Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

a reply to: theantediluvian

From all the “real news “ sources like infowars...


You know the ones who don’t even employ journalists and just copy/ paste msm stories before propagandizing them..

originally posted by: theantediluvian

"TDS! TDS! TDS!"

Easy, Ante, easy...it'll be okay. Admitting you have a problem is the first step they say!

a reply to: RickinVa

That doesn’t mean they are created equal...


When was the last time someone was fired for publishing a fake story on Fox News or the other conservative sources???


There hasn’t been because printing true stories are not on their list of things to do.. Bri g click bait is..


There are Wikipedia pages that point out the laundry list of reporters fired by real media sources for publishing fake stories..

If the FBI was so careful to keep a Trump team investigation quiet, why were they so public about investigating the Hillary team, only 11 days before the election?

Not treating the two candidates equally and fairly makes it appear the FBI helped get Trump elected by tanking Hillary's chances of winning.

Why would they do that?

originally posted by: Kharron
If the FBI was so careful to keep a Trump team investigation quiet, why were they so public about investigating the Hillary team, only 11 days before the election?

Not treating the two candidates equally and fairly makes it appear the FBI helped get Trump elected by tanking Hillary's chances of winning.

Why would they do that?

Because Hillary broke multiple laws whereas they didn't frame Trump properly to get him on anything.

originally posted by: Kharron
If the FBI was so careful to keep a Trump team investigation quiet, why were they so public about investigating the Hillary team, only 11 days before the election?

Not treating the two candidates equally and fairly makes it appear the FBI helped get Trump elected by tanking Hillary's chances of winning.

Why would they do that?

Comey admitted why.

He like everyone else assumed she was going to win, and didn’t want to give any ammo to her opponents who could say the fbi covered up the investigation

So yes, even that action by the fbi was designed to help Hillary, they just miscalculated

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kharron
If the FBI was so careful to keep a Trump team investigation quiet, why were they so public about investigating the Hillary team, only 11 days before the election?

Not treating the two candidates equally and fairly makes it appear the FBI helped get Trump elected by tanking Hillary's chances of winning.

Why would they do that?

He like everyone else assumed she was going to win, and didn’t want to give any ammo to her opponents who could say the fbi covered up the investigation

That's a fair assumption, however, you do understand that the only investigation the FBI covered up is the one into Trump, which ended up having the effect of helping him win.

In other words, they covered up investigating the man who became president. If that isn't fishy, I don't know what is.

a reply to: theantediluvian
S&F. It’s obvious by the personal attacks you’re really touching some nerves here.

Thank you for being one of the few posters on ATS to actually use facts and sources in their OPs. I know that rubs some folks around here the wrong way.

a reply to: Grambler

1. Isnt it convenient that this operation was basically hush hush except for a small group of people, who by the way almost all entirely hated trump. Comey, Brennan, Strzok, Clapper, etc?

What you're ignoring is that the delineation wasn't along the lines of "hate" Trump/"like" Trump — it was confined to the top people at those agencies. That's how you keep a secret. You're also assuming that people can't have unfavorable opinions of people and still be ethical in doing their jobs.

Take that into account that they started by meeting Downer, the Australian diplomat that facilitated the Clintons foundation getting millions of dollars from Australia. And all over what, a low level trump campaign person drunkenly saying a russian said there were dirty emails on hillary?

You mean Australia's Ambassador to the UK? You hang on to this one fact about Downer to smear him as though he and Clinton are besties, so much so that he made up — oh wait, what exactly did he do again? What's the theory here? That Misfud knows a guy who supported Hillary, therefore he contacted Popadopoulos along with this shady Russian chick he contracted for the mission and then planted this seed so that months later, Clinton BFF Downer could get him to drunkenly run his mouth so that months later, he could tell the story?

Does that *really* make any sense at all? I mean, that's basically what you *must* be implying (repeatedly) because why else would you think this Clinton-Downer thing was significant?

2. The part you cite about the FBI taking a minimal approach because they thought Hillary would win.

Am I the only one who is getting tired of this? We had texts from strzok and page saying they hoped they wouldnt look bad to hillary for investigating when she won. We had comey say his decision to announce the investigation of Hillary after the weiner laptop was because he assumed hillary would win. Now this.

It's the juxtaposition between how the Clinton investigations were handled vs the counterintelligence investigation.

I dont care what side it helps or hurts; the FBI should not be making decisions based on who they feel will win politically. This should outrage pro and anti trump people alike

I agree. On the other hand, look how the FBI has become the focal point of massive politicization in the media and in Congress. We can say they shouldn't be concerned with how things might appear but how things might appear is exactly what has come to matter.

3. All of the sudden, it now seems that Obamas admin did spy on trumps team; much worse than originally thought.

They had a person inside his team, they wiretapped page, they subpoenaed phone records on people as you mention.

This is outrageous!

I wish that the pro-Trump people would settle on a narrative here. You've got this "inside the Trump team!" or as Network said, "a spy in the campaign headquarters" but then on the hand, you have those saying Stefan Halper was this informant. I think there's a good chance it was Halper. Hardly an "Obama spy" and *not* within the campaign, let alone at the campaign headquarters. He already knew Page which is probably why they tapped him (if he's the guy) and had invited him to a symposium a month prior to the FBI investigation.

They did "wiretap" Page a month after he was out of the campaign. And what came of it? Nothing except grief for investigating a legitimate subject. I'm just curious — if this was a conspiracy to hurt Trump, what was the point of wiretapping Page exactly?

Now what happens if they cant prove any trump/russia collusion? Now we have a bunch of higher ups in the intel community that hated trump using oppo research from his opponent to launch an investigation and get wiretaps against trump associates, a spy placed by them on trumps team, and phone records taken by them of trumps team. And all of this may have occurred when there actually was no collusion between trump and russia.

An investigation isn't justified by its outcome. The question is were they acting reasonably, ethically and in good faith. I don't think there's any question that given *everything* that a counterintelligence investigation wasn't warranted. In fact, I'd say if they hadn't launched one, it would have been out of fear of political blowback and it would have been dereliction of their duty.

Now all that Trump needs to do to spy on his opponents is to have a diplomat that is an associate of his say he heard a democrat say russia or china or some other country may have dirty emails of Trump. Then he may place spies in their campaign, get phone records, get wiretaps, etc.

You keep implying that Obama was behind the investigation and that the purpose was to spy on the Trump campaign (I assume for political gain) but none of that is actually supported by the facts.

I'll tell you what though, if I ever get around to launching a criminal enterprise, you can count on me being a perpetual GOP candidate with all of my people as part of my campaign. That way, I'll be IMMUNE to the investigation no matter what happens. Right? Of course not.

And that's really the crux of this whole thing. The pro-Trump narrative is something like (if you add up all the minor conspiracies):

The Democrats/Clinton/Deep State/whoever setup all these people in Trump's orbit to have shady dealings, so that Seth Rich could 'leak' docs/emails and be killed for it (I'm not quite clear on how they knew in advance to get this started with hiring Manafort in March and sending Misfud in early April), so that they'd then have an excuse to open an investigation, so that they could then get the dossier, so that they could then wiretap Carter Page, so that when Trump was elected (they also foretold this, it MUST be a time machine), they could 'hurt Trump' and see all of their careers go down the drain without producing anything to hang on Trump.

I tell you, for one of the most complex, high-level mega conspiracies of all time, they sure executed all these operations flawlessly only to not get the ball across the line.

If you start with the notion that their actions where inherently part of some sinister scheme, some anti-Trump conspiracy, then everything is illegitimate/criminal. I think believing that requires disbelieving Russian meddling in the election or trying to downplay it to point that it wouldn't be worth investigating even if you accept that it happened.

Because if you believe that the Russians were actively meddling in the election. If you believe that the Russians were behind the various hacks/phishing campaigns, then you pretty much can't not believe that the investigation was warranted and that the particular subjects of investigation were legit.

Which brings me to an afterthought: that's why there are conspiracy theories for basically every subject of investigation: Papadopoulos was setup. Carter Page was setup. Flynn was setup. Nobody really argues that Manafort was setup because he's been indicted for crimes that aren't related to coordinating with the Russians during the election. They just argue that he should walk.

That's necessary to undercut the reality that all of the focus of the investigation was put on people who were legitimate targets which implies that the investigation was itself legitimate.

a reply to: The GUT

Easy, Ante, easy...it'll be okay. Admitting you have a problem is the first step they say!

The irony is that half the people who sling that TDS lameness around here regularly go off their psych meds and post in Flat Earther type threads.

Dedication to your fan base is so admirable!

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

The FBI was investigating Trump long before he decided to campaign for pres. Money laundering...

www.wired.com...

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

And to throw in that last jab? LOL, coming form a poster with TDS such as yourself, it makes me smile. I don't really do as much supporting as I do defending. But when things go well, it does make me happy. It must be hell to have to find a way to be angry with things happen that are good for everyone involved. Remember to take that blood pressure medicine. I'd hate for you to have issues from your TDS.

"I'm not a supporter, I'm a defender!"
"TDS! TDS! TDS!"

Yawn.

I must be mistaken, after looking at your post history, it's obvious I was mistaken. It would appear to be more of a crush than hatred. Like in junior high.

This article is garbage. Lol (Not saying conclusions are wrong)
I think I’m gonna do a more in depth critique and make a thread about it.
(Eta: if I do, it prolly won’t be about the article, per se, however about some fallacies, which the article is a perfect example of, for many... or something)

(Then again, I got wrastling to go to soon, so I’ve started pregaming, thus reducing the quality of said critique... MAYBE I’ll hold off... lol)

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thats a lot of words to justify this spying on a political oppoennts team.

I think you are very smart, and I agree with a lot of what you say.

But you know damn well the fbi was soft on hillary, and hard on trump. And you know that you quite often ignore anything that is evidence to that.

Like you still have failed to even breath a word on the FBI "accidentally" losing chain of custody on Hillarys server, or on Brennan lying about the dossier not being used in the ICA, etc.

No, we have not seen any evidence to justify any of this spying at all.

What, Manaforts connections in loibbying in 2012 with the Podesta group? Oh thats right, only trumps people needed spied on.

What, Don jr trying to get dirt from foriegn sources like Hillarys team did with the dossier that had major parts sourced from Kremlin officials? Oh thats right, only trump people needed spied on.

What like lying to the FBI like Mills and Abedin? Oh thats right, its only a crime of Trumps people do it.

Or how about Cohen talking to Ukrainians like the lady in hillarys camp that has admitted to working with the Uklranian government to get dirt on Trump? Whoops, I forgot, only a crime when trump people do it.

Maybe we should have spied on Trump people because like Hillarys people they took money from russian oligrach deripaska? Oh sorry, its only worth spying on trump people if they do it.

And on and on.

Now we know that the same top group that were charged with investigating hillary (and "accidentally lost chain of custody of her server, granted people immunity while smashing their devices for no reason, allowed suspects to sit in with hillary on interviews, etc.) were the exact same people that were the only ones that were allowed to know about gthe sercet spying of the trump campaign.

And we know that almost everyone of them hated trump.

Yet somehow, you are ok with this.

And yet you will gnash your teeth and wail anytime Nunes says anything; and he is not even an investigator that has the authority to spy on people like the trump haters Brennan comey, mccabe, strzok, etc.

The funniest thing to me is how the anti trumpers started saying how laughable it was trumps team wqas spied on; and now they have had to fall back on "well yeah but they should have been spied on!"

This is the politicization and weaponization of the intel community; and yes, the buck stops with Obama. This wasnt just one person that went rogue, it was the higher ups of several agencies under his control. And Obama was running around telling allies trump may be compromised; so yes, he is to blame.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RickinVa

After you post, I realized I hadn't been posting enough about Trump so I stepped it up.

I find this satisfying because it's only working against you

a reply to: Grambler
Welcome to modern times
You have to pay to get fed the premium bullcrap now
Looks like the OP may be a prime member....

sorry if it has already been said...

but I knew I heard that phrase before...'crossfire hurricane' ...is the opening lyric of a Rolling Stones Song ->


see:

Jumpin' Jack Flash____________The Rolling Stones

I was born in a cross-fire hurricane
And I howled at the morning driving rain
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas
But it's all right. I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's a gas, gas, gas

That's all folks !

originally posted by: Kharron
If the FBI was so careful to keep a Trump team investigation quiet, why were they so public about investigating the Hillary team, only 11 days before the election?

Not treating the two candidates equally and fairly makes it appear the FBI helped get Trump elected by tanking Hillary's chances of winning.

Why would they do that?

Gotta ask Comey, I guess.

Maybe he was trying too get out ahead of something?

Trying to save her ass. lol!

But really, after the tarmac meeting and email BS it was a hail mary to say she #ed up but is too stupid to know it.

originally posted by: St Udio

sorry if it has already been said...

but I knew I heard that phrase before...'crossfire hurricane' ...is the opening lyric of a Rolling Stones Song ->


see:

Jumpin' Jack Flash____________The Rolling Stones

I was born in a cross-fire hurricane
And I howled at the morning driving rain
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas
But it's all right. I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's a gas, gas, gas

That's all folks !

and I howled at my mom in the driving rain

More mandela or yanny?