NYT tries it’s best to spin intel community spying on trump as ok

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Pyle
Since when was an informant relaying information to law enforcement spying?

It starts in earnest....

You are right, people are doing there best to conflate informant with spy. I wonder how this whole thing will end.

How it will end?

It will fade into the darkness and be forgotten, because there is nothing here; just the wailings of a failed presidential cult.

Hopefully, in its passing, our country won't be harmed too much, and then the American people can make it great again.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

That is easy to prove. They have no evidence of crimes. You know it, they know it, and everyone knows it.
Where is the evidence if there is some? Hiding with the elves at the north pole? Would this charade go on this long with zero evidence? No. You already know these people wanted Hillary to win, and these witch hunts were Obama's well exposed back up plan. What more do you need?

You said "easy to prove" and gave us nothing. So, how about this..."What more do we need?" Actual, real world, evidence! You know some real data that supports your position to the point that it is convincing.

That is evidence / data that is something more than a bunch of apparently blind followers jumping up and down demanding that their version is correct.

a reply to: Grambler

JW speaks about the NYT piece

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: xuenchen

You have been reading to much Q. Stop speaking in memes and half-sentences. It makes any effort to have a conversation with you pointless.

Well that's the best irony ive seen all day 😂

The left are INSANE

Official

originally posted by: TritonTaranis

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: xuenchen

You have been reading to much Q. Stop speaking in memes and half-sentences. It makes any effort to have a conversation with you pointless.

Well that's the best irony ive seen all day 😂

The left are INSANE

Official

Yes, letting someone know the points they are trying to make are failing because they are not writing in ways that are understandable is irony and insanity...

You might want to join Xue in updating your communication skills.

originally posted by: majickJimi

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

That is easy to prove. They have no evidence of crimes. You know it, they know it, and everyone knows it.
Where is the evidence if there is some? Hiding with the elves at the north pole? Would this charade go on this long with zero evidence? No. You already know these people wanted Hillary to win, and these witch hunts were Obama's well exposed back up plan. What more do you need?

You said "easy to prove" and gave us nothing. So, how about this..."What more do we need?" Actual, real world, evidence! You know some real data that supports your position to the point that it is convincing.

That is evidence / data that is something more than a bunch of apparently blind followers jumping up and down demanding that their version is correct.

You have reversed as usual with TDS people. After all this time there is NO EVIDENCE that Trump broke even a single law with the Russian collusion nonsense. That is evidence of malicious prosecution that they still have no evidence against Trump.
Having an investigation and producing no evidence is all by itself evidence of a false and malicious prosecution. That is what is obvious. Having no evidence against Trump (Which even federal judges are saying as well), is the EVIDENCE that it's baloney.

In this case, that you have nothing is the proof it is nothing.

Trump playing the MSM like a fiddle. The anti-Trump bombardment is creating an ever increasing number of Trump sympathizers. Glenn Beck, for instance.

Source: twitter.com...

NYT took too much heat and is now back-peddling. The FBI mole wasn't REALLY a spy, LOL.

President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”

In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign.

The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.

More at: www.msn.com... p

a reply to: Grambler

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

Funny there are still no crimes charged from this event other than process crimes.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Boy did they dial a wrong number !!

The joke's on them isn't it.

😃💫

a reply to: carewemust

If they were the ones who were suggesting othes get in contact with the Russians. Even as to go so far as to help setup a meeting with a lawyer whom might have dirt on Hillary. Trying to entrap them . Seems they are still up to their old tricks.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

You have reversed as usual with TDS people. After all this time there is NO EVIDENCE that Trump broke even a single law with the Russian collusion nonsense. That is evidence of malicious prosecution that they still have no evidence against Trump.
Having an investigation and producing no evidence is all by itself evidence of a false and malicious prosecution. That is what is obvious. Having no evidence against Trump (Which even federal judges are saying as well), is the EVIDENCE that it's baloney.

In this case, that you have nothing is the proof it is nothing.

I've "reversed as usual"? Well, you have absolutely NO historical data upon which to base that remark...and, who the hell are TDS people?

Do you remember Nixon? Or was he before your time? He too was innocent, and little to no actual evidence could be found. He still left office in disgrace. You see, he was "dogged" by his people, who thought they could do anything. They of course were wrong, and destroyed a president who might have done great things.

Your precious "Donald" IS SO ENCUMBERED and unfortunately can never be as great a president as Nixon might have been (or actually was ).

And, just so you know, going forward; lack of evidence does not constitute evidence of anything...you see, in a void, there is nothing!

So, please, kind sir; Where the HELL is your evidence?!!?

a reply to: majickJimi

You have it reversed as usual, was the intended wording. And you still do. There isn't any evidence against Trump as admitted by everyone except people with Trump derangement syndrome. (It's just one of the many syndromes they are suffering from). Even judges are calling out the fools like Mueller for lack of evidence... I was around when John F. Kennedy was president, so I remember the Nixon days just fine son, and Trump is a far better president than Nixon..

Non of this rampant spying is okay. Do we really want to live in the Clutches of a Soviet Era KGB?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: majickJimi

You have it reversed as usual, was the intended wording. And you still do. There isn't any evidence against Trump as admitted by everyone except people with Trump derangement syndrome. (It's just one of the many syndromes they are suffering from). Even judges are calling out the fools like Mueller for lack of evidence... I was around when John F. Kennedy was president, so I remember the Nixon days just fine son, and Trump is a far better president than Nixon..

Uh-huh...

Something you fail to grasp; in order for the "as usual" part to even begin to work, you must first establish "usual"...you haven't!

I didn't say there was any evidence Mr. Trump, there wasn't any against Nixon either (at first). So really all that may mean is that Donald is better at covering up transgressions/criminal activity.

And, again, the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean anything other than evidence has not been found. Though, you and others are right; at some point the investigation must end. However, I would like to point out that many associated with Donald the Great, are either indicted, or about to be.

The judges are out of line in calling for an end to the investigation, that is a decision that should be made by the American people.

By the way; the only thing I have against Mr. Trump is that he is a lying, bully who seems to think he is an old school gangster boss. Don Donald he is not! A shameful little street punk he is.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Oh, you could just type out what you mean instead of memes. It would help people take you seriously.

Right spies are spies...

FBI are law enforcement not spies.

I dont know how much more clear it can be made for you.

You could always try Merrialm-Webster

2 spy
noun
Definition of spy

plural spies

1 : one that spies: a : one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information

in·form·ant
inˈfôrmənt/

noun

a person who gives information to another.

They are different things! WHO KNEW!?

Ah I see what you did there. Let's quote the whole definition shall we?

From your link Merriamn-Webster


Definition of informant
: a person who gives information: such as
a : informer
b : one who supplies cultural or linguistic data in response to interrogation by an investigator

Now let's see if we can tie informer to spy.

Thesaurus

Synonyms for spy
noun person who secretly finds out about another's business
agent
detective
informer
investigator
mole
operative
secret agent

The bold is mine.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Grambler

So during the presidential campaign both Trump and Clinton were being investigated by the FBI but one investigation was public and one was secret. Team Trump was able to use the FBI’s investigation against Clinton to attack her and Trump leading his rallies with constant chants of “Lock Her Up”. Then the FBI made headlines just before the election dropping a bombshell that they were reopening the investigation and conservatives cheered them on, but meanwhile the FBI’s investigation into Team Trump was held in secret.

If anything, you should be thanking the FBI for being so tight lipped and helping your Dear Leader get elected.

And for the record, I despise Hillary and never voted for her.

You bring up a good point. I read an op ed that gave me a better perspective on that issue. Granted, an op ed is an opinion piece but the logic was sound as I recall. I wish I could remember where I read it. If I can find it, I will post it. Basically, it said that Clinton was under criminal investigation. Trump was not. The FBI used the counterintelligence unit within the FBI to look at Trump's campaign because they didn't have any information at that time to warrant a criminal investigation. Which is considered an abuse of power. Why? Because they simply said, "We can't open a criminal investigation but we'll investigate him anyway because we might find something." That's going on a fishing expedition.

Think about it this way. Let's say the sheriff doesn't like me because I dated his daughter and broke up with her. So he sends his deputies out on patrol and tells them to specifically drive by my house multiple times a day. Looking for something, anything they can nail me on. No matter how minor. My music is too loud. My dog crapped in my neighbors yard.

Clinton was under a criminal investigation. Trump was not. So they really aren't the same at all.

Look at the timeline of events.

“…when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.”

This was reported by the NYT on Dec. 31, 2017

www.nytimes.com...

So the FBI originally claimed they started investigating the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016. Now this story comes out and, guess what. The informant approached Carter Page at a Cambridge symposium in London on July 11-12, 2016. Which is before the Australian officials passed that information.

“In mid-July 2016, a retired American professor approached an adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign at a symposium about the White House race held at a British university.

“The professor took the opportunity to strike up a conversation with Carter Page, whom Trump had named a few months earlier as a foreign policy adviser.

“But the professor was more than an academic interested in American politics — he was a longtime U.S. intelligence source. And, at some point in 2016, he began working as a secret informant for the FBI as it investigated Russia’s interference in the campaign, according to people familiar with his activities.”

www.washingtonpost.com... aea-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html?utm_term=.6cc9ca434925

He was a longtime US intelligence source when he approached Carter Page. So the FBI lied about when they started investigating the Trump campaign. I think the NYT and WaPo just broke a story, just not in the way they intended.

a reply to: Khaleesi

Page and the professor had known each other in the past. If i remember the NYT story right it was 2012 or 2013 when they first met. This meeting you are talking about may not have been at the direction of the FBI. I need to find the latest article again that has more info then the one the OP is based off.