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

[OpportunityCost]

AND it would seem to be an insertion into the media by Fusion GPS, thats what they do, AND THEN our friggin FBI had the nads to use that David Corn Story as confirmation of the Dossier info to get their FISA warrant and set off this 3 year cluster **** of collusion investigations. This is a repeat of the Obama administrations use of the IRS to target their political opponents, moved over to the Justice Department. While whats her face over at State was unmasking the likes of Carter Page in classified intelligence so it can become tomorrows news. Ooooh but lookey over there, Russian collusion..... or, well obstruction of justice of the investigation into Russian collusion that didnt occur.....or, well maybe obstruction of justice of the investigation into obstruction of justice of the investigation into Russian collusion that didnt happen. THIS IS ABSURD! AND HALF THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY IS BUYING this Grand Illusion. Crazy country we live in these days.

Samantha Powers and Susan Rice were both unmasking.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

Part I of II


If investigators, at "Point A" in an inquiry, have no specific person whom they can identify as "worrying," why the hell would you expect them (1) to identify any such person or (2) refrain from informing Trump that they have signs there may be some "untoward" activity afoot and that are in the process of determining whether such activity is indeed afoot?

• You're griping that Trump didn't get a defensive briefing, yet the letter I reference indicated he did get one.
• Even assuming accurate be your claims about the perfunctory nature of said briefing, and I'm not assuming that but if I were to do so, an appropriate warning message to give at the early stages of an inquiry, which was the August 2016 status of the Russia-Trump inquiry, is something akin to "we have info that suggests there may be some shenanigans going on, and we're looking into it."
• You're griping that the defensive briefing he got didn't identify to Trump a specific person and what s/he did, yet at the time of the briefing, the only thing that could be credibly asserted and that was, at the time, factually true was that there were signs suggesting "funny business" may have been afoot.
• The whole point of an investigation is to determine whether those signs point to actual "funny business" and its perpetrators.

Red:
You would need to ask the USIC personnel involved with the matter that question.

I can posit some reasons that, to accept them as true or probable, don't strain credulity or bid one to ascribe to political conspiracy theories; however, I haven't access to the materials that show them as among the existential reasons applied by USIC operatives then working on the case. Some of those reasons are:

• Because at the time, he, along with damn near everyone on his team, unlike Sen. Feinstein, didn't have a security clearance. The senator's having for decades earned a top secret security clearance and demonstrated fitting degrees of restraint and prudential judgment and discretion, if nothing else, rightly accorded her the basic presumption of not being involved in any untoward behavior in which the suspected aide may have been involved.
  • AFAIK, the only Trump campaign team member who'd, comparably to Sen. Feinstein, showed himself equally above reproach was Jeff Sessions.
• Because Sen. Feinstein was on the Senate Intel. Cmte. and was thus, like every other senator on that committee, a member of the USIC, whereas almost nobody on the Trump campaign team, and certainly not Trump, was a member of the USIC.
• Because Sen. Feinstein was on the Senate Intel Cmte. and her aide in question thus had at least proximate access to USIC information, something almost nobody on the Trump campaign, and certainly not Trump himself, had access to; thus the senator had a need to know.
• Because they were unsure of the nature and extent of Trump's personal involvement and/or complicity with unlawful Russian activity.

(cont'd due to character limit)

NBC News reported that the Trump Campaign received the perfunctory warning of "potential" problems with spies from foreign countries.

The FIRST of these occurred in August of 2016.

In July of 2016, the FBI knew about the specific people and occasions which were ALREADY being investigated. No briefing to Trump in this regard in July. No mention of anything specific in the August perfunctory briefing.

You're beating a dead horse. You're wrong or lying or willfully ignorant. Perhaps all of the preceding.

In August, 2016, Trump was given Security Clearance to receive the perfunctory briefings that would follow.

FBI warned Trump in 2016 Russians would try to infiltrate his campaign

 

[American]

:lol: Such a weak come back on your part.

Typical.

 

[American]

That's false. The public first learned about the allegations from the David Corn story regarding the dossier in the third quarter of 2016 and it was also magnified by the January 11, 2017 story by BuzzFeed. You are conflating the public release with public knowledge and ignoring the allegations in the press.

We now know Comey was leaking information so that date you are pushing forward is probably not accurate if he was leaking information the entire time.

It's called revisionism; it's what the Left does to erase things that hurt their feelings. Similar to remove statues and other history they don't like.