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

[dixon01767]

Right.

A little-known thread on a left wing web site is NOT THE SAME as having the FBI director make a public announcement 10 days beford the election that is picked up by every media outlet on the planet.

:failpail:

Its not a thread, its an article by David Corn, famous lefty journalist. And your assertion that we didnt know until after the election is still a lie.

 

[dixon01767]

If you go to the FBI's own website the FAQ section you'll find that they only use the word spying in relation to Counter Intelligence operations

Thats what this was. Thus the use of the word spying.

 

[Tangmo]

Your post seems to support the idea that this was in fact spying.

If the intent was to damage Trump, then the acts undertaken were "spying".

The intent was obviously to damage Trump.

I noted in my post there was plenty there for everyone.

I also pointed out there are two key points: legal and intent. The FBI investigation was a legal counter intelligence operation to determine Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign. We've been over this a million times. You're claiming the same rightwing stuff for the millionth time plus one. The predicate of your post "seems" is your own concoction. Your post is a fail.

 

[danarhea]

Nope, just foreign Intelligence Informants. Your lame attempt at humor doesnt cover for your inability to repond with anything of substance.

I can always respond with no substance to something with no substance. You got exactly what you asked for. :mrgreen:

 

[Fenton]

Right.

A little-known thread on a left wing web site is NOT THE SAME as having the FBI director make a public announcement 10 days beford the election that is picked up by every media outlet on the planet.

:failpail:

First, you said the FBI didn't leak the investigation prior to the election. That was a LIE

Second, no we didn't know about Carter Page, that's ridiculous. That was the point of that Yahoo article, to get the FBIs investigation out into the public domain

Finally every media outlet had Hillary winning by a landslide the day of the election. The NYTs gave her a 86% chance of beating Trump the day of the election.

No one thought Comey's announcement hurt her chances one bit. Only after she lost did the Democrats and her desperate and butt hurt supporters start blaming it on Comey.

 

[Fenton]

I noted in my post there was plenty there for everyone.

I also pointed out there are two key points: legal and intent. The FBI investigation was a legal counter intelligence operation to determine Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign. We've been over this a million times. You're claiming the same rightwing stuff for the millionth time plus one. The predicate of your post "seems" is your own concoction. Your post is a fail.

"Legal investigations " are not typically leaked to the media just prior to a Presidential election....

September 2016

U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin
U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin



October 2016

A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.
A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump – Mother Jones



Oh, looks who's under a criminal investigation for leaking to the media.

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker under criminal investigation
Former FBI General Counsel James Baker under criminal investigation - CNNPolitics

 

[dixon01767]

The FBI does not use that term for domestic activities, ( FBI director Wray, "I wouldn't have used that term" ) they use it for counterintelligence activities, i.e., foreign governments spying on us.

What is the FBI’s foreign counterintelligence responsibility? — FBI

Therefore, AG's lack of respect for protocol for that term can only be construed as using a loaded term for a political end. .

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! They sent FOREIGN informants to foreign lands to spy on Americans. Relied upon Foreign Intelligance Surveillance act warrants, instead of domestic criminal warrants. Of course its spying.

They also sent aliens from Planet Headbanger to spy on Americans. :mrgreen:

Nope, just foreign Intelligence Informants. Your lame attempt at humor doesnt cover for your inability to repond with anything of substance.

I can always respond with no substance to something with no substance. You got exactly what you asked for. :mrgreen:

I didnt ask for anything.

 

[dixon01767]

First, you said the FBI didn't leak the investigation prior to the election. That was a LIE

Second, no we didn't know about Carter Page, that's ridiculous. That was the point of that Yahoo article, to get the FBIs investigation out into the public domain.

That AND they used the Yahoo article in the FISA warrant as an alternative source to corroborate the Russian Dossier, even though the Yahoo article was based upon the Russian Dossier.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"Legal investigations " are not typically leaked to the media just prior to a Presidential election....

How often are illegal investigations leaked to the media just prior to a Presidential election?

Maybe if we compare the stats of how often the different sorts of investigations are leaked to the media just prior to a Presidential election we can get a sense of which this is more likely to be.

 

[Xelor]

How often are illegal investigations leaked to the media just prior to a Presidential election?

Maybe if we compare the stats of how often the different sorts of investigations are leaked to the media just prior to a Presidential election we can get a sense of which this is more likely to be.

Red:
I'm not aware of any illegal investigations' having been leaked to the media. Are you? If so, what illegal investigations have been leaked to the media, at any point in time, frankly?

 

[Tangmo]

"Legal investigations " are not typically leaked to the media just prior to a Presidential election....

September 2016

U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin
U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin



October 2016

A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.
A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump – Mother Jones



Oh, looks who's under a criminal investigation for leaking to the media.

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker under criminal investigation
Former FBI General Counsel James Baker under criminal investigation - CNNPolitics

Your premise about legal investigations and leaks is not supported by your supposedly supportive material. Your "not typically" is an arbitrary pronouncement unconnected to the stuff below it. Irrespective of the leak being typical or untypical the leak does not remove the legality of the investigation or its intent, purpose, rationale and so on. So your links don't support your flawed premise and your flawed premise has zero effect on the legality of the investigation. That makes your post a total bust.

 

[danarhea]

I didnt ask for anything.

Sure you did. Your spouting of lies asked... No... Begged for just the kind of answer you got.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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.

Typical democrat you try to spin what was said.
Wray did not say, "So, I would say that's a no to that question" That was Sheehan
Wray did say, )I'm paraphrasing) "There are many terms that different people would use to describe the actions taken". I believe he mentioned several.

The question at hand is whether of not the "spying"/"surveillance" was properly handled or was it done based on false evidence and not full disclosure to the FISA court judges. If that is the case it would definitely be "spying".

 

[Idiometer]

The Russians gave the info for free. Of course, had Cintons name been Trump they would of considered it an unreported donation from Russia and a violation of campaign finance law.

What Russians did she, personally, pay for anything? Fusion GPS isn't a Russian company. Steele isn't a Russian. Which Russians got paid by Clinton? Please prove that.

 

[Idiometer]

Its not a thread, its an article by David Corn, famous lefty journalist. And your assertion that we didnt know until after the election is still a lie.

Your comparison fails. Or do you really believe that a David Corn article on Mother Jones garnered that same amount of attention as Comey making a public announcement to ALL media? Seriously? I can still claim "nobody knew" and be really close to accurate.

And don't call me a liar. I don't do that, and it's rude. Notice that I don't respond in kind. Please be civil.

 

[Fishking]

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.

You missed an option, the FBI chief is lying, or doesn't understand what spying means. We already have documented facts that the government was spying on the Trump campaign. It's not even a question of whether it happened at this point.

 

[Fishking]

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...

Yeah...they just fired or demoted all the highest ranking FBI members involved for being boy scouts, they super swear to that.

 

[SLC]

What Russians did she, personally, pay for anything? Fusion GPS isn't a Russian company. Steele isn't a Russian. Which Russians got paid by Clinton? Please prove that.

The money that came from HRC went to Steele and he got Russian dirt for her. Steele didn’t work for free and I doubt the Russians worked for free and the money that paid them came from HRC . No HRC no bogus Russian Dossier from Russian operatives.

 

[SLC]

Your comparison fails. Or do you really believe that a David Corn article on Mother Jones garnered that same amount of attention as Comey making a public announcement to ALL media? Seriously? I can still claim "nobody knew" and be really close to accurate.

And don't call me a liar. I don't do that, and it's rude. Notice that I don't respond in kind. Please be civil.

Pro tip: Tell the truth and you won’t be accused of lying.

 

[SLC]

Since Trump has insisted that Barr launch an investigation into what he views as his political enemies (can you say "abuse of power"?), I guess we'll soon find out. Personally, I think it's right wing spin.

Prepare to be surprised then. Can you prove Trump insisted Barr launch an investigation into his political enemies? Link please

 

[dixon01767]

The Russians gave the info for free. Of course, had Cintons name been Trump they would of considered it an unreported donation from Russia and a violation of campaign finance law.

What Russians did she, personally, pay for anything?

The meaning of "free" seems to escape your grasp. By definition there would be no payment. Let me know if any of the other big words are confusing you.

 

[Xelor]

Off-Topic:

Simpson's meetings with Veselnitskaya were not about the Trump campaign. So they BOTH said under oath. And there is no more evidence that Clinton knowingly paid Russians for oppo research than there is against the many Trump campaign people having knowingly conspired with Russians to hack and spread propaganda against Clinton. I call that a draw.

Red:
Let's get one thing right:​

• 
  [*=1]It's not illegal for any campaign to purchase oppo research from anyone. A campaign must disclose such purchases, just as it must disclose any other purchase; however, were Trump/Clinton to have purchased, reported and retained the appropriate supporting documentation of Russian-sourced oppo research, there'd be nothing illegal about having done so.

What's illegal is receiving contributions of value (cash or in-kind) the campaign doesn't report and that, by any reasonable estimation, exceed the allowable maximum given the contributor's classification (individual, frim, PAC, political committee organization, etc.).

It's illegal to receive/accept contributions of value from any foreign (non-US citizen) individual or entity. Insofar as oppo research is information, though it's hard to assign a precise value on contributed (as opposed to purchased) it, so long as it has value of any sum above $0.00, accepting it is unlawful. (The phrasing "of value" is used in the FEC proscription against foreign contributions, in part, to obviate needing to establish an accurate or fair value for any such sourced contributions.)


Why the difference between purchased "stuff" and contributed "stuff?" Because a purchase involves the exchange of consideration; thus, after the transaction is completed (including performance/delivery and acceptance of whatever the purchase/sale contract (written or implied) terms stipulated), neither party to it has any on-going obligation to the other.

A contribution does not have that quality. If one gives something to another, depending on the nature, extent and timing of the contribution, the contributor may obtain leverage of some stripe over the recipient.

While we (our electoral system) doesn't expressly condone folks/entities obtaining leverage over elected office holders, it expressly refuses to forbear foreign folks/entities obtaining leverage by contributing in any way to a candidate's election efforts.​

 

[Xelor]

Off-topic:

The FBI does not use that term for domestic activities, ( FBI director Wray, "I wouldn't have used that term" ) they use it for counterintelligence activities, i.e., foreign governments spying on us.

What is the FBI’s foreign counterintelligence responsibility? — FBI

Therefore, AG's lack of respect for protocol for that term can only be construed as using a loaded term for a political end. In fact, others who have worked with Barr in the past have told us he is well aware of the appropriate use of the term, and thus he knew by using it, Trump, being the kind of guy he is, would go to town on the term to further his political agenda. The whole point of his 4 page letter, his press conference where he carried water for the prez, it was done for the sole purpose of allowing Trump a headstart on shaping the narrative, i.e., the use of the term "spying" will fit neatly into Trump conspiracy theory deep-state-out-to-get-him BS. It's not about an AG representing the high minded ideals of the Justice Department ( as it should be ), it's all about being Trump's water boy.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! They sent FOREIGN informants to foreign lands to spy on Americans. Relied upon Foreign Intelligance Surveillance act warrants, instead of domestic criminal warrants. Of course its spying.

Red:
Say what? Are you asserting/positing the FBI engaged Russian (or other) state actors (SAs) to go to or dwell in various non-US countries and await Trump campaign personnel's (TCP's) appearance there, whereupon the SAs would, at the FBI's behest spy on the TCP present there?​

 

[Xelor]

Probably because at the time, they didn't know what Trump did or didn't know.

Look at it this way: if the FBI "had it in for Trump" as the right keeps claiming, why didn't we the people know his campaign was under a counterintelligence investigation until AFTER the election? Comey had NO problem, a few weeks out, with loudly publicizing that the Clinton email investigation had been reopened as a result of Anthony Weiner's laptop. Had the reverse been true, election results may have been quite different.

:think:

Are you friken kidding me ???

1. September 2016: U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin (Sep 23, 2016)
2. October 2016: A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump. (Oct 31, 2016)
3. Oh, looks who's under a criminal investigation for leaking to the media.
   • Former FBI General Counsel James Baker under criminal investigation (Jan 2019)

:think:.....Lol !

[specific dates of publication added by Xelor]

Red:
What exactly is the affirmative assertion(s) you'd pen to express the nature and extent of your incredulity borne of the assemblage of linked-to content and concomitant with the "red" rhetorical question?

 

[Xelor]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! They sent FOREIGN informants to foreign lands to spy on Americans. Relied upon Foreign Intelligance Surveillance act warrants, instead of domestic criminal warrants. Of course its spying.

Off-topic:

Red:
Say what? Are you asserting/positing the FBI engaged Russian (or other) state actors (SAs) to go to or dwell in various non-US countries and await Trump campaign personnel's (TCP's) appearance there, whereupon the SAs would, at the FBI's behest spy on the TCP present there?​

They also sent aliens from Planet Headbanger to spy on Americans. :mrgreen:

Nope, just foreign Intelligence Informants. Your lame attempt at humor doesnt cover for your inability to repond with anything of substance.

Blue/Off-topic:

1. Danarhea can defend and/or explain his/her own remarks. I'm not of a mind to do that on his/her behalf.
2. As an observer of what appears to be your "the FBI engaged foreigners to spy on Americans," namely Trump campaign personnel and/or associates thereof, I have yet to see so much as one post from you, Dixon01767, wherein you've produced or referenced any documentation showing any such form of engagement.
3. What we know right now is that:
   • Members of US-allied foreign intelligence organizations shared with USIC personnel information the foreign individuals had obtained. I'm aware of nothing indicating any unit of the USIC bid any such "operatives" to spy on any American.
   • The FBI opened an investigation of Jim Baker's disclosure of some sort of information.
     • What information? What was the information even about in general? We don't know.
     • What is the status of the FBI's investigation? We don't know. We also don't know whether it's currently on-going or resolved.
4. There is literally nothing credibly/soundly/cogently supporting an assertion that the FBI had (or has) any form or extent of animus against Trump. The FBI has some 35K+ employees, and absent polling them or some sort of memoranda stating/implying the nature and extent of the Bureau's jaundice re: Trump. What there has been is a review by GOP members of Congress whereof one of the, at the time, most prominent, conservative and beloved-by-Republicans GOP House members, Trey Gowdy, remarked that in conducting its investigation of matters pertaining to Trump and Russia, the FBI did exactly what the American people would have it do, that the FBI did what it supposed to do.
   
   
   • Based on Gowdy's comment, though it may be that Baker unlawfully disclosed information, it's unlikely the FBI's institutional conduct was at all inappropriate and/or prejudicial against Trump.

Because Russian interference wasnt his concern. He was only interested in material damaging to Trump. Those silly facebook ads were meaningless and didnt interfere with anything. The interference of the Russian Dossier continues today. Trump probably lost more votes over this silly Russian hoax than Hillary lost because of the facebook ads.

Pink:
Mueller's primary focus wasn't Russian interference in US electoral processes/outcomes because others units of the USIC were already examining that. Indeed, they'd already reported on it.

• Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution
• Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

That said, Mueller, in his report (have you even read it and if so, in what regard?), includes ~50 pages of dispassionate exposition of the nature of Russian interference in the 2016 electoral process. That's far more prose than anyone, in one document, accords a matter about which s/he is apathetic.