More Never Trumpers waking up to the Russia collusion farce, when will you?

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.

I’m still waiting on evidence the Obama administration placed a spy in Trumps campaign. Either you have direct evidence of this or you don’t.

Which one is it? For this evidence to be so damning, no one seems to have it.

Attack me using your mischaracterizations all you want, all it shows is the lack of evidence you have for anything you’re talking about. Still waiting...

What are you talking about.

We have clear evidence they placed a person there to gather evidence in secret and report back to the FBI.

The question is now only over semantics, which is that merely an informant or a spy.

Where is it? It hasn’t been in any link you have provided yet.

It’s not complicated, either there is evidence that clearly and objectively shows that Obama put a spy in Trumps campaign, or there isn’t. If you have to move the definition of “spy” even the slightest bit to make it work, then you don’t have the evidence you claim you do.

Do you acknowledge the NYT story that the FBI put an informant in to trumps campaign?

originally posted by: 0311Warrior
a reply to: introvert

Lol no I’m not. Wake up. I can’t do it for you.
Deny ignorance. Try to. Just a little bit. Please. Or go back to eating sand.

Thanks for the platitudes, but my comment stands.

What you describe in your hypothetical situation is not what has happened in reality.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
It must take an incredible amount of skill to perform the mental gymnastics on display throughout this thread.

Watching people doing backflips to try and validate another one of the presidents lies, I’m thinking the same thing.

I'm a logic kind of guy and the lack of logic in this thread is astounding.

The delusion in this thread is so bad that other members are having a hard time differentiating between two very different things and cannot seem to help but conflate separate issues.

Their theory only works through conflation. That’s the basic fallacy behind it.

There are many fallacies being employed here.

Sadly, reading comprehension also seems to be an issue.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.

I’m still waiting on evidence the Obama administration placed a spy in Trumps campaign. Either you have direct evidence of this or you don’t.

Which one is it? For this evidence to be so damning, no one seems to have it.

Attack me using your mischaracterizations all you want, all it shows is the lack of evidence you have for anything you’re talking about. Still waiting...

What are you talking about.

We have clear evidence they placed a person there to gather evidence in secret and report back to the FBI.

The question is now only over semantics, which is that merely an informant or a spy.

Yes, it is clear they used a confidential source to make contact with persons of interest in an active and ongoing investigation. Again, that's a standard tactic--particularly in the early stages of the operation.

Until anyone produces any evidence to the contrary, that's all we know.

The semantics of "spy" vs. "informant" really doesn't amount to much beyond the stigma attached with using one or the other to further a narrative. Screaming about "spies" in the campaign certainly plays well with Trump's base.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sillyolme

I wish i had a meme that matched the amount of absurdity you've written as it is a memeworthy post.

I don't.

Sadly.

I think this is in the ballpark...

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.

I’m still waiting on evidence the Obama administration placed a spy in Trumps campaign. Either you have direct evidence of this or you don’t.

Which one is it? For this evidence to be so damning, no one seems to have it.

Attack me using your mischaracterizations all you want, all it shows is the lack of evidence you have for anything you’re talking about. Still waiting...

What are you talking about.

We have clear evidence they placed a person there to gather evidence in secret and report back to the FBI.

The question is now only over semantics, which is that merely an informant or a spy.

Yes, it is clear they used a confidential source to make contact with persons of interest in an active and ongoing investigation. Again, that's a standard tactic--particularly in the early stages of the operation.

Until anyone produces any evidence to the contrary, that's all we know.

The semantics of "spy" vs. "informant" really doesn't amount to much beyond the stigma attached with using one or the other to further a narrative. Screaming about "spies" in the campaign certainly plays well with Trump's base.

Yes so you agree, trying to differentiate between spy and informant is stupid.

Hence all of those in this very thread doing that are absrd.

Now show me one other example ever of the FBI sending a spy in to gather info on a presidential campaign.

You say its satndard procedure, so I assume you can find it.

I can only think of one, and that is when the CIA sent a man in to President Carters campaign to spy on him.

What was that mans name?

Oh yeah, Stefan Halper.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Perhaps you'll answer my question then.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone?

originally posted by: 0311Warrior
a reply to: Grambler

Exactly. You nailed it. Obama green lit Trump to literally send informants to gather intel to prevent Russian influence. Which means Trump can now place as many as he wants, into any campaign he wants. Hell he could plant 1 informant into each Democrat that is running across the entire US for local all the way up to federal level. Unmask them all and then leak every single possible lukewarm somewhat negative sound byte to his press secretary and hold daily briefings on how Russia is influencing all of these campaigns.

He should say he’s doing it without doing it just to watch the people who are all ok with Obama doing it now have to be against it.

The hypocrisy is so ridiculous at this point.

Your evidence for this green light from Obama please?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.

I’m still waiting on evidence the Obama administration placed a spy in Trumps campaign. Either you have direct evidence of this or you don’t.

Which one is it? For this evidence to be so damning, no one seems to have it.

Attack me using your mischaracterizations all you want, all it shows is the lack of evidence you have for anything you’re talking about. Still waiting...

What are you talking about.

We have clear evidence they placed a person there to gather evidence in secret and report back to the FBI.

The question is now only over semantics, which is that merely an informant or a spy.

Where is it? It hasn’t been in any link you have provided yet.

It’s not complicated, either there is evidence that clearly and objectively shows that Obama put a spy in Trumps campaign, or there isn’t. If you have to move the definition of “spy” even the slightest bit to make it work, then you don’t have the evidence you claim you do.

Do you acknowledge the NYT story that the FBI put an informant in to trumps campaign?

The NYT story you linked doesn’t say that. It says:

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

Is the Australian ambassador part of Trumps campaign? Because that’s who they sent an informant to talk to. About one of Trumps advisors. That isn’t Obama placing a spy in Trumps campaign, that’s the FBI questioning a foreign ambassador about one of Trumps advisors.

It’s disingenuous to say that’s evidence of Obama sending a spy to infiltrate team Trump. Those aren’t even close to the same thing.

a reply to: Grambler
I'm the most laughed at person on the forum...
I'm so sure.
It's an internet community. How much do you think that worries me?
Especially when you consider that I know you're all wrong.
On the other hand The GOP is being laughed at on the world stage.

And BTW... I don't believe those things I know them. From real information I've gathered from real sources and reliable people. I'm not playing some I believe in magic games .
I'm not pretending. I'm not hoping or twisting facts to make them work.

originally posted by: Gandalf77


The challenge here, though, is that there is absolutely no proof that "spies" were placed in the Trump campaign for political purpose. That's the narrative Trump is pushing for obvious reasons. If true, yes, it would be a big problem.

You don't typically put in undercover agents unless true illegal actives have happened, but once again this was mainly all based on the fake Dossier. It is funny that Page was a UCE for the FBI as they were trying to build a case against a Russian operative named Evgeny Buryakov, who ended up getting 30 months in prison. Then Page for some reason worked to get on Trump's team, and not Trump going after him.

Interestingly, Clovis didn’t reach out to Page to bring him on board the Trump train. According to Page’s own testimony, he contacted New York’s Republican party chair Ed Cox in December 2015. Page asked to be connected with Trump’s team and was directed to talk with former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. A short time later, Page was added to Trump’s list of foreign policy advisers by Clovis.

So now we have Page who was still a FBI UCE in Trump's group, who they then used Page's Russian past working for Merrill Lynch as a reason to look into Trump's Russian connections that was basically their own UCE...

You can't make this Sh!t up...

a reply to: underwerks

Perhaps you didnt read the article linked?

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.

Were those people the informant (spy) met part of trumps campaign?

Yep.

Almost all media admits this occurred, from the NYT to the washington posts.

In fact I have not seen one media outlet disputing this.

So the only dispute is now a matter of semantics; does this informant qualify as a spy.

I have clearly showed why it does, and why the semantic argument is stupid.

You asked for any (ANY) proof that the Obama admin put a spy in the trump admin, and this is clearly it.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.

I’m still waiting on evidence the Obama administration placed a spy in Trumps campaign. Either you have direct evidence of this or you don’t.

Which one is it? For this evidence to be so damning, no one seems to have it.

Attack me using your mischaracterizations all you want, all it shows is the lack of evidence you have for anything you’re talking about. Still waiting...

What are you talking about.

We have clear evidence they placed a person there to gather evidence in secret and report back to the FBI.

The question is now only over semantics, which is that merely an informant or a spy.

Yes, it is clear they used a confidential source to make contact with persons of interest in an active and ongoing investigation. Again, that's a standard tactic--particularly in the early stages of the operation.

Until anyone produces any evidence to the contrary, that's all we know.

The semantics of "spy" vs. "informant" really doesn't amount to much beyond the stigma attached with using one or the other to further a narrative. Screaming about "spies" in the campaign certainly plays well with Trump's base.

Yes so you agree, trying to differentiate between spy and informant is stupid.

Hence all of those in this very thread doing that are absrd.

Now show me one other example ever of the FBI sending a spy in to gather info on a presidential campaign.

You say its satndard procedure, so I assume you can find it.

I can only think of one, and that is when the CIA sent a man in to President Carters campaign to spy on him.

What was that mans name?

Oh yeah, Stefan Halper.

Careful with the equivocation. The use of a confidential source to make contact with subjects of a cointel investigation prior to other steps--electronic surveillance, etc., is a standard tactic by the F.B.I's own admission.
It's a pretty typical tactic in a number of law enforcement scenarios, for that matter.

I don't work for the F.B.I. (although I know people who do), so I'm not privy to the details of specific operations.
For obvious reasons, cointel ops are highly sensitive matters, and they tend to keep their cards very close to the chest.

The use of the term "spies" merely helps the right craft it's narrative; it's inflammatory in a Henny Penny "sky is falling" type of way.

Let the IG sort it out. Personally, I'm willing to bet the F.B.I. followed protocol and this latest attempt to discredit the Mueller investigation will fall apart and be exposed for what it is--a nothing burger. That said, I absolutely want the IG to run this to the ground.

a reply to: Gandalf77
Of course we wait for the IG investigation, but that doesnt mean we cant or shouldnt comment based on what we know.

The fact is, the FBI should not be placing clandestine informants (spies) into a campaign for president of the US.

It is not a common occurence.

We know that the FBI and intel leadership didnt like trump.

We know that they didnt help hillarys team out by placving these informants there.

And if this is acceptable, then no one should have any complaints if trump decides to protect our elections by placing spies, oops i mean informants, into all of the democrat teams.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

Perhaps you didnt read the article linked?

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.

Were those people the informant (spy) met part of trumps campaign?

Yep.

Almost all media admits this occurred, from the NYT to the washington posts.

In fact I have not seen one media outlet disputing this.

So the only dispute is now a matter of semantics; does this informant qualify as a spy.

I have clearly showed why it does, and why the semantic argument is stupid.

You asked for any (ANY) proof that the Obama admin put a spy in the trump admin, and this is clearly it.

I read the article. Papadopoulos and Page speaking to an informant is hardly proof that Obama directed a spy to infiltrate and spy on the Trump campaign.

Or are we talking about something different now? If that’s the extent of your evidence, it really isn’t any evidence at all. I’ll gladly change what I think if there is any actual proof. But all I see in your evidence is assumptions that because Democrats were in power at the time, the FBI was trying to infiltrate and disrupt Trumps campaign.

Which makes zero sense considering the FBI under the Obama admin re-opened the Hillary email investigation during the election and chose to not make allegations of Russian meddling to help Trump public.

If anything, the FBI through it’s actions helped Trump get elected. People seem to forget the very real actions of the FBI under Obama and headed by Comey that pretty much made Trump a sure thing.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Please explain the difference between an informant and a spy. Thanks in advance.

a reply to: underwerks

For about the millionth time, the Cmey admitted he reopened the hillary investigation to help her, because he assumed she would win and didnt want that investigation not being reopened to deligitimize her presidency.

An error in judgement, but nonetheless taken in an attempt to help hillary.

There are tons and tons of articles showing the FBI did this, again its basically only being disputed by you as far as I can see.

The fbi even argued that outing the name of their informant would put his life in jeopardy, all but confirming there was indeed an informant.

Rather Obama ordered this or not is irrelevant to rather the FBI spied on the trump campaign. However, it should be investigated into exactly what Obama ordered, and ultimately he was in charge.

Now here is the kicker.

I would be willing to say,as I did earlier, thats fine, I am confident the investigation will eventually come out that the FBI did send in halper, and if that occurs, would you at that point then admit they spied on trumps campaign.

But I already know the answer based on this thread, you will argue semantics and say its an informant and not a spy, and you will say it was justified for various reasons.

which is exactly what the OP article is saying; some people will cheer for any corruption and move goal posts so long as the intel agencies are going after trump

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gandalf77
Of course we wait for the IG investigation, but that doesnt mean we cant or shouldnt comment based on what we know.

The fact is, the FBI should not be placing clandestine informants (spies) into a campaign for president of the US.

It is not a common occurence.

We know that the FBI and intel leadership didnt like trump.

We know that they didnt help hillarys team out by placving these informants there.

And if this is acceptable, then no one should have any complaints if trump decides to protect our elections by placing spies, oops i mean informants, into all of the democrat teams.

It's a common TACTIC with cointel investigations, not a common occurrence with respect to presidential campaigns (thank goodness).
And it doesn't matter whether or not you think they should use that tactic. They're doing their job.
Based on what we know, they directed ONE individual to make contact with three individuals that jumped onto their radar as a part of the investigation. There is nothing that suggests they placed a bunch of spies inside the campaign; that's where the right-wing propaganda kicks in.

It also doesn't matter whether or not some people in the FBI didn't have a favorable opinion of Trump; they are allowed to have opinions. Many people in the FBI tend to be quite conservative, but I trust them to run an investigation without their political views getting in the way. It comes down to whether or not they followed procedure and protocol correctly--same with the FISA warrants. Mueller is a republican and was appointed by republicans. I trust him to carry out a proper investigation. Rosenstein is a registered republican appointed by a republican, and I trust that he followed procedure and protocol when he appointed Mueller.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Please explain the difference between an informant and a spy. Thanks in advance.

There is a clear difference:
Informant : a term used by leftists to downplay the fact that Obama's administration spied on the Trump campaign in order to gather information that would help Democrats either win or undermine the Presidency.

Spy : What Obama's administration placed in the Trump campaign in order to gather information that would help Democrats either win or undermine the Presidency.

See? very clear.
If you want to stay in the debate, please at least try to understand leftist word salads a little better. OK?

For further help, it's a little like an investigation vs a matter.
Get it?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Please explain the difference between an informant and a spy. Thanks in advance.

The difference is in what the person did.

A spy would be Obama placing someone close to Trump with the express purpose of relaying damaging information back to him. In an effort to hurt the Trump campaign.

Nothing like that happened, and a couple of Trumps shady confidants accidentally speaking to an informant isn’t the same thing.

Something I’ve been wondering is that if the Obama admin wanted to hurt the Trump campaign, why did the FBI under Obama and Comey reopen the Hillary email investigation during the election? And choose not to make allegations of Russian meddling public until after the campaign?

It seems if anything they held a lot of things back to not hurt Trump and his campaign. He should probably send them a thank you card instead of constantly attacking them with spurious allegations.

But then again, where’s the misdirection in that?