obvious political reasons. They can say "transparency" all they want; everyone knows that's bologna. They're trying to find out what the FBI has, and they're trying to build a hoky narrative to gin up support with the public--another thinly-veiled attempt to interfere with the investigation.

People are just mad that Gowdy didn't support that phony narrative. Like the murky memo, this latest gambit has failed.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join