Whenever President Trump Uses The Word "Spy" It Is A Lie

[Ikari]

So they planted a guy to get information on the campaign to see if there was Russian influence. See, not spying on the campaign!

You're looking at this through political lenses and it's obscuring the obvious reality.

Not on the campaign itself, but possible Russian influence into it.

You're looking at this through political lenses and it's obscuring the obvious reality.

 

[Moot]

Well, look at that. Now why would the President want spies spying on his casinos?

But what’s not widely known is that the next president has a history with the FBI that goes back more than three decades. According to a 1981 FBI memo, Trump offered to “fully cooperate” with the bureau, proposing that FBI agents work undercover in a casino he was considering opening in Atlantic City. FBI agents even prepared an “undercover proposal concerning the TRUMP casino” that senior agents and Trump planned to discuss, according to the document.

Oh wait! I see. He wanted to build a casino, but "the mob".

“Trump advised Agents that he had read in the press media and had heard from various acquaintances that Organized Crime elements were known to operate in Atlantic City,” the Sept. 22, 1981, memo states. “Trump also expressed at this meeting, the reservation that his life and those around him would be subject to microscopic examination.”

I always wondered how he managed to avoid the mob when owned casinos. But wait, there's more...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d0ddfbd5e49


So were Trump and his friends informants or spies for the FBI?

 

[phattonez]

Not on the campaign itself, but possible Russian influence into it.

You're looking at this through political lenses and it's obscuring the obvious reality.

I'm not spying on your phone call! I'm spying on the guy you're talking to!

 

[Ikari]

I'm not spying on your phone call! I'm spying on the guy you're talking to!

Could be true. If let's say the FBI has warrant to tap Person X's line, and Person X calls Person Y, Person Y may have their conversation listened to when they talk to Person X. The target was never Person Y, and in general do not tap Person Y's calls. But should Person X call Person Y, because they are listening to Person X they would record that call.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Mycroft]

I just heard a talking potato head tell us that Hamper wasn't a spy. He was an undocumented FBI employee.

LOL!!

 

[Helix]

Depressed? Trying to get cheap likes to feel good?

Debate something. This is a debate site, not a just get your social(ist) jollies site...or not supposed to be.

ah, the irony.

 

[JackA]

Sure, the FBI planted a guy to get information about the campaign, but to call him a spy is UNTRUTHFUL!

I agree it is not untruthful, just not strictly accurate. It is the rest of Trump's charge that is untruthful, that the "spy" was planted "for political purposes". That is the lie O'Donnell should have focused on. The FBI suspected that Russians were attempting to infiltrate the campaign. That is what they were seeking to determine. Of course, in a perverse way it was for a "political purpose" because Trump wanted the Russians and having the FBI nose around was inconvenient for this political purpose.

 

[code1211]

Lawrence O'Donnell: Whenever President Trump Uses The Word "Spy" It Is A Lie

Sums it up nicely. Trump uses an absurd noun to advance his agenda of discrediting the Mueller investigation, and his flying monkey's latch onto it like it's gospel.

Trumps flying monkey brigade will of course be stopping in here, doing their flying monkey best to actualize their marching orders and parrot the master.

An informant is someone who was there and is informing. That would be Comey before he was fired.

A spy is someone paid by opposition sent to get info.

No real debate here. The spy was a spy.

 

[JackA]

An informant is someone who was there and is informing. That would be Comey before he was fired.

A spy is someone paid by opposition sent to get info.

No real debate here. The spy was a spy.

This post encapsulates the purposeful cluelessness abundant in Trumpworld. This mindset doesn't want to know why the FBI had an informant or a spy, if you prefer, in Trump's campaign, or what the informant or the spy found out. For them, the inquiry stops at defining what the guy was. A spy. Enough said. Turn on the music.

 

[jnug]

An informant is someone who was there and is informing. That would be Comey before he was fired.

A spy is someone paid by opposition sent to get info.

No real debate here. The spy was a spy.

Wrong....Informants are in informants. Spys are spys. Some informants are paid in time reduced from their sentences obtained through successful prosecutions. Some Informants are paid with money. Some informants are paid in other ways.

Spies conduct specific kinds of clandestine operations within the context of investigations into possible government interference or fraud. If those specific kinds of clandestine operations are not being engaged in, the person involved is not a spy.

 

[code1211]

This post encapsulates the purposeful cluelessness abundant in Trumpworld. This mindset doesn't want to know why the FBI had an informant or a spy, if you prefer, in Trump's campaign, or what the informant or the spy found out. For them, the inquiry stops at defining what the guy was. A spy. Enough said. Turn on the music.

The question was in regard to what a spy is.

There wasn't a consideration as to the validity of the reasons to imbed him there or if the money he was paid for his undercover work was justified.

Out of curiosity, what possible reason was there for the party in power to do this to the opposition party during a political campaign?

Feel free to reference all of the reasons used to justify the 501C 3 & 4 infractions by the Obama administration. These infractions led to the settlements paid to the conservative groups that were illegally harassed by the IRS. Now, the same administration illegally uses its very abused power to imbed this spy.

If this was the first instance of Abuse of Power by Obama and his minions, maybe it was a slip up. However, this is a pattern of behavior.

Obama is the political version of a Harvey Weinstein kind of an Abuse of Power being repeated continuously and condoned by the willing enablers all around him.

Obama ran the most corrupt administration in the history of our republic.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

ah, the irony.

Do you have even an idea of what debate is? Thats just embarrassing. Probably get some likes for it, tho. Red meat for the other non debaters here. :2wave:

 

[code1211]

Wrong....Informants are in informants. Spys are spys. Some informants are paid in time reduced from their sentences obtained through successful prosecutions. Some Informants are paid with money. Some informants are paid in other ways.

Spies conduct specific kinds of clandestine operations within the context of investigations into possible government interference or fraud. If those specific kinds of clandestine operations are not being engaged in, the person involved is not a spy.

Who was paying this spy?

 

[humbolt]

Trump is simply using Clapper's word, so apparently Clapper is the liar. No news there. Clapper has also claimed the $200,000 or so the Russians spent in an attempt to influence was "massive".

Looks like the only thing massive here is the spin over the statement Clapper made. You guys on the left might want to shut this fellow up.

 

[jnug]

Who was paying this spy?

I don't know that anybody was. Payment has nothing to do with the clandestine activities that define a spy vs those that define an informant. You keep barking up this tree though.

 

[jnug]

Trump is simply using Clapper's word, so apparently Clapper is the liar. No news there. Clapper has also claimed the $200,000 or so the Russians spent in an attempt to influence was "massive".

Looks like the only thing massive here is the spin over the statement Clapper made. You guys on the left might want to shut this fellow up.

Clapper is living proof that Intelligence and Investigative officers current or former are not slick political operatives. Clapper can barely keep from tripping over his own tongue. But in a country that now values celebrity over almost anything else, some editor working for some publisher gets a book out of him and suddenly his words have meaning. Good luck with that.

 

[humbolt]

Clapper is living proof that Intelligence and Investigative officers current or former are not slick political operatives. Clapper can barely keep from tripping over his own tongue. But in a country that now values celebrity over almost anything else, some editor working for some publisher gets a book out of him and suddenly his words have meaning. Good luck with that.

Clapper may be a political fool, but I think Clapper is intelligent enough to understand the political implications here. His words have meaning by virtue of his position. That may be unfortunate, but it's true.

 

[eohrnberger]

What do you call it when the FBI sends multiple people to contact various Trump campaign personnel with the enticement of access or copies of Hillary's emails?
(Seems that none took up the offer)

Sounds like either failed sting operations or possibly failed entrapment attempts.

 

[code1211]

I don't know that anybody was. Payment has nothing to do with the clandestine activities that define a spy vs those that define an informant. You keep barking up this tree though.

Here's a pretty good article on this. The original article from Kim Strassal is pay walled in the WSJ.

The guy was a spy. The DOJ was using him to inform on the campaign of the party campaigning against the party in power.

This is banana republic stuff.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/11/fbi-spy-trump-campaign/

 

[itsforthekids]

He actually WAS spied on. But then again, the socialist progressive America haters will ignore the truth and the facts that are apparent.

 

[jnug]

Clapper may be a political fool, but I think Clapper is intelligent enough to understand the political implications here. His words have meaning by virtue of his position. That may be unfortunate, but it's true.

If you watched the video from the view, he blundered that word out, and then tried feebly to correct it without the actual skills to understand the political implications of not correcting it fully.

Intelligence and Investigative officers former or current simply do not have the linguistic skills you earn through active engagement on the political landscape. Their value has never been their words. It has always been their work while in harness within the Intelligence and Investigative agencies. Beyond that, they are creations of the utter horror of 24/7 cable news which is never in any day more than two hours of news surrounded by 22 hours of garbage, click bait. Its not even good journalism. These guys become celebrities via their distinction as cable news network "analysts" and aberration at best.

Clapper for all his value as an Officer while he was an active member of the Intelligence community would get destroyed by a college sophomore debate team member. So would Andy McCabe. Comey might MIGHT be the only one of those three that would stand the ghost of a chance not to embarrass himself and I don't think he could pull it off either.

 

[jnug]

Here's a pretty good article on this. The original article from Kim Strassal is pay walled in the WSJ.

The guy was a spy. The DOJ was using him to inform on the campaign of the party campaigning against the party in power.

This is banana republic stuff.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/11/fbi-spy-trump-campaign/

Sorry, I already know enough to know he was not a spy. A spy would have first made an effort to insert himself into the campaign as either a paid employee or a volunteer. If for example members of the campaign tried to enlist him into their campaign and succeeded in doing so then even being in the campaign itself would not have categorized him as a spy. He would still just be an informant if the campaign brought him into the campaign itself. So that is step 1, a proactive effort on the part of the agent to be inserted into the campaign.

Step 2 if in fact said spy made the proactive effort to insert himself into the campaign if he was successful would have been to both steal/copy actual documents from it and plant fake documents into it so that they could be traced through the campaign.

That is what a spy does within the context of an investigation into potential case of government interference or fraud.

But you folks go ahead and keep barking up that tree or trump's leg or whatever you are trying to bark up.

 

[humbolt]

If you watched the video from the view, he blundered that word out, and then tried feebly to correct it without the actual skills to understand the political implications of not correcting it fully.

Intelligence and Investigative officers former or current simply do not have the linguistic skills you earn through active engagement on the political landscape. Their value has never been their words. It has always been their work while in harness within the Intelligence and Investigative agencies. Beyond that, they are creations of the utter horror of 24/7 cable news which is never in any day more than two hours of news surrounded by 22 hours of garbage, click bait. Its not even good journalism. These guys become celebrities via their distinction as cable news network "analysts" and aberration at best.

Clapper for all his value as an Officer while he was an active member of the Intelligence community would get destroyed by a college sophomore debate team member. So would Andy McCabe. Comey might MIGHT be the only one of those three that would stand the ghost of a chance not to embarrass himself and I don't think he could pull it off either.

Perhaps, but he has his book out and is doing all the requisite things to push it, including such appearances on TV. I think Clapper understands the political implications. Otherwise he wouldn't have tried to walk it back. In my view, it doesn't matter whether the person(s) Clapper referred to was a spy or an informant. That there was someone doing such a thing is enough. I've yet to hear a believable cause for such an action. When Clapper made that public statement, he put the responsibility justifying that action on the FBI's shoulders.

It's a little ironic that Clapper's perhaps inarticulate statement lends credibility to Trump's inarticulate statement that he was being "wiretapped". The chief question is no longer, "was the Trump campaign being surveilled." It's now, "to what degree was the Trump campaign surveilled."

 

[jnug]

Perhaps, but he has his book out and is doing all the requisite things to push it, including such appearances on TV. I think Clapper understands the political implications. Otherwise he wouldn't have tried to walk it back. In my view, it doesn't matter whether the person(s) Clapper referred to was a spy or an informant. That there was someone doing such a thing is enough. I've yet to hear a believable cause for such an action. When Clapper made that public statement, he put the responsibility justifying that action on the FBI's shoulders.

It's a little ironic that Clapper's perhaps inarticulate statement lends credibility to Trump's inarticulate statement that he was being "wiretapped". The chief question is no longer, "was the Trump campaign being surveilled." It's now, "to what degree was the Trump campaign surveilled."

Attempting to ferret out Russians attempting to infiltrate the campaign was the cause. The government had already informed the campaign that the Russians would likely make just such an effort. So the government knew about the possibilities.

This is where the entire spy narrative really breaks down and in fact the entire trump narrative breaks down. The government did the least intrusive thing they could have done regarding the possibility of Russians trying to infiltrate the campaign. Trump and his turkeys alternate between arguments of, the Obama government did not do enough to the Obama government did too much with no middle ground based in reality. They flip flop across that line of did too much or did not do enough without any regard for what they were arguing 5 minutes earlier.

Wiretapping and surveillance are not the same thing. Trumps claim at the time was that he was wiretapped which proved false.

Now the entire world claims Trump to be expert at using wordsmanship to his benefit. It is actually the basis for his only true business success, a reality TV show. So it would be much harder to make the claim that Trump erred in claiming wiretapping than making the claim that Clapper simply misspoke and did a rather poor job of correcting it.

In addition, you can avoid the fact that 24/7 cable news is an aberration that has caused all manner of additional aberrations all you want. It is plainly obvious that it is and it has.

 

[JackA]

The question was in regard to what a spy is.

There wasn't a consideration as to the validity of the reasons to imbed him there or if the money he was paid for his undercover work was justified.

Out of curiosity, what possible reason was there for the party in power to do this to the opposition party during a political campaign?

Feel free to reference all of the reasons used to justify the 501C 3 & 4 infractions by the Obama administration. These infractions led to the settlements paid to the conservative groups that were illegally harassed by the IRS. Now, the same administration illegally uses its very abused power to imbed this spy.

If this was the first instance of Abuse of Power by Obama and his minions, maybe it was a slip up. However, this is a pattern of behavior.

Obama is the political version of a Harvey Weinstein kind of an Abuse of Power being repeated continuously and condoned by the willing enablers all around him.

Obama ran the most corrupt administration in the history of our republic.

If you had the slightest curiosity you would know the reason. Trump was smart enough to anticipate the question so he tried to cut if off by citing a "political purpose" as the reason when he knew the true reason was a "criminal justice" and/or "national security" purpose based on suspicion that Russia was attempting to penetrate the campaign. But for his less intelligent followers providing a reason was an unnecessary precaution. All they needed was the buzz word: "Spy".