Social Spying on Trump confirmed: Operation Crossfire Hurricane ***UPDATE: Comey Admits, "I Was Wrong" ***

[Quequeg]

All Trumps defenders are doing is throwing crap against the wall, so the idiot base has something, anything to distract from the obvious criminality of Trump cabal.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Also, I'm fully engaging the topic. Asking you to provide evidence for your assertions isn't a derail, it's a debate. Grow up.

Lol. You are angry today, El Presidente.

What assertions have I made that have you so bothered? I'm far from clear that any of this is true, and I've gone out of my way to insert alleged at every point specifically because I'm not sure whether the evidence supports it. But if it does, then Trump would be correct, this would be bigger than Watergate, which was after all a scandal not about breaking and entering but about spying on the political opposition.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

All Trumps defenders are doing is throwing crap against the wall, so the idiot base has something, anything to distract from the obvious criminality of Trump cabal.

I'd argue that a) this is also a good description of what Trump's critics have been busy with for the past year and b) they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[bobgeese]

You forgot to actually point out the alleged wrongdoing. Again, what did the FBI do that was illegal?

Be specific.

From what I can tell --> /thread



Man, it must be awesome to be so oblivious and self-unaware that you think you're always winning.

You know the old adage: retardation is bliss.


Wait, is that the saying?

Honest question Trotsky, if you could take off your partisan cap (your ms13 thread) and put on your legal cap for a moment.


Is this not the textbook definition of entrapment?

“The act of government agents or officials that induces aperson to commit a crime he or she is not previouslydisposed to commit.

Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it.”


The fbi planted a spy to coerce Papadopoulos into making statements which would be used to charge him later.


I don’t have the time to go through the whole timeline (which I posted above) but if you’re interested you should, but I’m curious as to your thoughts or any other lawyers thoughts on this.

 

[HomerThompson]

Lol. You are angry today, El Presidente.

What assertions have I made that have you so bothered? I'm far from clear that any of this is true, and I've gone out of my way to insert alleged at every point specifically because I'm not sure whether the evidence supports it. But if it does, then Trump would be correct, this would be bigger than Watergate, which was after all a scandal not about breaking and entering but about spying on the political opposition.

MY problem is that you haven't made any assertions. You're just speculating and going with what you want to be true. It's intellectually embarrassing. You should strive to be better than that.

"If it's true that Donald Trump was literally Satan, that would be super crazy. If it's true that the President is Satan we're in a lot of trouble as a country. We need transparency going forward."

 

[HomerThompson]

The fbi planted a spy to coerce Papadopoulos into making statements which would be used to charge him later.

 

[Execute]

An informant was used in an active investigation. I don't get what the big deal is.

 

[HomerThompson]

An informant was used in an active investigation. I don't get what the big deal is.

BUT IT WAS SPYING THOUGH!!!!!

DADDY!!!

MAGA!!!

 

[Ophydian]

So Bobby are you saying that every organized crime that the FBI has used the same tactics is illegal?

Once I read the article I’ll be able to respond better but when you say the FBI was trying to get out front of this story are you meaning like how Trump sent Giuliani on Fox to get out front of his continuous lies about the Stormy Daniels payment? Because what I see here is the FBI trying to get out front not because they lied like Trump but to get to the story before Trump and his propaganda arm Foxnews twists the narrative.

 

[bobgeese]

An informant was used in an active investigation. I don't get what the big deal is.

From what is alleged, at least reported by the nyt, this predates the start of the investigation.

 

[Dolomite]

 

[Ophydian]

There is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the information you presented. If you feel there is, please show me specifically what is illegal about any aspect of the investigative techniques described in your sources.

Be specific.

He can’t. Not until Hannity puts up another chart. This is called good police work. Wrong doing would be if the FBI posed as Russians representing Putin and tried to trap Trump when there was no evidence to do so.

 

[bobgeese]

So Bobby are you saying that every organized crime that the FBI has used the same tactics is illegal?

Once I read the article I’ll be able to respond better but when you say the FBI was trying to get out front of this story are you meaning like how Trump sent Giuliani on Fox to get out front of his continuous lies about the Stormy Daniels payment? Because what I see here is the FBI trying to get out front not because they lied like Trump but to get to the story before Trump and his propaganda arm Foxnews twists the narrative.

It looks an awful lot like the abuse of federal agencies powers in order to spy on a political opponent.

I think Kimberly Strassel answers in the OP are better than what I can offer. Honestly speaking.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

But if it does, then Trump would be correct, this would be bigger than Watergate, which was after all a scandal not about breaking and entering but about spying on the political opposition.

Nixon wasn’t spying, breh. He just used an informant to make sure his opponents weren’t breaking any laws in their headquarters.

 

[HomerThompson]

Spying on Trump confirmed: Operation Crossfire Hurricane/About that mole



Ok, there is now a plethora of evidence that has been made public that the FBI was in fact spying on the Trump campaign, and went so far as to plant a “mole” (likely Stefan Halper). There are multiple stories breaking this week, and the fbi through the NYT is trying to get ahead of it by leaking it to soften the blow, but that’s not working. So to start, here is the first story to break.


.....


WSJ: About That FBI ‘Source’

Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?


“The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?

And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.

We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.”



....


Ok, so Kimberly Strassel broke the story, there’s a spy planted in the Trump campaign (Likely Stefan Halper). In an attempt to get out in front of it, an article was published by the NYT.


“At least one” U.S. government informant met with Trump campaign officials in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

That person met “several times” with campaign national security advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, according to the report, which offered no additional information on the informant’s identity or connection with U.S. authorities.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

......


Here is Strassels response



......



So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming.


1. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.


2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied. (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.


3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos)--making all more likely/certain source will be outed. That's on them


4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena. They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?


5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .


6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation?


7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.


8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u know you didn't.)

.....


Here is fusion gps confirming there was a spy


“Fusion’s Simpson Stands by Testimony that FBI Had Spy in Trump Campaign


Simpson’s lawyer, Joshua Levy, sent a short reply letter to Senator Grassley, stating:

I am writing in response to your letter, dated January 11, 2018, in which you have asked about the August 22, 2017 testimony from our client Glenn Simpson that Christopher Steele in the fall of 2016 said he believed the FBI had another source within the Trump organization/campaign. Mr. Simpson stands by his testimony.”



https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-campaign-fbi-spy-glenn-simpson-stands-by-testimony/

...



Remember when folks here were claiming the Obama administration wasn’t spying on Trump?

Holy fuck, this timeline is surely the best!!!

From what is alleged, at least reported by the nyt, this predates the start of the investigation.

From your own linked source in the OP:

WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.

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. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

MY problem is that you haven't made any assertions. You're just speculating and going with what you want to be true. It's intellectually embarrassing. You should strive to be better than that.

"If it's true that Donald Trump was literally Satan, that would be super crazy. If it's true that the President is Satan we're in a lot of trouble as a country. We need transparency going forward."

Lol?

1. You rudely asked that I provide evidence to support my assertions. Here:

Asking you to provide evidence for your assertions isn't a derail, it's a debate. Grow up.

When I responded that I hadn't made any assertions about what happened here, you changed your tune entirely. And now your problem is that I haven't made any assertions. This is incoherent. Which is it?

2. I also didn't speculate at all about what happened here or whether or not any of the things being said are true. I don't know. It's been all "if" and "alleged" with me.

3. And finally, as for going with what I want to be true, I expressed clearly what I want here:

Hopefully, there is nothing to these accusations or they are less bad than is being made out here.

I do agree that this thread has contained material that is intellectually embarrassing.

 

[Fawlty]

An informant was used in an active investigation. I don't get what the big deal is.

"All law enforcement is illegitimate when it is investigating my wrongdoing."

There isn't enough information to determine if there's a problem here. And even if there is a problem, that does not magically erase crimes committed by Trump's people.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

My money is on Sater being the informant. He's worked with the FBI before as an informant. Helped tRUmp with the Bayrock deal.

If tRUmp didn't associate himself with career criminals, engage in financing with dirty banks, engage in suspicious activity that looks a lot like money laundering then his campaign never would have been under surveilance and Carter Page wouldn't have been under FISA in 2016 when plenty of tRUmp campaign officials were listed under incidental collection.

Just saw this gem:



Looks like my Sater theory is pretty ( bay)rock solid

 

[bobgeese]

From your own linked source in the OP:

WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.

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. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.

But homer, go back and look at the timeline, when was he (dunker I think the name is) debriefed, it was AFTER the planted the spy to get Papadopoulos to talk.

The claim was that the investigation was started because of what Papadopulos said, that simply can’t be true, because they planted a spy before that ever happened.

How can they be “investigating” prior to the start of the investigation?

 

[bobgeese]

"All law enforcement is illegitimate when it is investigating my wrongdoing."

There isn't enough information to determine if there's a problem here. And even if there is a problem, that does not magically erase crimes committed by Trump's people.

Nobody claimed it does. That’s a straw man argument to deflect from the obama administration abusing the powers of federal agencies to spy on political opponents.