NY Times outs CIA and FBI informant as Stefan Halper

Corrupt Intelligence Apparatchik Leaks “Informant” Name (Stefan Halper) and Defensive Perspective To New York Times.
The New York Times has essentially outed the CIA and FBI informant as Stefan Halper tonight in yet another lengthy justification article citing the reasoning from the perspective of the corrupt intelligence officers who conducted the surveillance and spying operation against the Trump campaign.

Guess what?…. After 18 months of denials, their justification framework isn’t selling. It isn’t selling even amid the barking moonbats who normally defend the left-wing crazy. If you want to gauge the level of fail, just read the comments section of the New York Times justification article. D’oh… the awakening is here like a DNC party during the ALS ice-bucket challenge.
According to The Times, the FBI and CIA were using Halper to protect candidate Trump from the Russians. Yes, that’s their story and they’re sticking to it. However, from that angle: Were they investigating candidate Trump for failing to collude in the Russian efforts they were attempting to protect him from? [[[D’oh]]] As such the special counsel is an ongoing effort to keep protecting President Trump… or something.
Wait,… what?.. Huh?

iotwreport.com...


So spying on a political opponent is a good thing and Obama was just helping Trump by politicizing domestic intelligence agencies with moles and wiretaps.


This is the spin folks.


Get used to it. It'll probably be the "talking points" here in a day or so.

Obama was doing the right thing by protecting Trump.

Trouble was, Obama didn't know Trump saw the tricks coming a mile away.

BwaaaHaHaHa

The MSM is doing their best too.

They have orderz to butter-up the public before the IG report parts 2 and 3 go out in the wild.

😎🚬💫

a reply to: DBCowboy

It'll probably be the "talking points" here in a day or so.

A day or so? I give it about 30 minutes or less. CNN has it all lined up for them.

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm sure the left will eat this up and commend the agencies for their compassion.

They are banking on people being stupid, but people are not that stupid. Sooner or later people will throw their hands up in the air and scream at the sky.

They were so sure for so long that Obama was trying to take down Trump and save the Republic but now the Left's narrative has turned and Trump is a good guy who needs protecting. Hear that Liberals and Progressives, get with the program and protect Trump!!

Obama was trying to protect Trump, hahahaha.

a reply to: DBCowboy



They so stoopid.

Once Obama realized he had the magic pigment.

He broke every law in the book and a few new ones.

Also, it never hurts to have the MSM treat you like a God.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Amazing they never considered "protecting" Hillary from conspiring with UK/Russian intelligence to write a hit-job on Trump.

I call BS. If they wanted to "protect" him, why not simply inform the candidate (who already gets Top Secret daily briefings) of the threat and let them take specific steps?

Lie after lie built on top of BS. I don't buy their nonsense any more

a reply to: DBCowboy

I was going to post on this last night but I got caught up playing poker. The NYT and WaPo reporters provided details that confirmed what Chuck Ross at Daily Caller had reported about Stefan Halper.

NYT: American, formerly served in Republican admins, now teaches in UK, had contacts with Papadopoulos and particularly, Carter Page.

WaPo: Also had contact with Sam Clovis (who btw had recruited both Papadopoulos and Page apparently)

The biographical details and others all matched up to Halper and the contact with Papadopoulos and "two others" matched the March reporting on Halper from Chuck Ross.

It was really Chuck Ross who outed Halper but the NYT and WaPo basically confirmed it without naming him.

That said, it does not in fact substantiate this claim: "spying on a political opponent ... Obama was just ... politicizing domestic intelligence agencies with moles"

Which is itself massive spin. The FBI used Halper to surreptitiously probe those contacted about possible coordination with Russia as part of a legitimate counterintelligence investigation in a way that ddn't reveal the existence of the counterintelligence investigation to the subjects or cause it to become known to the public at large, which would have been extremely damaging to Trump and may very well have kept him from winning — which of course would have led him to blame the FBI for his loss.

It was essentially two damned if you do, damned if you don't propositions:

1. Don't investigate potential coordination with the Trump campaign by the Russians who were interfering in the election and possibly have a man deliberately conspiring with a hostile adversary become President OR open up a counterintelligence investigation and run the risk of being accused of politically motivated impropriety (as they are now by Trump supporters).

2. Bring to bear the full weight of the FBI's investigative powers to probe the potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including interviews of all sorts of people inside and out of the campaign which would have no doubt caused the existence of the investigation to become known to the public and again led to accusations of politically motivated impropriety OR investigate as quietly as possible, with as small a profile as possible and hope that the existence of the counterintelligence investigation wasn't revealed during the election.

Me personally? I think objectively, they chose the better in both cases. But then again, I haven't been actively denying the existence of Russian meddling in the election for two years as the typical Trump supporter has, even as evidence of some aspects of it have become irrefutable.

So my questions are these:

What happens if Mueller puts together a case in the hacking of the DNC/DCCC/etc which makes disbelieving in the more consequential facet of Russian meddling an extremely difficult position to maintain?

Does acknowledging the Russian hacking of Trump's opponent to damage the opponent/advantage Trump also mean acknowledging the legitimacy of opening the counterintelligence investigation?

Or should the FBI stand down in the face of valid concerns of conspiracy during an attack on our election process that is intended to favor one candidate over another?

Because it seems that there's really nothing substantiating the narrative spun up about the investigation being opened for political purposes much less conducted to disadvantage Trump or advantage Hillary. And I've expounded on this several times in other posts.

It's the mere fact that there was an investigation at all that is taken as evidence of a political motivation/purpose.

a reply to: whyamIhere

Yes, those black people sure do get away with everything.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you seriously not understand the implications of an intelligence agency infiltrating the campaign of a potential future president?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Sounds nice.


Sounds rational and reasoned even.



But if you put into account that the investigatory leadership is obviously biased towards one ideology and one candidate then your rationale pretty much just flies right out the window.


They spied on the Trump campaign and Trump because he was a political opponent.

They wanted to find dirt.

They failed or else any real dirt would have "leaked" long before now in order to salvage Obama's legacy. Hell, if there was any real dirt it would have come out before the election so we'd be sitting here with Bitch in the oval office.



In my opinion.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Hacking? Where the transfer was done via USB key?

Or we talking a diffrent hacking ?

One investigation leaks everything they can, and nothing about Trump.

On the other hand we we have 30.000+ sealed indictments.

One for A Weiner as well.

Saw a document yesterday listing awan brothers as the defendants.


..and didnt you know .. Its not cool to be black anymore, Kanye is black

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: whyamIhere

Yes, those black people sure do get away with everything.

You can’t possibly condone the weaponization of the Federal Government.

That’s exactly what he did including Intelligence Agencies.

Obama used the hand dealt him for all it was worth.

We American’s will spend 30 years cleaning up the partisan vomit.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you seriously not understand the implications of an intelligence agency infiltrating the campaign of a potential future president?

Of course I do. Do you not understand the implications of a potential future President of the United States/his campaign conspiring with an adversarial foreign government to influence of the outcome of a the election through less than hacking the opponent's party, stealing and releasing emails from the opponent's party and campaign manager? (along with other aspects of this multi-faceted campaign)

a reply to: theantediluvian

Of course I do. Do you not understand the implications of a potential future President of the United States/his campaign conspiring with an adversarial foreign government to influence of the outcome of a the election through less than hacking the opponent's party, stealing and releasing emails from the opponent's party and campaign manager? (along with other aspects of this multi-faceted campaign)

That is true ...Lets face it people ,once they weaponized Pokemon it became a no holds bared and the end justified the means

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: theantediluvian

Sounds nice.


Sounds rational and reasoned even.



But if you put into account that the investigatory leadership is obviously biased towards one ideology and one candidate then your rationale pretty much just flies right out the window.


They spied on the Trump campaign and Trump because he was a political opponent.

They wanted to find dirt.

They failed or else any real dirt would have "leaked" long before now in order to salvage Obama's legacy. Hell, if there was any real dirt it would have come out before the election so we'd be sitting here with Bitch in the oval office.



In my opinion.

And they flat out killed the Clinton campaign with public investigations because she was a GOP political opponent but you seem to be okay with that one.

a reply to: Pyle

Yeah, uh no.

They've done everything they could to make sure Hillary would never be indicted for anything.

If you can't see how biased and partisan government agencies had become under Obama, then you would not mind if Trump utilized the same tactics against any political opponent in 2020, would you?

a reply to: DBCowboy

But if you put into account that the investigatory leadership is obviously biased towards one ideology and one candidate then your rationale pretty much just flies right out the window.

Everyone is biased. Everyone. That's not even a question. Perfect neutrality isn't a real thing. What you're essentially saying is that anyone who had a negative opinion of Trump could be fairly considered capable of doing absolutely anything to "harm Trump."

Or more generally, that no investigation of any potential crime committed by members of a political campaign is automatically politically motivated unless the people investigation is led by a) people who have positive opinions of the candidate or b) are imaginary people who don't have opinions.

What you ignore is that people can both have opinions and do their jobs and make decisions that aren't based on those opinions. Also, that it's not uncommon for investigators to have negative opinions of those they investigate. Can you imagine this defense being used by the Mob? Some Mafia don's defense attorney arguing that the only reason that the FBI investigated his client is because they had a negative opinion of him, therefore it was a personal vendetta? I'm sure it's been said, but as a substantive defense, it's doesn't really work very well.

They spied on the Trump campaign and Trump because he was a political opponent. They wanted to find dirt.


They failed or else any real dirt would have "leaked" long before now in order to salvage Obama's legacy. Hell, if there was any real dirt it would have come out before the election so we'd be sitting here with Bitch in the oval office.

Well I'll give you credit for at least presenting a motivation that is at least plausible. Though I would argue that the mere existence of the investigation would have been damaging enough on its own. Imagine if the Papadopoulos meeting had leaked out during the election.

Also, if the goal was simply to get dirt, these were among the least likely targets and their tactics really weren't oriented to getting dirt on the campaign itself. They didn't even get a FISA warrant on Carter Page until after he'd left the campaign.

My opinion is that it was exactly what it's purported to have been. A legitimately predicated counterintelligence investigation that focused specifically on valid subjects given the nature of what was investigated.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You are conflating personal opinions with partisan ideological differences that not only influenced investigations, but prosecutions.