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: 11
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


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


I am shocked to hear you make this admission.

So you realize Trump isn't "going down" for any of these BS lies/spin, right? That he'll finish out his 4 years (probably 8, if re-elected)?




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
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.


"Collusion" isn't a crime. You don't charge someone with collusion, but using that word has become a staple of Trump's narrative. I suspect they're looking into crimes like fraud, illegal cooperation/coordination with a foreign entity, conspiracy, money laundering, etc. Maybe they find something, maybe they don't. But we're not going to see evidence during an ongoing investigation. Again, law enforcement 101.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
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.







Well said. At this point, we know that Trump is only considered to be a "Subject" of the investigation, not a target. They have to be careful about how they say that because a subject can turn into a target as more information is uncovered. Not saying that will happen, but that is the distinction.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns


Where's the evidence of "collusion" all these impotent liars have been droning on about?



Evidence? My god...a tonnage of evidence.

This is just 10 minutes of random cut and paste, far from all of it and not even touching things like the dossier, which still has not been disproven.

Donald Trump's Chief Campaign Manager and Strategist, Paul Manafort.



We know he ran the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate on behalf of Russia previously;

that he had taken on massive debt to a foreign patron, Oleg Deripaska;

that Deripaska was working on behalf of the Russian government’s foreign policy;

that Manafort accepted his position as Trump’s campaign manager for free;

and that he hoped his work for Trump would help him “get whole” with Deripaska.

nymag.com...

Trump Campaign Advisor Geoerge Papadopolous:


met with a Russian agent who told him he had dirt on Hillary Clinton,
later boasted that Russia had obtained damaging Clinton emails,
and lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.


Peter W. Smith, a veteran Republican political operative


attempted to obtain stolen Clinton emails
and told the people he contacted in pursuit of these emails he was working on behalf of the Trump campaign.


Roger Stone


reportedly knew about stolen Clinton emails,
emailed with the person who had the stolen material,
publicly flaunted his advance knowledge of these emails,
and also spoke regularly with Donald Trump during the period when he had this knowledge.
It is a virtual certainty Stone colluded with Russia on the email hack, and highly probable he made Trump an accessory after the fact.


Trump Jr. and 2016 Trump Tower meeting


You have a Russian agent dangling Russian assistance in the election (“part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”),

and the offer of help being accepted (“if it’s what you say I love it”).


The President and his son issued false public statements about the Trump tower meeting.

Chief National Security Advisor Michael Flynn


Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn held secret conversations with Russian officials in December 2016 during the presidential transition period, promising to undermine sanctions imposed against Russia by the Obama administration for meddling in the U.S. election. Flynn pleaded guilty late last year to lying to the FBI about those conversations.



www.usatoday.com...
nymag.com...

Trump on his relationship with Vladimir Putin:


During the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly praised Russian president Vladimir Putin as a strong leader, leading to jokes about their "bromance".

From various occasions in 2013 to 2015, Trump has said regarding Putin,
"I do have a relationship with him", "I met him once",
and "I spoke indirectly and directly with President Putin, who could not have been nicer".
However, from 2016, during Trump's election campaign, Trump's stance changed. During a press conference Trump claimed, "I never met Putin, I don't know who Putin is ... Never spoken to him", and during another interview Trump said, "I have no relationship with him".


en.wikipedia.org...



British and Dutch intelligence services have given information to their United States counterparts about meetings in European cities between Russian officials, associates of Putin, and associates of then-President-elect Trump. American intelligence agencies also intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates




Flynn and now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions subsequently confirmed contacts after having initially denied them.


Jared Kushner


In April 2017, it was reported that Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, on his application for top secret security clearance, failed to disclose numerous meetings with foreign officials, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak as well as Sergey Gorkov, the head of the Russian state-owned bank Vnesheconombank.

Kushner's lawyers called the omissions "an error". Vnesheconombank said the meeting was business-related, in connection with Kushner's management of Kushner Companies.

However, the Trump administration provided a different explanation, saying it was a diplomatic meeting


Michael R. Caputo, in charge of the Trump campaign's communications for the New York state Republican primary from approximately November 2015 to April 2016,


Republican public relations and media consultant Michael R. Caputo worked for Gazprom in Russia, and later as an adviser on the Trump campaign.

Caputo lived in Russia from 1994 to 2000, employed by Gazprom-Media, and at the end of that period he contracted with Gazprom to do public relations work oriented toward raising Vladimir Putin's support level in the U.S


Rick Gates, Deputy Campaign Manager for Trump


Gates worked with Manafort to promote Viktor Yanukovych and pro-Russian factions in Ukraine. Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska was the biggest investor in Davis Manafort, a lobbying and investment firm that employed Gates.

In October 2017, Gates was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested on twelve criminal charges including conspiracy, money laundering, failure to register as an agent of a foreign power, and false statements.

en.wikipedia.org...

Foreign Campaign Advisor Carter Page


Page was dropped from the Trump team after reports that he was under investigation by federal authorities over his Russian connections.[97] The FBI and the Justice Department obtained a FISA warrant to monitor Page's communications during October 2016, after they made the case that there was probable cause to think Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power (Russia).


Jared Kushner gave a confusing explanation for his alleged 'back channel' plan with Russia
www.businessinsider.com...

Mueller gathers evidence that 2017 Seychelles meeting was effort to establish back channel to Kremlin
www.washingtonpost.com... remlin/2018/03/07/b6a5fb8c-224b-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html

Erik Prince may have lied to Congress about his Seychelles meeting
www.vox.com...


2016 RNC Delegate: Trump Directed Change To Party Platform On Ukraine Support
www.npr.org...


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



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Who's muddying the water here? The ones saying informant or the one going overboard trying to define what an informant is instead of focusing on the the fact that they were legally employed?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


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


I am shocked to hear you make this admission.

So you realize Trump isn't "going down" for any of these BS lies/spin, right?
That he'll finish out his 4 years (probably 8, if re-elected)?



You are only shocked because your brain is stuck in a rut.

Trump not being the target of the investigation

AND

Trump being innocent Collusion/Obstruction of Justice/Working for Russian Interests in trade for Campaign Assistance...
AKA Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud the United States of America and stuff like that?

ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Mueller is not targeting PEOPLE, he is targeting criminal activity associated with Russian Collusion or Interference in the 2016 campaign.

People only become "targets" once Prosecutors feel they have enough evidence to indict and they are looking to strengthen the case and uncover all criminal activity as much as possible before issuing a full indictment.

The end game for Trump will be a report, not indictment.
At worst he will be named as a "non-indicted co-conspirator" in one of the final rounds of indictments as Nixon was.

Rosenstein decides if the Report goes public.
Before it goes public, it must get redacted by DOJ and intelligence community.

That will trigger the WH and Trump to demand that the report doesn't get released without their own redactions and approval.

That will be a fight. Rosenstein might get fired. Session will then either step back in (un recuse) or Sessions will get fired.

Trump will do everything possible to squash the report altogether or prevent it's release until after mid-terms so he can head off any potential impeachment (aka prevent blue wave in Nov).

All of this goes down in august and early Sept.
Muellers deadline is Sept. 1st for conclusions before he risks interfering in elections.
It gives time for the politics, spin and defense before mid-terms.
edit on 31-5-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

That's a wonderful little medley there--nice work.

And that's just the public-facing side of all this.
Considering how many of these characters have pled guilty in exchange for singing like canaries, you really have to wonder where it's all headed. Prosecutors don't typically offer deals like that unless they're getting high-value information in exchange--i.e., information on the bigger fishy.

It will be interesting to see how all of this is put together in the final report--assuming we ever get to see it.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77

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.


www.businessinsider.com...


"I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who made the appointment, said in a statement. "My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination."


Notice the part in which Rosenstein states "not a finding that crimes have been committed".
That is important.
A cointel op in no way justifies the requirement for an actual crime to be investigated.
en.wikipedia.org...


The current special counsel regulations specify that:[6] The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and
— (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

so the regulation, that allows special councils, requires a criminal investigation is warranted AND then (a) and (b)...
how in this case, with rosenstein admitting that he sees no crime or reason to prosecute, was a special council authorized?
there is a reason this was all done as a "cointel op" and not a criminal investigation; the rules for leos are vastly different



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBurns

Who's muddying the water here? The ones saying informant or the one going overboard trying to define what an informant is instead of focusing on the the fact that they were legally employed?


Dictionary defines a spy as someone who observes and reports back basically...so it was spying.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBurns

Who's muddying the water here? The ones saying informant or the one going overboard trying to define what an informant is instead of focusing on the the fact that they were legally employed?


Dictionary defines a spy as someone who observes and reports back basically...so it was spying.


So your definition of a spy is a person capable of seeing, listening and speaking?

That is hilariously desperate.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77


Maybe they find something, maybe they don't.


THANK YOU!

My only problem has EVER been people claiming Trump was guilty, in a matter of fact/already been determined way.

Maybe they find something, maybe they don't.


However, the premise of the investigation was Hillary's Fusion GPS lies (which they coordinated with a foreign power - the UK and Russia - to obtain). IF it turns out that Trump was indeed the target of a political witch-hunt, then all involved should be imprisoned or worse. If it turns out he factually conspired with a foreign government (which is very unlikely) then he should also face charges


edit on 5/31/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




Notice the part in which Rosenstein states "not a finding that crimes have been committed"


Notice the part where he says I have made no such determination he hasn't... that does t mean that Mueller has not or even that the FBI themselves have not.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Gandalf77


Maybe they find something, maybe they don't.


IF it turns out that Trump was indeed the target of a political witch-hunt, then all involved should be imprisoned or worse.

If it turns out he factually conspired with a foreign government (which is very unlikely) then he should also face charges



Sure, but your first "IF" is premised on BS. Has been examined multiple times by Congress and still no evidence that withstands even a cursory smell test.

Your second "IF" involved a tonnage of evidence and cover-ups that has warranted multiple investigations by multiple agencies and both house of Congress.

BS followed by demands for an official investigation based on that BS is..well...BS.

A tonnage of campaign and administration officials working with/for or communicating with Russian Agents and Oligarchs and then lying to investigators about it? Worth looking into.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

An informant is not an employee of the federal government (or law enforcement in the case of non-IC work) but they do act at their behest. I'm not trying to muddy the waters here, just wanted to point out how full of it Clapper is.

When he sat there intentionally muddying the water by using words like "tradecraft" "spycraft" "spy" etc he knew what he was doing. He was exploiting the common lack of knowledge surrounding this issues. No "employee" of the federal government is a "spy" they are case officers and handlers, who certainly recruit spies, but that isn't what Clapper/et al are accused of doing. They are accused of using a confidential informant (asset - AKA "spy") to collect intelligence on a campaign.

The fact they vehemently denied this (and initially poked a lot of fun at Trump/supporters) should show you how serious this really is. It is unprecedented. And if they were so concerned with Russia, why the failed cloak & dagger BS? Why not approach the campaign directly? Why did Obama deny it? Why didn't he take action?

Barrack Hussein Obama was in office when "the attack" was happening, so why did he take no action? Why did he tell everyone Russia had backed off? Even poked fun at Trump (yet again) for even possibly believing our elections could be tampered with. Speaking of which, how about all the liberals who still claim to this data that election meddling doesn't happen? (ie: illegals voting) How can you reconcile that with the allegations RE: Russia?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


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


I am shocked to hear you make this admission.

So you realize Trump isn't "going down" for any of these BS lies/spin, right?
That he'll finish out his 4 years (probably 8, if re-elected)?



You are only shocked because your brain is stuck in a rut.

Trump not being the target of the investigation

AND

Trump being innocent Collusion/Obstruction of Justice/Working for Russian Interests in trade for Campaign Assistance...
AKA Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud the United States of America and stuff like that?

ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Mueller is not targeting PEOPLE, he is targeting criminal activity associated with Russian Collusion or Interference in the 2016 campaign.

People only become "targets" once Prosecutors feel they have enough evidence to indict and they are looking to strengthen the case and uncover all criminal activity as much as possible before issuing a full indictment.

The end game for Trump will be a report, not indictment.
At worst he will be named as a "non-indicted co-conspirator" in one of the final rounds of indictments as Nixon was.

Rosenstein decides if the Report goes public.
Before it goes public, it must get redacted by DOJ and intelligence community.

That will trigger the WH and Trump to demand that the report doesn't get released without their own redactions and approval.

That will be a fight. Rosenstein might get fired. Session will then either step back in (un recuse) or Sessions will get fired.

Trump will do everything possible to squash the report altogether or prevent it's release until after mid-terms so he can head off any potential impeachment (aka prevent blue wave in Nov).

All of this goes down in august and early Sept.
Muellers deadline is Sept. 1st for conclusions before he risks interfering in elections.
It gives time for the politics, spin and defense before mid-terms.


i like your thinking here

of coarse i disagree with some conclusions though

The way you describe the situation says that trump has all authority to fire rosenstine mueller and the whole lot if he chooses

Trump has the last say in any investigation under the justice department.

Since they cleared him that means no crime by trump and zero reason or need to speak with mueller

The only type of investigative appointment that trump would not have final say over would be a criminal one where mueller was appointed for a specific crime with actual evidence.

just a reminder collusion is not a crime paying someone to pee on a bed is not a crime

game over peeps




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


Sure, but your first "IF" is premised on BS. Has been examined multiple times by Congress and still no evidence that withstands even a cursory smell test.


It isn't premised on BS. McCain, Flake, Hillary (etc) employed a foreign agent (Steele) to contact more foreign agents (the Russians he got "dirt" from - unless he made it up) to influence a campaign. How is this any different than what you're accusing Trump of?


Your second "IF" involved a tonnage of evidence and cover-ups that has warranted multiple investigations by multiple agencies and both house of Congress.


All of which have found no evidence of criminal acts by the President. Mueller himself has admitted (through indictments) that no Americans were willing participants in any Russian plot. So you can't POSSIBLY charge someone with conspiracy to XX unless there is clear intent along with some unlawful act to further their criminal conspiracy.

I'm just curious what you think Trump could be charged with at this point. Respectfully
edit on 5/31/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody




Notice the part in which Rosenstein states "not a finding that crimes have been committed"


Notice the part where he says I have made no such determination he hasn't... that does t mean that Mueller has not or even that the FBI themselves have not.

hey there butinski
mueller was investigating prior to rosenstein appointing him special council???

btw
when you tell someone to please ignore you, perhaps addressing them is not the best way to get them to ignore you?
there is absolutely nothing consistent with you



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Yeah so ...all huskies are dogs. Not all dogs are huskies.

All things are not equal.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sillyolme


And if they were so concerned with Russia, why the failed cloak & dagger BS? Why not approach the campaign directly? Why did Obama deny it? Why didn't he take action?

Barrack Hussein Obama was in office when "the attack" was happening, so why did he take no action? Why did he tell everyone Russia had backed off? Even poked fun at Trump (yet again) for even possibly believing our elections could be tampered with. Speaking of which, how about all the liberals who still claim to this data that election meddling doesn't happen? (ie: illegals voting) How can you reconcile that with the allegations RE: Russia?


1. We don't know that it failed or succeeded. We don't know what Halper learned when he approached these guys or what the FBI did as a result. Depending on what he learned, surveillance may have been a warranted next step. Given how this jumped up on their radar (allied intel, Pap. running his mouth, etc.), the FBI couldn't just assume it was all Russia. If they had gone straight to the campaign, and it wasn't just a one-way deal, then they've compromised the investigation by tipping off the subjects. Pretty straight forward, really.

2. The Obama admin did take some action, and some were pushing for more aggressive action. I believe he did tell Putin to "knock it off" in person, and the feds did try to get with the states to tighten things up in cyberspace. Ironically, they met some resistance at the local levels. It's important to keep in mind how fluid this thing was at the time and, more importantly, there was more than a little concern that overt efforts would be seen as an unfair attempt to put a finger on the scales for Hillary. Trump himself was already screaming about how the election would likely be rigged.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

It's the use of the word spy in this derogatory manner. To elicit shock and outrage.
The uglier they can make it sound the better. Better to garner support for trump.
He admits to this kind of tactic yet they don't quite get that he is manipulating them.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join