Gowdy: FBI Acted Properly With Use of Informant

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

I assume that f he does come out now in the future and says there was wrongdoing in the fbi, you people will cheer him on and admit he is right like you are here

Like the Benghazi crowd is doing for him right now?

Well I can’t speak for others, but I guess I was someone who was concerned about Benghazi.

(We know you don’t care Americans died and Hillary lied about it)

And I am not mad about Gowdys claim here

But yeah, as I said, people that now hate him over one disagreement are ridiculous

a reply to: Grambler

(We know you don’t care Americans died and Hillary lied about it

You know that? Think for once in your life you can argue without character slander?
I care about the truth. Your partisan beliefs mean nothing. She didn't #ing lie.
You want examples of lying listen to your orange god.

And as for our men in service I have a son who just joined the military mister. He's going to be protecting your ass.

I don't know if Gowdy is telling the truth or he isn't.


What I do know as a fact is that no member of congress has openly come out to pursue those that have used over 17 million in tax payer dollars to silence people for sexual harassment claims.

None.


That tells me that left or right, conservative or god-damned communist, they protect each other and no matter who it is, they are all full of sh#t.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Gowdy was just talking spontaneously.

😎🔑🔓

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.

😎🚬

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.

a reply to: Sillyolme

What are you blabbing about today?
Weren't you the one that asked me to ignore you?
Are you bi polar or just forgetful?
jog on

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.

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.

There is evidence to the contrary!

First step is to agree on the definition and use of the word spy.

That was the left's big rebuttal to the factual evidence of a spy.

They just labeled them as informants and called everyone liars for saying spy.

Freakin losers and gowdy is shillin for em.

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?????????????????

a reply to: xuenchen
In advance?
In advance of what?

a reply to: howtonhawky

“[It] is such a stunningly unremarkable event, because law enforcement does this all the time," Napolitano said.

"Now, Rudy Giuliani said they put an undercover FBI agent in the campaign. There is zero evidence for that. That is such an outlandish and outrageous allegation. It should not have been made without showing any evidence," Napolitano said.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Then they interviewed another member who stated that they were not shown any papers cause it was only a verbal meeting.

Who was that?

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!

a reply to: luthier

Right, but a CI (confidential informant) is NOT an FBI agent/Government employee

They're criminals/opportunist dirt bags who engage in spying for the purpose of 1) reduced sentencing 2) making money 3) currying favor to shield their own criminal activities

CI does not equal law enforcement, intelligence or government agent. They are still spies none-the-less. So yes, when they deny having "case officers" and "recruiting" going on, they mean it. But they abuse the public's definition of "informant" who falsely believe informants are employees of the government or public officials - they aren't.

They're private citizens (in intelligence parlance: "assets") NOT case officers, etc. More lies from the traitorous left.

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.

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!

Nunes and Schiff are two moronic partisan hacks. They keep promising things that don't amount to anything.

The reality is prosecutors always protect their case as much as possible until the day of the trial. That is a fact.

And defenses do everything possible to use a variety of discoveries to find out the prosecutors case that is a fact.

Everything else is here say political nonsense.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: luthier

Right, but a CI (confidential informant) is NOT an FBI agent/Government employee

They're criminals/opportunist dirt bags who engage in spying for the purpose of 1) reduced sentencing 2) making money 3) currying favor to shield their own criminal activities

CI does not equal law enforcement, intelligence or government agent. They are still spies none-the-less. So yes, when they deny having "case officers" and "recruiting" going on, they mean it. But they abuse the public's definition of "informant" who falsely believe informants are employees of the government or public officials - they aren't.

They're private citizens (in intelligence parlance: "assets") NOT case officers, etc. More lies from the traitorous left.

Napalotano is from the left? Wow. Knee jerk much.

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.

They deployed ASSETS against the Trump campaign, not case officers (case officers are never deployed as "assets"). Reply to THIS point or admit you're 100% wrong/deflection/have no clue what you're talking about.

So yes, they whole-heartedly spied on Trump's campaign whether you want to admit it or not. We already know the names of the assets involved, so how do you reconcile that with the load of BS you just spewed?

a reply to: luthier

Again...for those of you just waking up (or something):
-------------------------------------------

Right, but a CI (confidential informant) is NOT an FBI agent/Government employee

They're criminals/opportunist dirt bags who engage in spying for the purpose of 1) reduced sentencing 2) making money 3) currying favor to shield their own criminal activities

CI does not equal law enforcement, intelligence or government agent. They are still spies none-the-less. So yes, when they deny having "case officers" and "recruiting" going on, they mean it. But they abuse the public's definition of "informant" who falsely believe informants are employees of the government or public officials - they aren't.

They're private citizens (in intelligence parlance: "assets") NOT case officers, etc. More lies from the traitorous left.

Stop trying to intentionally muddy the waters to deflect. Your lame bag of tricks don't work with thinking folks. Much harder than talking to a room full of Dems, eh? You won't find many of us staring at a rain cloud with our mouths wide open.

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.

There is evidence to the contrary!

First step is to agree on the definition and use of the word spy.

That was the left's big rebuttal to the factual evidence of a spy.

They just labeled them as informants and called everyone liars for saying spy.

Freakin losers and gowdy is shillin for em.

Where is this evidence?

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—and Gowdy has indicated the FBI acted appropriately.

People can use whatever term they want—spy, informant, confidential source (who has been outed now)—it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not they followed protocol, and Gowdy has said they did their job.