[W:171]FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign

[Xelor]

FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign

Last month Bill Barr expressly stated he was of the mind that spying on the Trump campaign occurred:

Barr: "We’re worried about foreign influence in elections ... I think spying on a political campaign — it’s a big deal, it’s a big deal. I’m not suggesting that [rules enacted to ensure there's adequate basis for investigative actions] were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that. I’m not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly."
Sen. Shaheen: "You’re not suggesting that spying occurred?"
Barr: "I think spying did occur."
(Source)​

Yet later in the same hearing he remarked: "I’m not saying if improper surveillance occurred." (Source) Furthermore, Barr asserted the DoJ is investigating the FBI's investigation of Trump.

Today, Trump's handpicked FBI Director, Chris Wray, declared under oath:

I was very concerned by [Barr's] use of the word spying, which I think is a loaded word," Shaheen said. "When FBI agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe they're engaging in spying when they're following FBI investigative policies and procedures?"

"That's not the term I would use," Wray said of "spying." "So, I would say that's a no to that question."
-- FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign​

So here we are:

• Trump's handpicked AG says he "thinks" there spying occurred, but fails to identify who (what organization) performed it, but he's not investigating the FBI.
• Trump's handpicked FBI Dir., in substance, asserts that no FBI surveillance or investigative policy-compliant activities are spying.

So what must one rationally conclude from the above?

• The AG was taking out of two sides of his mouth.
• Spying isn't what the FBI does.
• So-called "spying" occurred, but neither Barr nor Wray has identified who was spied upon and who did the spying.

 

[DarkWizard12]

FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign

Last month Bill Barr expressly stated he was of the mind that spying on the Trump campaign occurred:

Barr: "We’re worried about foreign influence in elections ... I think spying on a political campaign — it’s a big deal, it’s a big deal. I’m not suggesting that [rules enacted to ensure there's adequate basis for investigative actions] were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that. I’m not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly."
Sen. Shaheen: "You’re not suggesting that spying occurred?"
Barr: "I think spying did occur."
(Source)​

Yet later in the same hearing he remarked: "I’m not saying if improper surveillance occurred." (Source) Furthermore, Barr asserted the DoJ is investigating the FBI's investigation of Trump.

Today, Trump's handpicked FBI Director, Chris Wray, declared under oath:

I was very concerned by [Barr's] use of the word spying, which I think is a loaded word," Shaheen said. "When FBI agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe they're engaging in spying when they're following FBI investigative policies and procedures?"

"That's not the term I would use," Wray said of "spying." "So, I would say that's a no to that question."
-- FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign​

So here we are:

• Trump's handpicked AG says he "thinks" there spying occurred, but fails to identify who (what organization) performed it, but he's not investigating the FBI.
• Trump's handpicked FBI Dir., in substance, asserts that no FBI surveillance or investigative policy-compliant activities are spying.

So what must one rationally conclude from the above?

• The AG was taking out of two sides of his mouth.
• Spying isn't what the FBI does.
• So-called "spying" occurred, but neither Barr nor Wray has identified who was spied upon and who did the spying.

or *Wray is pandering to a friendly media.

Both Wray and Barr are working together on this. Clearly, whatever they can both agree on, must be legit, right?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...om_of_origin_of_2016_trump_investigation.html

 

[3leftsdoo]

The goobermint said it didn't spy?

Well, that's all I need to know...

:usflag2:

 

[joko104]

Any surveillance of another person without the person's knowledge is "spying." Whether it is legal or not is a different question. Everyone knows that is the meaning of that word.

At not time has Barr said there was illegal spying. That is appears to be something he is investigating - and Democrats in Congress are committing every crime they can think of to try to stop him.

 

[MovingPictures]

Any surveillance of another person without the person's knowledge is "spying." Whether it is legal or not is a different question.

And whether the person in question engaged in conduct to warrant such "spying" - which Papadopoulos certainly did - is also a different question.

 

[joko104]

And whether the person in question engaged in conduct to warrant such "spying" - which Papadopoulos certainly did - is also a different question.

Yes, that is a different question and also something that should be fully investigated, don't you agree?

 

[MovingPictures]

FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign

Last month Bill Barr expressly stated he was of the mind that spying on the Trump campaign occurred:

Barr: "We’re worried about foreign influence in elections ... I think spying on a political campaign — it’s a big deal, it’s a big deal. I’m not suggesting that [rules enacted to ensure there's adequate basis for investigative actions] were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that. I’m not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly."
Sen. Shaheen: "You’re not suggesting that spying occurred?"
Barr: "I think spying did occur."
(Source)​

Yet later in the same hearing he remarked: "I’m not saying if improper surveillance occurred." (Source) Furthermore, Barr asserted the DoJ is investigating the FBI's investigation of Trump.

Today, Trump's handpicked FBI Director, Chris Wray, declared under oath:

I was very concerned by [Barr's] use of the word spying, which I think is a loaded word," Shaheen said. "When FBI agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe they're engaging in spying when they're following FBI investigative policies and procedures?"

"That's not the term I would use," Wray said of "spying." "So, I would say that's a no to that question."
-- FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign​

So here we are:

• Trump's handpicked AG says he "thinks" there spying occurred, but fails to identify who (what organization) performed it, but he's not investigating the FBI.
• Trump's handpicked FBI Dir., in substance, asserts that no FBI surveillance or investigative policy-compliant activities are spying.

So what must one rationally conclude from the above?

• The AG was taking out of two sides of his mouth.
• Spying isn't what the FBI does.
• So-called "spying" occurred, but neither Barr nor Wray has identified who was spied upon and who did the spying.

Here's a thought: Don't say you have insider information from the Kremlin regarding Russian cyber-espionage operations, and the FBI won't take an interest in your activities.

If we switched out "Trump" with "Clinton" and "Russian" with "Iran", this wouldn't be a conversation.

The FBI never violated anyways civil rights in their surveillance efforts, and they further had established probable cause for the FISA warrant, which was done months after the subject in question was gone from the campaign.

 

[Xelor]

or *Wray is pandering to a friendly media.

Both Wray and Barr are working together on this. Clearly, whatever they can both agree on, must be legit, right?

FBI Director Wray: I Am Working With Attorney General Barr To "Get To The Bottom" Of Origin Of 2016 Trump Investigation | Video | RealClearPolitics

Given the content in the articles referenced in my OP, it's not at all clear to me what exactly they agree on.

 

[MovingPictures]

Yes, that is a different question and also something that should be fully investigated, don't you agree?

It was fully investigated and all the information regarding the origins of the FBI investigation has been known for over a year now.

If Papadopoulos hadn't gotten hammered and made-up **** about having a channel back to the Kremlin, where he was being provided insider details about Russian espionage efforts, this whole thing would have never began. It was retarded to go around bragging about that.

You can investigate all you want, but this deep state stuff is not going to be proven.

 

[Xelor]

Here's a thought: Don't say you have insider information from the Kremlin regarding Russian cyber-espionage operations, and the FBI won't take an interest in your activities.

If we switched out "Trump" with "Clinton" and "Russian" with "Iran", this wouldn't be a conversation.

The FBI never violated anyways civil rights in their surveillance efforts, and they further had established probable cause for the FISA warrant, which was done months after the subject in question was gone from the campaign.

Red:
First of all:

If you want to engage in "them too" rationale and discourse, create your own thread for doing so. This is about what two specific individuals, Wray and Barr, have said about the nature and extent of spying, and/or the absence thereof, on the Trump campaign.
​

Second:

Blue:
Agree

 

[3leftsdoo]

The FBI, after thoroughly investigating itself, has determined it did nothing wrong.

In other news, Little Timmy claims he did NOT get into the cookie jar, and that the many crumbs discovered on his person are merely circumstantial...

 

[danarhea]

Any surveillance of another person without the person's knowledge is "spying." Whether it is legal or not is a different question. Everyone knows that is the meaning of that word.

At not time has Barr said there was illegal spying. That is appears to be something he is investigating - and Democrats in Congress are committing every crime they can think of to try to stop him.

Then I guess John Gotti, if he were still alive, would have a valid argument against Mueller, who "spied" on him.

 

[MovingPictures]

Red:
First of all:

If you want to engage in "them too" rationale and discourse, create your own thread for doing so. This is about what two specific individuals, Wray and Barr, have said about the nature and extent of spying, and/or the absence thereof, on the Trump campaign.
​

Second:

Blue:
Agree

I offered the analogy because it's the kind of one track thinking that seems to be only thing the right understands.

Apologies, I wasn't trying to derail your thread.

 

[Moon]

FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign

Last month Bill Barr expressly stated he was of the mind that spying on the Trump campaign occurred:

Barr: "We’re worried about foreign influence in elections ... I think spying on a political campaign — it’s a big deal, it’s a big deal. I’m not suggesting that [rules enacted to ensure there's adequate basis for investigative actions] were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that. I’m not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly."
Sen. Shaheen: "You’re not suggesting that spying occurred?"
Barr: "I think spying did occur."
(Source)​

Yet later in the same hearing he remarked: "I’m not saying if improper surveillance occurred." (Source) Furthermore, Barr asserted the DoJ is investigating the FBI's investigation of Trump.

Today, Trump's handpicked FBI Director, Chris Wray, declared under oath:

I was very concerned by [Barr's] use of the word spying, which I think is a loaded word," Shaheen said. "When FBI agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe they're engaging in spying when they're following FBI investigative policies and procedures?"

"That's not the term I would use," Wray said of "spying." "So, I would say that's a no to that question."
-- FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign​

So here we are:

• Trump's handpicked AG says he "thinks" there spying occurred, but fails to identify who (what organization) performed it, but he's not investigating the FBI.
• Trump's handpicked FBI Dir., in substance, asserts that no FBI surveillance or investigative policy-compliant activities are spying.

So what must one rationally conclude from the above?

• The AG was taking out of two sides of his mouth.
• Spying isn't what the FBI does.
• So-called "spying" occurred, but neither Barr nor Wray has identified who was spied upon and who did the spying.

He didn’t say there was no spying, he said he personally doesn’t have evidence of it. Very dishonest headline NBC used.

 

[Grim17]

FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign

Last month Bill Barr expressly stated he was of the mind that spying on the Trump campaign occurred:

Barr: "We’re worried about foreign influence in elections ... I think spying on a political campaign — it’s a big deal, it’s a big deal. I’m not suggesting that [rules enacted to ensure there's adequate basis for investigative actions] were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that. I’m not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly."
Sen. Shaheen: "You’re not suggesting that spying occurred?"
Barr: "I think spying did occur."
(Source)​

Yet later in the same hearing he remarked: "I’m not saying if improper surveillance occurred." (Source) Furthermore, Barr asserted the DoJ is investigating the FBI's investigation of Trump.

Today, Trump's handpicked FBI Director, Chris Wray, declared under oath:

I was very concerned by [Barr's] use of the word spying, which I think is a loaded word," Shaheen said. "When FBI agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe they're engaging in spying when they're following FBI investigative policies and procedures?"

"That's not the term I would use," Wray said of "spying." "So, I would say that's a no to that question."
-- FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign​

So here we are:

• Trump's handpicked AG says he "thinks" there spying occurred, but fails to identify who (what organization) performed it, but he's not investigating the FBI.
• Trump's handpicked FBI Dir., in substance, asserts that no FBI surveillance or investigative policy-compliant activities are spying.

So what must one rationally conclude from the above?

• The AG was taking out of two sides of his mouth.
• Spying isn't what the FBI does.
• So-called "spying" occurred, but neither Barr nor Wray has identified who was spied upon and who did the spying.

What a dishonest headline... I'm not a fan of the term "fake news", but it's crap like this that justifies it's use.

Way to go NBC.

The article is titled "FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign". That leads readers to believe that Wray testified that there was no surveillance of the Trump campaign... but that is not what Wray testified to.

.

 

[Tangmo]

What a dishonest headline... I'm not a fan of the term "fake news", but it's crap like this that justifies it's use.

Way to go NBC.

The article is titled "FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign". That leads readers to believe that Wray testified that there was no surveillance of the Trump campaign... but that is not what Wray testified to.

.

You are using spying and surveillance interchangeably which means you bumped your ass landing on the rock.

 

[joko104]

Then I guess John Gotti, if he were still alive, would have a valid argument against Mueller, who "spied" on him.

He was spied on. If you think he was wrongly spied on, make your case.

 

[joko104]

It was fully investigated and all the information regarding the origins of the FBI investigation has been known for over a year now.

If hadn't gotten hammered and made-up **** about having a channel back to the Kremlin, where he was being provided insider details about Russian espionage efforts, this whole thing would have never began. It was retarded to go around bragging about that.

You can investigate all you want, but this deep state stuff is not going to be proven.

You would agree that it would entirely proper for the Attorney General to use age appropriate attractive male and female undercover officers to try to seduce the political and campaign staff members of the Democratic candidates for president and members of Congress to try to learn anything scandalous or of questionable conduct of again any of those candidates and officials and each staffer - releasing what they learn to the press claiming the candidate or official probably knew and arranged it. That'd just be doing in his job like was done to Papadopoulos.

 

[joko104]

You are using spying and surveillance interchangeably which means you bumped your ass landing on the rock.

That is a stupid message with a generic juvenile meme.

 

[Airyaman]

He was spied on. If you think he was wrongly spied on, make your case.

If you think Trump was wrongly spied on, make your case.

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

You are using spying and surveillance interchangeably which means you bumped your ass landing on the rock.

~ A bump on the ass is not so bad. Sounds like Mom dropped you on your head a few times ...?
· Anyway whatever the FBI chief said is almost becoming irrelevant as the upper echelon DOJ/FBI cannot be trusted. Barr is mostly on his own - if he is indeed after the facts.

If you think Trump was wrongly spied on, make your case.

~ As stated previously that is exactly what Barr is going to do . We hope ...!

 

[Tangmo]

You are using spying and surveillance interchangeably which means you bumped your ass landing on the rock.

That is a stupid message with a generic juvenile meme.

You accept that the Right is using spying and surveillance interchangeably which is a serious failure of intellect. It comes from pursuing your rightwing ideology instead.

~ A bump on the ass is not so bad. Sounds like Mom dropped you on your head a few times ...?
· Anyway whatever the FBI chief said is almost becoming irrelevant as the upper echelon DOJ/FBI cannot be trusted. Barr is mostly on his own - if he is indeed after the facts.


~ As stated previously that is exactly what Barr is going to do . We hope ...!

You are encouraged to consider my post as a love kick.

Barr is Trump's bitch btw.

Wray maintaining his integrity is a huge headache for Trump and you guys over there. Wray is now actively in the mix and he's one tough lawman too.

 

[Xelor]

I offered the analogy because it's the kind of one track thinking that seems to be only thing the right understands.

Apologies, I wasn't trying to derail your thread.

Understood. TY for the clarification.

 

[Xelor]

He didn’t say there was no spying, he said he personally doesn’t have evidence of it. Very dishonest headline NBC used.

Red:
Actually he didn't say that at all. What he said was that he didn't think he such evidence. Such diction leaves room for there to come about information that he, in fact, has and that he "forgot" he has evidence there was indeed no spying.

 

[Xelor]

What a dishonest headline... I'm not a fan of the term "fake news", but it's crap like this that justifies it's use.

Way to go NBC.

The article is titled "FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign". That leads readers to believe that Wray testified that there was no surveillance of the Trump campaign... but that is not what Wray testified to.

For readers who don't know what quotation marks indicate, I suppose it's possible they may, from the headline, develop the belief that "Wray testified that there was no surveillance of the Trump campaign." Adept readers amongst us won't, however and based on the article's headline, form such a belief. We won't for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to:

• Bothering to read the article itself.
• Recalling our basic grammar instruction which we've been applying damn near daily since at least the 9th grade, after having had some five-years' worth of English instruction during which time one was expected to learn that stuff, or at least the most commonly encountered 80-90% of it. (And I daresay any such rules appearing in mainstream news headlines meets the unquantified standard I've called "commonly encountered.")
  • No-nonsense guide: How to use quotation marks
  • Complete English Grammar Rules