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

[Athanasius68]

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.

Neither-- the Trump campaign was 'spied upon' or 'surveilled.' Wray doesn't like the word 'spy' in conjunction to what happened, and Barr said he doesn't know if the 'surveillance' was legal.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

But resist!

Also, her time.

And Hitler = Trump

I rest my case.

 

[MTAtech]

Neither-- the Trump campaign was 'spied upon' or 'surveilled.' Wray doesn't like the word 'spy' in conjunction to what happened, and Barr said he doesn't know if the 'surveillance' was legal.

Since it was court sanctioned, it was legal.

 

[Athanasius68]

Since it was court sanctioned, it was legal.

One doesn't need court approval to send somebody to 'spy' or 'surveil' somebody.

The issue becomes why it was done.
It's a perfectly reasonable question. Should tomorrow's news be that the Trump Admin had sent somebody to 'spy' or 'surveil' the Sanders campaign, people would want that answer.
Because political spying upon political adversaries tend to be frowned upon.

 

[MTAtech]

One doesn't need court approval to send somebody to 'spy' or 'surveil' somebody.

The issue becomes why it was done.
It's a perfectly reasonable question. Should tomorrow's news be that the Trump Admin had sent somebody to 'spy' or 'surveil' the Sanders campaign, people would want that answer.
Because political spying upon political adversaries tend to be frowned upon.

I can't imagine why the FBI would conduct surveillance on George Papadopoulos and Carter Page after an Australian diplomat came forward and told the FBI that Papadopoulos had told him about a Russian offer to help the Trump campaign by releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails.

And yes, the FBI obtained a court-approved warrant to wiretap Mr. Page, who had contacts with Russian intelligence. Mr. Page was not affiliated with the campaign when the FBI sought the secret wiretap. Thus, any idea that this was "illegal spying" is nonsense. It was standard procedure and a court ordered warrant was legally obtained.

 

[code1211]

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 seems to dislike the word. He didn't say they did not commit the act.

What does the FBI do when they conduct a Counter Intelligence Operation?

How does a Counter Intelligence Operation differ from spying? How could the FBI NOT employ "spying" when they conduct such an operation?

 

[Anthony60]

Since it was court sanctioned, it was legal.

Yeah! Just like slavery! Court sanctioned, for decades.

 

[Anthony60]

He seems to dislike the word. He didn't say they did not commit the act.

What does the FBI do when they conduct a Counter Intelligence Operation?

How does a Counter Intelligence Operation differ from spying? How could the FBI NOT employ "spying" when they conduct such an operation?

You know, it depends on what the word "is" is.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

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.

And yet you cannot name a single crime the dems have committed.

Fun!

 

[MTAtech]

Since it was court sanctioned, it was legal.

Yeah! Just like slavery! Court sanctioned, for decades.

Um, yeah. Courts ordering wiretaps is EXACTLY like slavery. How could I have been so foolish to think otherwise?

 

[MTAtech]

And yet you cannot name a single crime the dems have committed.

Fun!

There you go again, resting your laurels on those pesky things called facts.

 

[SLC]

A rose by any other name is still a rose. What the FBI did meets the definition of the word spying. Its hysterical that Democrats think by changing the word it makes a difference. This is all about did the FBI have the predicate to do what they did. It’s also going to be telling to find out who Mifsud was working for he has connection to Italian intel and also intel of other allies. PapaD says Mifsud told him the Russian had dirt on HRC.

 

[code1211]

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

Did he really?

What was it that he did?

 

[code1211]

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.

The questions surrounding this seem to be what was the source of the info the Papadopoulos was repeating and why was it given to George P in the fist place.

We know it did NOT come from the Trump Campaign and that it was not relayed to the Trump Campaign.

The questions are where and why did the information come from, who/what was the driving force behind the dissemination and did the American Spies know about it before the info was given to George P.

 

[code1211]

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.

Did he say that he had back channel access to the Kremlin?

Link?

 

[code1211]

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

I think Gotti was the subject of a criminal investigation.

investigation and spying are done for different reasons.

In the case of Gotti, a crime had been committed and was being investigated. In the case of Trump, the investigation was the crime.

 

[code1211]

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

NBC publishes/broadcasts misleading, dishonest material that is agenda driven and propagandistic.

There's gambling in Casa Blanca? Shocking!

 

[code1211]

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

What is the distinction(s) that differentiates the two activities?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I think Gotti was the subject of a criminal investigation.

investigation and spying are done for different reasons.

In the case of Gotti, a crime had been committed and was being investigated. In the case of Trump, the investigation was the crime.

How exquisitely delusional. The investigation was fully legal and the surveillance was court-ordered.

 

[code1211]

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

No collusion- No obstruction.

 

[code1211]

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.






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.

Did Wray say that no spying occurred or that he was distressed by the use of the word spying?

 

[code1211]

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.

He said that he can prove a negative?

That's a very interesting misstatement of what he said.

 

[joko104]

Definition of the word SPY:

work for a government or other organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors.
"he agreed to spy for the West"

observe (someone) furtively.
"the couple were spied on by reporters"

observe furtively, keep under surveillance, watch, keep a watch on, keep an eye on, keep under observation, follow, shadow, trail; More
discern or make out, especially by careful observation.

"he could spy a figure in the distance"

It has nothing to do with warrants.

 

[code1211]

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

The simple fact of the matter is that propagandists in our media use this device all the time to impart a message that is not based in fact.

Wray's actual testimony does not reflect what the headline indicates he said.

NBC, as per their usual methodology, is publishing a headline that is agenda driven propaganda.

 

[code1211]

Since it was court sanctioned, it was legal.

The legality of the approval is not in question.

The question is whether or not the lying Dirty Cops used lies to deceive to get the legal approval from the hapless judge.

I wonder if the "hapless judge" is at all upset that he was used by the Dirty Cops to work their mischief...