Trey Gowdy Didn’t Even See Documents He Claims Exonerate FBI On Spygate:

^ Glad you liked it...it's colorful...lol

It's now very apparent the FBI ( and more maybe) was using informants before July 31 2016.
Also "it" is "being run by the WH"
 
^ Glad you liked it...it's colorful...lol

It's now very apparent the FBI ( and more maybe) was using informants before July 31 2016.
Also "it" is "being run by the WH"

And it was ‘all by the book’.

Plenty of collusion going on alright.
 
And it was ‘all by the book’.
Plenty of collusion going on alright.
it's illegal to use informants on Americans without formally opening a case -which is what they did
Myself..I think they were doing it for awhile and THEN filed the EC /you can supply your own reasons why
 
it's illegal to use informants on Americans without formally opening a case -which is what they did
Myself..I think they were doing it for awhile and THEN filed the EC /you can supply your own reasons why

Part of the insurance policy.

Selectively leak to the media and gin-up enough political pressure to get an SP based on suspicion; then give the SP enough latitude to go on a crime search.

Then impeach Trump over something that had nothing to do with Russia.
 
Part of the insurance policy.

Selectively leak to the media and gin-up enough political pressure to get an SP based on suspicion; then give the SP enough latitude to go on a crime search.

Then impeach Trump over something that had nothing to do with Russia.
I think Brennan/Clapper and Comey were already running an investigation, but did not want to do it by the books
(a clandestine counter intel investigation). eventually they had to file an EC.

There are no limits to Brennans depravity of hate for Trump.

Hence Susan Rices' memorial Email "do it by the book"
 
The article you cited says:
"The document that launched the FBI probe contains no foreign intelligence whatsoever."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cu...b4f818caf1dc6535ba89d&ref=article_email_share

My question is again: how does the author know what "the document" contained?

The foreign ‘intelligence’ are people talking to one another.

While inebriated lol, in London. Papadopoulos said something about the Russians having dirt on Hillary. To a guy who helped funnel millions of dollars from the Australian government to the Clinton Foundation, who then went to ‘the proper people’ and told them about it.

And somewhere in the mix is a Maltese professor who is either a Russian spy or works for western intelligence agencies—nobody seems to be sure, because he went into hiding lol.

It’s a joke. It’s like something out of The Onion.
 
Why don't you people wait until more information is available, instead of venting your hyped-up spleen against Brennan, Comey, Gowdy, Rubio ... will it be Nunes next? He's been pretty quiet about defending your freak since the classified briefing last week.
 
Why don't you people wait until more information is available, instead of venting your hyped-up spleen against Brennan, Comey, Gowdy, Rubio ... will it be Nunes next? He's been pretty quiet about defending your freak since the classified briefing last week.


They get more desperate by the day
 
Why don't you people wait until more information is available, instead of venting your hyped-up spleen against Brennan, Comey, Gowdy, Rubio ... will it be Nunes next? He's been pretty quiet about defending your freak since the classified briefing last week.

But all the available information is pretty sketchy and borders on comical.

Let’s wait for the IG report, since Horowitz’s opinion actually matters.
 
it's illegal to use informants on Americans without formally opening a case -which is what they did
Myself..I think they were doing it for awhile and THEN filed the EC /you can supply your own reasons why

That's why they're running away from it, and trying to claim it was always, AND ONLY, teh Ruskies.
 
The article you cited says:
"The document that launched the FBI probe contains no foreign intelligence whatsoever."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cu...b4f818caf1dc6535ba89d&ref=article_email_share

My question is again: how does the author know what "the document" contained?
because it wasn't an intelligence transfer from one of the 5 Eyes to another ( despite previous claims).
We share ALL foreign intelligence

Rather it was from Downer ( Australian ambassador) thru the State dept -
by passing normal INTEL channels. It was Downer passing on directly.
We also know that it wasn’t Australian intelligence that alerted the FBI. The document that launched the FBI probe contains no foreign intelligence whatsoever. So if Australian intelligence did receive the Downer info, it didn’t feel compelled to act on it.

But the Obama State Department did—and its involvement is news. The Downer details landed with the embassy’s then-chargé d’affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.
 
I completely understand Frank, mindless hate takes a lot of energy to keep it going everyday

Whew...if you think "mindless hate" takes lots of energy...you should try rational, productive hate (if you can). That is a true energy drainer.
 
because it wasn't an intelligence transfer from one of the 5 Eyes to another ( despite previous claims).
We share ALL foreign intelligence

Rather it was from Downer ( Australian ambassador) thru the State dept -
by passing normal INTEL channels. It was Downer passing on directly.


That's what launched the FBI probe?

You don't KNOW any of that. You're getting it from partisan opinion pieces in the National Review, WSJ, etc, and they don't know either.

Incidentally, if I hear one more time about Downer persuading the Australian govt. to donate to the Clinton Foundation ten years ago - as if that's relevant to anything - I may throw up.

And we don't share ALL foreign intelligence. The nearest thing to that is the Five Eyes - US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand - who routinely share raw intelligence, especially sigint. That's what GCHQ did in respect of the "suspicious interactions" between Trump's entourage and Russian agents, starting in late 2015.
 
Last edited:
That's what launched the FBI probe?

You don't KNOW any of that. You're getting it from partisan opinion pieces in the National Review, WSJ, etc, and they don't know either.

Incidentally, if I hear one more time about Downer persuading the Australian govt. to donate to the Clinton Foundation ten years ago - as if that's relevant to anything - I may throw up.

And we don't share ALL foreign intelligence. The nearest thing to that is the Five Eyes - US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand - who routinely share raw intelligence, especially sigint. That's what GCHQ did in respect of the "suspicious interactions" between Trump's entourage and Russian agents, starting in late 2015.
the FACTS are Downer directly contacted State instead of going thru 5 eyes.
There are more glimmers of this -if you bothered to read the John Soloman column's texts that refer to the WH
"running it" and references to state..

You would do yourself a favor if you tried connecting dots instead of just looking for flaws.
Do the connects,and THEN go back and look for flaws in your logic (free advice)

SIGINT isn't the 5 eyes. That's intelligence gathering, not sharing among the principles. don't conflate them

I never mention Uranium 1 or the Clinton foundation
 
That's what launched the FBI probe?

You don't KNOW any of that. You're getting it from partisan opinion pieces in the National Review, WSJ, etc, and they don't know either.

Incidentally, if I hear one more time about Downer persuading the Australian govt. to donate to the Clinton Foundation ten years ago - as if that's relevant to anything - I may throw up.

And we don't share ALL foreign intelligence. The nearest thing to that is the Five Eyes - US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand - who routinely share raw intelligence, especially sigint. That's what GCHQ did in respect of the "suspicious interactions" between Trump's entourage and Russian agents, starting in late 2015.

In your opinion, the Downer/Clinton connection isn’t relevant.

You don’t actually know whether it’s relevant or not. At minimum, it bares mentioning when his name comes up in an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s opponent.
 
Back
Top