SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[mollyanna58]

Stop changing the title of the thread.

[billisonboard]

May 24, 2018 9:22:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...
If members took it upon themselves not to post when angry or deeply frustrated, when there's a fire in their belly and they want to lash out to silence objectionable speech, I reckon nary a warning nor a deletion would taint these hallowed halls.

Emotion based postings certainly can create problems. Angry and frustration are a couple of examples. Prideful is another that seems to cause backlash at times.

[djAdvocate]

May 24, 2018 7:35:36 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Yeah, we've got a lot of cognitive dissonance on this thread. It pretty much reeks with it.

i am not so sure.

i mean, it LOOKS like cognitive dissonance from the OUTSIDE, but i think that if you are a MAGAt, it just sounds like a symphony of bullshit.  if you think that the gubmint is the enemy of the people, then all of this bullshit resonates in the most harmonious way imaginable.

[Opti]

May 24, 2018 9:53:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 24, 2018 7:35:36 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Yeah, we've got a lot of cognitive dissonance on this thread. It pretty much reeks with it.

i am not so sure.

i mean, it LOOKS like cognitive dissonance from the OUTSIDE, but i think that if you are a MAGAt, it just sounds like a symphony of bullshit.  if you think that the gubmint is the enemy of the people, then all of this bullshit resonates in the most harmonious way imaginable.

Exactly. He is telling lies with things some people want to hear. There are far too many people who would rather be right than know the truth. So Trump is playing to the vanity of those who dislike government. Because he fans their ego, they ignore his history of a corrupter of government, a buyer of favors.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 24, 2018 9:25:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

The age of lies continues. As usual its a fake story based on some facts designed to suck people in.

Even though Trump's attempts to craft his story are obvious, some will fall for the fantasy lies he presents because they like the story of Trump as victim. As usual, no spying, Trump not a target ... again. Spy is a smaller word than informant and sounds more ominous so Trump is using it even though it is less accurate.

The lies are funny at times. Do you ask yourself why Clinton would buy a dossier if she authored it herself? Of course its BS of the highest order. Its a known truth the dossier evolved and was paid for by multiple sources including Clinton's campaign. The BS about protecting Trump is fully made up. Obama held back and didn't weaken his campaign, yet as usual Trump is an ungrateful man for that show of fairness and restraint.

Nice tell though. 'This is real' means please listen and believe in my fake story of the day.

What's the difference between a spy and an informant?

If I ask one of your friends to chat with you via PM and secretly find out whether you've broken the CoC so that I can throw you off the board, is she a "spy" or an "informant"?

Does my referring to her as an "informant" change the appropriateness of what I'm asking her to do?

[weltschmerz]

May 24, 2018 9:22:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 24, 2018 9:00:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So an immediate direct response to your (Mod) post to stop posting about Paul's person starts with a comment about Paul's person.

Noncritical and (sincerely) positive statements about other members do not violate the CoC. The prohibition is against personal attacks.

I assure you nobody will ever get a warning from me for posting "billisonboard has a colourful user link" or "Paul frequently changes the thread title".

If members took it upon themselves not to post when angry or deeply frustrated, when there's a fire in their belly and they want to lash out to silence objectionable speech, I reckon nary a warning nor a deletion would taint these hallowed halls.

So, you want them to post when they're asleep?
With this current administration, anger and frustration is a given, pretty much around the clock.

[kadee79]

Spies get paid & are sent by someone/agency.  Informants don't always get $$$ and no one sent them, they volunteer their info.   At least that's my story & I'm sticking to it!

[Rukh O'Rorke]

May 23, 2018 20:14:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 23, 2018 18:23:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

trump is still celebrating the denuclearization and permanent peace treaty between Noth Korea, South Korea, and the United States signed April 24, 2018 as declaired April 17.  Give trump time.

'MAGA: Official End To Korean War Planned For Next Week'

i am losing track- is that before or after Mexico pays for the wall?

No you got it all wrong here, trump scored big here if you understand.

North Korea has a great wall and they paid for it themselves!

Mexico has no nuclear weapons.

Win Win Win.

[happyhoix]

May 24, 2018 12:33:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 24, 2018 9:25:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

The age of lies continues. As usual its a fake story based on some facts designed to suck people in.

Even though Trump's attempts to craft his story are obvious, some will fall for the fantasy lies he presents because they like the story of Trump as victim. As usual, no spying, Trump not a target ... again. Spy is a smaller word than informant and sounds more ominous so Trump is using it even though it is less accurate.

The lies are funny at times. Do you ask yourself why Clinton would buy a dossier if she authored it herself? Of course its BS of the highest order. Its a known truth the dossier evolved and was paid for by multiple sources including Clinton's campaign. The BS about protecting Trump is fully made up. Obama held back and didn't weaken his campaign, yet as usual Trump is an ungrateful man for that show of fairness and restraint.

Nice tell though. 'This is real' means please listen and believe in my fake story of the day.

What's the difference between a spy and an informant?

If I ask one of your friends to chat with you via PM and secretly find out whether you've broken the CoC so that I can throw you off the board, is she a "spy" or an "informant"?

Does my referring to her as an "informant" change the appropriateness of what I'm asking her to do?

Spy sounds more nefarious.

Trump doesn't want to claim that the FBI had a paid informant question a few guys in his campaign who had previously been under FBI review for their cozy relations with Russia. That almost sounds like the FBI is doing their job.

Saying the FBI (which is controlled by the black hat/dark hole people, meaning Jews, or Hillary, or Obama, or the Pope, or maybe all of the above) sent spies, who are dastardly little guys in black hats with dark glasses who peep into keyholes, listen at doors and tap your phones, just to SPY on TRUMP in order to WRECK his campaign - that sounds ever so much worse than a delicate 'informer.'

It isn't about truth anymore. It's about sound bites, and really big headlines, and labeling your enemies nasty, catchy names so no one believes them or trusts them, and chants their names at rallies followed by 'lock XXX up!'

It's government run like a beer commercial, like a marketing campaign to inspire the faithful consumers and demonize the competition, even if the beer you're marketing is pig piss and you  yourself wouldn't touch it with someone else's lips.

[djAdvocate]

May 24, 2018 12:33:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What's the difference between a spy and an informant?

If I ask one of your friends to chat with you via PM and secretly find out whether you've broken the CoC so that I can throw you off the board, is she a "spy" or an "informant"?

Does my referring to her as an "informant" change the appropriateness of what I'm asking her to do?

this is actually a key question.  at first i was thinking "none".  but soon i realized that there is a great deal of difference.  not in terms of what they bring to an investigation, but in terms of their relationship to the subject of the investigation.

an informant is someone who has some "business" with the subject.  they would normally have been carrying out this business BEFORE the investigation took place, and would simply continue carrying out this business.  furthermore, informants USUALLY come forward rather than being approached by the agency to whom they inform.  and they simply continue their business as if the relationship did not exist.

in addition, the key point here is that this was not political (which is the opposite of what the president is saying).  the informant had information on possible Russian collusion, and was simply providing facts to the CIA or FBI.

a SPY is on the payroll of the agency.  he also has training, etc, for that purpose.  he is provided anonymity.  and his role is not that of a businessperson transacting services to the suspect, but rather as a government employee whose SOLE purpose is to dig up dirt on the suspect.  additionally, a SPY is IMPLANTED into the sphere of the suspect.  he has no business being there, but the agency for whom he works manufactures that business for him, and creates a false cover for him to work.  in other words, the whole relationship is fraudulent and designed to uncover information without any need for a pre-existing relationship. 

so, there is actually a considerable difference, though i will freely admit that it is a nuance that most on the right can playfully ignore, with some conviction.

[Opti]

May 24, 2018 12:33:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 24, 2018 9:25:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

The age of lies continues. As usual its a fake story based on some facts designed to suck people in.

Even though Trump's attempts to craft his story are obvious, some will fall for the fantasy lies he presents because they like the story of Trump as victim. As usual, no spying, Trump not a target ... again. Spy is a smaller word than informant and sounds more ominous so Trump is using it even though it is less accurate.

The lies are funny at times. Do you ask yourself why Clinton would buy a dossier if she authored it herself? Of course its BS of the highest order. Its a known truth the dossier evolved and was paid for by multiple sources including Clinton's campaign. The BS about protecting Trump is fully made up. Obama held back and didn't weaken his campaign, yet as usual Trump is an ungrateful man for that show of fairness and restraint.

Nice tell though. 'This is real' means please listen and believe in my fake story of the day.

What's the difference between a spy and an informant?

If I ask one of your friends to chat with you via PM and secretly find out whether you've broken the CoC so that I can throw you off the board, is she a "spy" or an "informant"?

Does my referring to her as an "informant" change the appropriateness of what I'm asking her to do?

In your scenario, definitely an informant. I probably should read the definitions, but this is how I parse it. Spies observe. They don't necessarily need to interact with their target, but they might. An informant informs, and the only way they can do this, is by interacting with the target.

When the detective or the police officer follows you because they are looking to confirm you are cheating on your spouse, its called spying. Not informing.

The information the informant obtained was by in person conversations. From what little we know, that's all that was done. Therefore IMO, not spying. YMMV.

[Virgil Showlion]

It seems to me the consensus on the difference between "spy" and "informant" is this: if the FBI proactively solicited Mr. Halper's assistance, he's a "spy", and if he initially came to them, he's an "informant".

From what I've read, this Mr. Halper is a bit of a one-man army. He's done many jobs previously for the FBI/CIA, "sees a Red under every bed" according to his Cambridge associates, and actively sought out to find a place on Pres. Trump's campaign and subsequently the State Department.

All of this would tend to suggest he's more of a proactive James O'Keefe type--somebody who doesn't need to be pushed by the FBI to go hunting for Reds--and therefore an "informant" per the consensus definition here.

Having said this, I somehow suspect: i) nobody can prove whether he first approached the FBI or whether the FBI first approached him, and ii) Pres. Trump's supporters believe the latter theory is correct.

What a colossal mess. Even if it turns out this fellow is on the level, one has to ask: What on Earth was Mr. Comey thinking when he signed on with this fellow?

[djAdvocate]

It seems to me the consensus on the difference between "spy" and "informant" is this: if the FBI proactively solicited Mr. Halper's assistance, he's a "spy", and if he initially came to them, he's an "informant".

no, i think there are TWO other important distinctions:

1) the fact that he is a private citizen, not a government employee

2) the fact that he is NOT OPERATING ANONYMOUSLY.

because of #2, he is now hung out to dry by the FBI, which endangers ALL FUTURE INQUIRIES.

a very bad move on their part, imo.  and a perilous one for the investigation, and even our democracy.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 25, 2018 0:15:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

It seems to me the consensus on the difference between "spy" and "informant" is this: if the FBI proactively solicited Mr. Halper's assistance, he's a "spy", and if he initially came to them, he's an "informant".

no, i think there are TWO other important distinctions:

1) the fact that he is a private citizen, not a government employee

2) the fact that he is NOT OPERATING ANONYMOUSLY.

because of #2, he is now hung out to dry by the FBI, which endangers ALL FUTURE INQUIRIES.

a very bad move on their part, imo.  and a perilous one for the investigation, and even our democracy.

Their "very bad move" was getting into bed with him in the first place.

You loathe James O'Keefe's deceptions and entrapment in pursuit of "gotchas". Assuming Mr. Halper went to the the FBI instead of vice versa, how is his gambit any different from one of Mr. O'Keefe's "stings"? Aside from the fact that it's being played with higher stakes (infiltrating a presidential campaign and the State Department) and the FBI happened to be interested in what Mr. Halper had to sell?

I also don't buy that the FBI was only interested in getting dirt on small fish like Mr. Manafort and Mr. Page. At the very least, they wanted to see how high up the tree they could climb. They must have at least suspected they'd climb all the way up to Pres. Trump--or that he'd try to obstruct justice while in office, which isn't their prerogative to assume. Barring this, there was no good reason to conduct the surveillance during his campaign as opposed to after the election, in the light of day, and several excellent reasons not to (Mr. Comey's pulling Ms. Clinton's arse out of the fire during the same campaign being a prime example).

All this assumes the surveillance wasn't a state-assisted hit on the Trump presidency from the start. I'm still nowhere near convinced Paul's theory can't be true.

As I said before: what a mess.

[happyhoix]

May 25, 2018 2:10:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 25, 2018 0:15:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

It seems to me the consensus on the difference between "spy" and "informant" is this: if the FBI proactively solicited Mr. Halper's assistance, he's a "spy", and if he initially came to them, he's an "informant".

no, i think there are TWO other important distinctions:

1) the fact that he is a private citizen, not a government employee

2) the fact that he is NOT OPERATING ANONYMOUSLY.

because of #2, he is now hung out to dry by the FBI, which endangers ALL FUTURE INQUIRIES.

a very bad move on their part, imo.  and a perilous one for the investigation, and even our democracy.

Their "very bad move" was getting into bed with him in the first place.

You loathe James O'Keefe's deceptions and entrapment in pursuit of "gotchas". Assuming Mr. Halper went to the the FBI instead of vice versa, how is his gambit any different from one of Mr. O'Keefe's "stings"? Aside from the fact that it's being played with higher stakes (infiltrating a presidential campaign and the State Department) and the FBI happened to be interested in what Mr. Halper had to sell?

I also don't buy that the FBI was only interested in getting dirt on small fish like Mr. Manafort and Mr. Page. At the very least, they wanted to see how high up the tree they could climb. They must have at least suspected they'd climb all the way up to Pres. Trump--or that he'd try to obstruct justice while in office, which isn't their prerogative to assume. Barring this, there was no good reason to conduct the surveillance during his campaign as opposed to after the election, in the light of day, and several excellent reasons not to (Mr. Comey's pulling Ms. Clinton's arse out of the fire during the same campaign being a prime example).

All this assumes the surveillance wasn't a state-assisted hit on the Trump presidency from the start. I'm still nowhere near convinced Paul's theory can't be true.

As I said before: what a mess.

 

You seem to be suggesting that when these two known Russian friends ended up working for Trump, the FBI should have stood back and left it alone, that somehow working for a presidential candidate means you are untouchable to law enforcement. On the contrary, the FBI was concerned that Russia, with their known habit of trying to tamper with elections in western democracies, would approach these two men, and, unbeknownst to Trump, bribe or blackmail them into spying on Trump's campaign for them. They were trying to protect the Trump campaign from the Russians. Trump has very successfully turned that around 180 degrees to claim the FBI, under some dark world control, was trying to spy on HIM. Which is total bullshit, unless you're willing to believe that everyone in the FBI is a traitor who sold their souls to the black hole/dark hat people.

We have one of the best DOJ agencies in the world, uncorrupted by politics, staffed mostly by people with a strong sense of defending the US and the world from the bad guys. At least we did, before Trump started denigrating it for his own political ends. Morale has to be pretty shitty there right now. Thanks to Trump.

 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 25, 2018 0:15:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

It seems to me the consensus on the difference between "spy" and "informant" is this: if the FBI proactively solicited Mr. Halper's assistance, he's a "spy", and if he initially came to them, he's an "informant".

no, i think there are TWO other important distinctions:

1) the fact that he is a private citizen, not a government employee

2) the fact that he is NOT OPERATING ANONYMOUSLY.

because of #2, he is now hung out to dry by the FBI, which endangers ALL FUTURE INQUIRIES.

a very bad move on their part, imo.  and a perilous one for the investigation, and even our democracy.

So, you're really going to hang your hat on semantics? The Democratic Party counter-arguments to spygate are exactly why I have so much trouble distinguishing parody from what Democrats are actually saying.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The pattern is quite clear now- deny and delay the release of information. After being exposed, explain that the thing they were denying isn't really that thing, explain that it really was that thing, BUT it is totally justified, claim that President Trump and his supporters are idiots who don't really understand the very important work all the smart professionals in the intelligence community in Washington, D.C. are doing to try to protect our precious Republic.

Sorry, but we've reached the end.

Though the cognitive dissonance will almost assuredly remain strong with most of you, you are wrong, and I am right. It IS actually black and white. The premise postulated in my original post has been borne out.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

It's pretty clear now that when the President Of The United States re-arranged his schedule to meet with Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray ( apnews.com/f3833ba0c4f149508c2f09e83813d614 ), it wasn't to discuss the weather. It was to give them clear direction that they are to be transparent with Congress.

We know that Hillary Clinton's campaign illegally paid foreign spies to concoct the phony Trump dossier ( www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html ) by laundering money through the law firm Perkins Coie. They called it "opposition research", but we know that's a cover. What it really was is a counterfeit "intelligence document", and that it was used to deceive the FISA court ( thehill.com/opinion/white-house/375560-democrats-fisa-memo-doesnt-refute-gop-charges ) in spite of the fact we know there was NO LEGITIMATE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES BASIS FOR THE TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION- “We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation...We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department.” - Devin Nunes whose claims I might add have not even been attempted to be disputed. Why? Because there's no way the intelligence community is going to voluntarily put their fingerprints on the Obama-Clinton debacle.

Who would know for sure? That would be the FBI Director Of Counterintelligence, Bill Priestap

Timing Is Everything...

Chairman Goodlatte & Chairman Gowdy Schedule Testimony from Bill Priestap
theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/24/timing-chairman-goodlatte-and-chairman-gowdy-schedule-testimony-from-bill-priestap/

Who is Bill Priestap? A reminder: theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/23/a-counterintelligence-timeline-with-a-bill-priestap-and-james-comey-reminder/

[Opti]

May 25, 2018 2:10:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 25, 2018 0:15:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

It seems to me the consensus on the difference between "spy" and "informant" is this: if the FBI proactively solicited Mr. Halper's assistance, he's a "spy", and if he initially came to them, he's an "informant".

no, i think there are TWO other important distinctions:

1) the fact that he is a private citizen, not a government employee

2) the fact that he is NOT OPERATING ANONYMOUSLY.

because of #2, he is now hung out to dry by the FBI, which endangers ALL FUTURE INQUIRIES.

a very bad move on their part, imo.  and a perilous one for the investigation, and even our democracy.

Their "very bad move" was getting into bed with him in the first place.

You loathe James O'Keefe's deceptions and entrapment in pursuit of "gotchas". Assuming Mr. Halper went to the the FBI instead of vice versa, how is his gambit any different from one of Mr. O'Keefe's "stings"? Aside from the fact that it's being played with higher stakes (infiltrating a presidential campaign and the State Department) and the FBI happened to be interested in what Mr. Halper had to sell?

I also don't buy that the FBI was only interested in getting dirt on small fish like Mr. Manafort and Mr. Page. At the very least, they wanted to see how high up the tree they could climb. They must have at least suspected they'd climb all the way up to Pres. Trump--or that he'd try to obstruct justice while in office, which isn't their prerogative to assume. Barring this, there was no good reason to conduct the surveillance during his campaign as opposed to after the election, in the light of day, and several excellent reasons not to (Mr. Comey's pulling Ms. Clinton's arse out of the fire during the same campaign being a prime example).

All this assumes the surveillance wasn't a state-assisted hit on the Trump presidency from the start. I'm still nowhere near convinced Paul's theory can't be true.

As I said before: what a mess.

You have to be a conspiracy theorist at heart IMO to believe Paul's theory is true. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No. Its as likely as Trump having a male Russian lover in the Oval Office every night because Melania no longer loves him but some Russians do. Its possible. But its not probable.

Now if you've already convinced yourself Mr. Manafort is a small fish, you've probably already sold yourself to the dark side. The one where any lie Trump tells that feeds into your core beliefs of government conspiracies or Trump as a victim has you sucking down the lie without using critical thought.

The FBI was investigating Russia's interference into our election. Of course if you are a sane investigator you do that while it is happening instead of waiting for everything to be over. In any investigation the big fish is the top of what you find. Not what some deluded Presidential candidate now President tells you it is. If there had been a strong obvious link to now President Trump before the election, Obama would have felt compelled to share it, as it would be a serious breach of national security and US policy. But he didn't, because obviously that evidence did not exist. Investigations should go where the evidence leads. I don't know why you think the chain upwards has to go higher than Manafort unless of course you've bought Trump's narrative so strongly you aren't thinking about how a foreign government might interfere with elections and remain undetected. Surely if you start involving the candidates in your foreign influence quest, your odds of discovery and effectiveness will drop. Manafort was the damn campaign manger for heaven's sake. Why would the Russia's need to go any higher? Think!

[Opti]

May 24, 2018 23:21:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It seems to me the consensus on the difference between "spy" and "informant" is this: if the FBI proactively solicited Mr. Halper's assistance, he's a "spy", and if he initially came to them, he's an "informant".

From what I've read, this Mr. Halper is a bit of a one-man army. He's done many jobs previously for the FBI/CIA, "sees a Red under every bed" according to his Cambridge associates, and actively sought out to find a place on Pres. Trump's campaign and subsequently the State Department.

All of this would tend to suggest he's more of a proactive James O'Keefe type--somebody who doesn't need to be pushed by the FBI to go hunting for Reds--and therefore an "informant" per the consensus definition here.

Having said this, I somehow suspect: i) nobody can prove whether he first approached the FBI or whether the FBI first approached him, and ii) Pres. Trump's supporters believe the latter theory is correct.

What a colossal mess. Even if it turns out this fellow is on the level, one has to ask: What on Earth was Mr. Comey thinking when he signed on with this fellow?

I personally plan to spend no time on investigating Mr. Halper. It is a red herring designed by the spinners to deflect you from the real issue. The real issue is the investigation and what it has and does not have. All investigators use flawed individuals for information. Its how law enforcement has worked for years.

Do you think there are squeaky clean morally upright people with hardly any issues just begging to get involved in investigating foreign governments and political crimes? [img]http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/sarcasm.png[/img]   It doesn't really matter if he approached the FBI or they approached him. The only important thing is whether the information he got is true and usable. That is all. Don't get embroiled in Trump's persecution complex. Posters have laughed at Hillary for all her reasons for losing the election. Yet they believe this corrupt billionaire is persecuted versus selling them fantasy stories and persecuting others. The desire to believe his delusion is so disappointing, its hard to come up with the words to say how truly awful it is.

[Opti]

May 25, 2018 7:40:04 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's pretty clear now that when the President Of The United States re-arranged his schedule to meet with Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray ( apnews.com/f3833ba0c4f149508c2f09e83813d614 ), it wasn't to discuss the weather. It was to give them clear direction that they are to be transparent with Congress.

We know that Hillary Clinton's campaign illegally paid foreign spies to concoct the phony Trump dossier ( www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html ) by laundering money through the law firm Perkins Coie. They called it "opposition research", but we know that's a cover. What it really was is a counterfeit "intelligence document", and that it was used to deceive the FISA court ( thehill.com/opinion/white-house/375560-democrats-fisa-memo-doesnt-refute-gop-charges ) in spite of the fact we know there was NO LEGITIMATE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES BASIS FOR THE TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION- “We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation...We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department.” - Devin Nunes whose claims I might add have not even been attempted to be disputed. Why? Because there's no way the intelligence community is going to voluntarily put their fingerprints on the Obama-Clinton debacle.

Who would know for sure? That would be the FBI Director Of Counterintelligence, Bill Priestap

Timing Is Everything...

Chairman Goodlatte & Chairman Gowdy Schedule Testimony from Bill Priestap
theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/24/timing-chairman-goodlatte-and-chairman-gowdy-schedule-testimony-from-bill-priestap/

Who is Bill Priestap? A reminder: theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/23/a-counterintelligence-timeline-with-a-bill-priestap-and-james-comey-reminder/

Couldn't you just sell your lies on Republican uncle or other places they like Trump's political fan fiction?

I've seen no proof Hillary did that illegally nor do I care. Its old, its unimportant. If Trump or someone could actually prove she broke a law its time to get off their thumbs and actually do something about it.

But they won't because one thing you have shown, is the spinners are all about talk and allegations. They don't do action because they don't actually have things to prosecute. They are the mental equivalent of the fat guys living in Mom's basement. All hat, no cattle.

[Opti]

May 25, 2018 7:13:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 25, 2018 0:15:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

It seems to me the consensus on the difference between "spy" and "informant" is this: if the FBI proactively solicited Mr. Halper's assistance, he's a "spy", and if he initially came to them, he's an "informant".

no, i think there are TWO other important distinctions:

1) the fact that he is a private citizen, not a government employee

2) the fact that he is NOT OPERATING ANONYMOUSLY.

because of #2, he is now hung out to dry by the FBI, which endangers ALL FUTURE INQUIRIES.

a very bad move on their part, imo.  and a perilous one for the investigation, and even our democracy.

So, you're really going to hang your hat on semantics? The Democratic Party counter-arguments to spygate are exactly why I have so much trouble distinguishing parody from what Democrats are actually saying.

 I'm going to help you out. Trump claimed people were spying on *HIM*. There is still no proof of people spying on *HIM*. The people that were investigated were under investigation before Trump started his hiring of all the best people.

What was never debated, except by Trump fan fic fan boys and girls, was that there is and was an investigation into Russian meddling into the election. Along with the givens, is that the investigation would look into Russia connected individuals. Some which were some of Trump's best hired people. That was never debated.

But yet, every time something comes up addressing those who aren't Trump, you act like this is some big reveal. Its not. It should be yawn, the same thing that's been basically known for months. You can continue to whip yourself into a frenzy trying to pretend "people are spying on me" said by Trump equals people are investigating Manafort and Page, but only those who hate accuracy and truth are going to fall for it. Trump is still a liar and a story teller. No tweets or graphics can change that.

Manafort is not Trump.

Page is not Trump.

Even Don Jr. is not Donald J. Trump.

Please tell me you can tell the difference between Manafort and Trump.

[happyhoix]

Heard a better definition of 'spy' and 'informant' today.

"Informant" is an expert in the area that the FBI asks to go talk to certain people to see what they think/what they're doing.

A 'spy' is an expert in surveillance techniques who works for intelligence agencies and who obtains his information through spy craft. Like on "Get Smart" with the shoe phones, etc.

Halper set up a  meeting with the Trump campaign staffers who had known transactions with Russia in the past, to ask them what they were doing and what they knew.

No doubt, professional 'spies' have told Trump the difference, but it doesn't matter. "Spy" sounds worse, so "Spygate" it is, and the MAGA minions are no doubt chanting 'lock him up' at some rally somewhere.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 25, 2018 8:35:04 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 25, 2018 7:13:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

So, you're really going to hang your hat on semantics? The Democratic Party counter-arguments to spygate are exactly why I have so much trouble distinguishing parody from what Democrats are actually saying.

 I'm going to help you out. Trump claimed people were spying on *HIM*. There is still no proof of people spying on *HIM*. The people that were investigated were under investigation before Trump started his hiring of all the best people.

What was never debated, except by Trump fan fic fan boys and girls, was that there is and was an investigation into Russian meddling into the election. Along with the givens, is that the investigation would look into Russia connected individuals. Some which were some of Trump's best hired people. That was never debated.

But yet, every time something comes up addressing those who aren't Trump, you act like this is some big reveal. Its not. It should be yawn, the same thing that's been basically known for months. You can continue to whip yourself into a frenzy trying to pretend "people are spying on me" said by Trump equals people are investigating Manafort and Page, but only those who hate accuracy and truth are going to fall for it. Trump is still a liar and a story teller. No tweets or graphics can change that.

Manafort is not Trump.

Page is not Trump.

Even Don Jr. is not Donald J. Trump.

Please tell me you can tell the difference between Manafort and Trump.

I'm going to help you out.

Stop.

Just stop it.

[Opti]

Until you are able to admit Trump is not Manafort, I'm afraid I will probably need to continue. I really hate bad fiction. Its one of my pet peeves.

[djAdvocate]

May 25, 2018 7:49:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 25, 2018 2:10:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Their "very bad move" was getting into bed with him in the first place.

You loathe James O'Keefe's deceptions and entrapment in pursuit of "gotchas". Assuming Mr. Halper went to the the FBI instead of vice versa, how is his gambit any different from one of Mr. O'Keefe's "stings"? Aside from the fact that it's being played with higher stakes (infiltrating a presidential campaign and the State Department) and the FBI happened to be interested in what Mr. Halper had to sell?

I also don't buy that the FBI was only interested in getting dirt on small fish like Mr. Manafort and Mr. Page. At the very least, they wanted to see how high up the tree they could climb. They must have at least suspected they'd climb all the way up to Pres. Trump--or that he'd try to obstruct justice while in office, which isn't their prerogative to assume. Barring this, there was no good reason to conduct the surveillance during his campaign as opposed to after the election, in the light of day, and several excellent reasons not to (Mr. Comey's pulling Ms. Clinton's arse out of the fire during the same campaign being a prime example).

All this assumes the surveillance wasn't a state-assisted hit on the Trump presidency from the start. I'm still nowhere near convinced Paul's theory can't be true.

As I said before: what a mess.

You have to be a conspiracy theorist at heart IMO to believe Paul's theory is true. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No. Its as likely as Trump having a male Russian lover in the Oval Office every night because Melania no longer loves him but some Russians do. Its possible. But its not probable.

Now if you've already convinced yourself Mr. Manafort is a small fish, you've probably already sold yourself to the dark side. The one where any lie Trump tells that feeds into your core beliefs of government conspiracies or Trump as a victim has you sucking down the lie without using critical thought.

The FBI was investigating Russia's interference into our election. Of course if you are a sane investigator you do that while it is happening instead of waiting for everything to be over. In any investigation the big fish is the top of what you find. Not what some deluded Presidential candidate now President tells you it is. If there had been a strong obvious link to now President Trump before the election, Obama would have felt compelled to share it, as it would be a serious breach of national security and US policy. But he didn't, because obviously that evidence did not exist. Investigations should go where the evidence leads. I don't know why you think the chain upwards has to go higher than Manafort unless of course you've bought Trump's narrative so strongly you aren't thinking about how a foreign government might interfere with elections and remain undetected. Surely if you start involving the candidates in your foreign influence quest, your odds of discovery and effectiveness will drop. Manafort was the damn campaign manger for heaven's sake. Why would the Russia's need to go any higher? Think!

i don't think Manafort is a small fish at all.  he seems to me to be one of the primary targets at this juncture.  there is enough dirt out on him to put him in prison for life, and he is filthy, imo.

as to the rest of this post, let's just review as succinctly as possible:

the probe was into Russian meddling

nobody suggests that the meddling didn't happen

Carter Page was so compromised that he was considered a Russian asset

Carter Page worked for the incoming administration

that alone would be enough to tee up the POtuS.  but there is SO much more.

yet people have the audacity to claim that there is nothing there, and that the

REAL issue is the FBI?

gmafb.  give us all one.  if the president survives this, it will only be because

he has damaged the judicial branch so much that it no longer functions properly.

[djAdvocate]

May 25, 2018 7:13:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

So, you're really going to hang your hat on semantics?

no.  i am going to hang it on FACTS.  they still matter to some people.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 25, 2018 7:02:12 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

You seem to be suggesting that when these two known Russian friends ended up working for Trump, the FBI should have stood back and left it alone, that somehow working for a presidential candidate means you are untouchable to law enforcement. (1)     On the contrary, the FBI was concerned that Russia, with their known habit of trying to tamper with elections in western democracies, would approach these two men, and, unbeknownst to Trump, bribe or blackmail them into spying on Trump's campaign for them. (2)     They were trying to protect the Trump campaign from the Russians. (3)    Trump has very successfully turned that around 180 degrees to claim the FBI, under some dark world control, was trying to spy on HIM. Which is total bullshit, unless you're willing to believe that everyone in the FBI is a traitor who sold their souls to the black hole/dark hat people. (4)

We have one of the best DOJ agencies in the world, uncorrupted by politics, staffed mostly by people with a strong sense of defending the US and the world from the bad guys. (5)    At least we did, before Trump started denigrating it for his own political ends. Morale has to be pretty shitty there right now. Thanks to Trump.

1. This is exactly what I'm suggesting, given the particulars of this case.
   
   
2. This isn't nearly sufficient justification for the surveillance. Even in a hypothetical universe where the FBI had rock-solid evidence--not merely vague suspicions--that Mr. Manafort and Mr. Page were compromised by the Kremlin and that they'd surely become privy to valuable secrets (?) they could pass along to their handlers, the surveillance is contraindicated by horrible optics and two reasons besides: i) entrapment is absolutely the wrong way to go about protecting a campaign from Russian influence; there are superior options, and ii) the leaks, insinuations, and speculation that ultimately stemmed from the surveillance did more harm to Pres. Trump's campaign and presidency that the Russians ever could. Talk about killing the patient in order to save him.
   
   
3. You can't prove this. To your credit, Paul can't prove otherwise, but you can by no means make this assertion. And I hate to say it but all the little bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence that have come to light thus far fit with his theory better than they fit with yours.
   
   
4. It wasn't "everyone in the FBI". It was apparently a small working group.
   
   
5. This is the million-dollar question, isn't it? Twenty years ago, I imagine most Americans would rate the CIA about average, and the FBI/DoJ as extremely trustworthy. But then came the Patriot Act, then torturegate, Mr. Snowden, the clandestine drone and assassination programs, the surge in whistleblower prosecutions, Vault 5, the Steele dossier, and the icing on the cake was Ms. Clinton's walk on emailgate.
   
   The issue isn't "Is every single person in the FBI/DoJ corrupted by politics?", it's "Can a working group exist within the FBI/DoJ corrupted by politics?" and "Could this hypothetical working group operate in the shadows for any length of time without being publicly exposed?"
   
   The Snowden and Vault 5 leaks have cemented an affirmative answer to the latter question as far as I'm concerned. Regarding the former, I simply don't know. I'd like to believe "one of the best DOJ agencies in the world, uncorrupted by politics" still applies, but as the 21st Century rolls on, it's really becoming a matter of faith over evidence.
   

[Opti]

"1.This is exactly what I'm suggesting, given the particulars of this case."

Holy Mother of Liars No! Do you not see what a bad precedent this would set? It means any criminal could do anything and escape prosecution simply if they were wise enough to work for a Presidential candidate.

Entirely disagree.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 25, 2018 7:49:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

You have to be a conspiracy theorist at heart IMO to believe Paul's theory is true. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No.

I simply don't trust your gut feel on how probable it is.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't trust Paul's gut feel on how probable it is either. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic on this one.

May 25, 2018 7:49:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

The FBI was investigating Russia's interference into our election. Of course if you are a sane investigator you do that while it is happening instead of waiting for everything to be over.

You're saying "interference". What interference specifically?

The Kremlin collecting secret info, kompromat, etc. via campaign staff, as Happy suggests? The FBI wouldn't have to delay in this case, but they'd have to let Pres. Trump know they suspect the Russians are trying to compromise the campaign.

Or do you go further than this with "interference"? The FBI is worried that Pres. Trump himself has been compromised by the Kremlin? Certainly it's possible. But if this is your suspicion, Mr. Comey, don't lie through your teeth and claim the surveillance was to protect him and his campaign. It was to see if he was in bed with the Reds. And Paul has a point that Red hunting in a presidential campaign needs to be based on the strictest standard of evidence, with bipartisan congressional oversight. Not a shady fishing expedition based on the suspicions of men like Messrs. Steele and Halpert. Furthermore, any information collected with even a hint of association with the Clinton campaign should have been burned by any "sane investigator" concerned about the integrity of the investigation.

May 25, 2018 7:49:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Now if you've already convinced yourself Mr. Manafort is a small fish, you've probably already sold yourself to the dark side. The one where any lie Trump tells that feeds into your core beliefs of government conspiracies or Trump as a victim has you sucking down the lie without using critical thought.

Pres. Trump is the big fish. Possibly also Jared Kushner since he's still in the White House.

May 25, 2018 7:49:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

I don't know why you think the chain upwards has to go higher than Manafort unless of course you've bought Trump's narrative so strongly you aren't thinking about how a foreign government might interfere with elections and remain undetected.

There's a great idea.

Mr. Comey: "We think Pres. Trump's campaign manager might be in bed with the Reds. Rather than going to Trump directly, warning him, 'Hey, you might not want this guy as your campaign manager. And if you keep him on, make bloody sure you don't say anything that might give the Russians leverage over you.', let's get a Title I nuclear-strength FISA warrant--that allows us to surveil not only on Manafort but anyone, foreign or domestic, he comes in contact with--based on a grab bag of data procured by Trump's archenemies, and without any oversight whatsoever get Halpert to infiltrate the campaign and hopefully entrap Manafort and Page before they do too much damage."

Mr. Strzok: "Brilliant idea, sir! There's no way this can possibly blow up in our faces."

If this is what actually happened, the men's careers deserved to burn for the sake of sheer ineptitude.

May 25, 2018 7:49:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Think!

You think.