Spygate: DEMOCRAT hypocrisy in the news

[Legion]

Our modern form of government does make technocrats a force to be reckoned with, and they abide supervision and oversight only by other progressives.

When a constitutionalist has the temerity to observe that technocrats are subordinate to executive political leadership and must answer to the legislature that created and funds their agencies, they brood about their “independence.”

In their minds, they are an unaccountable fourth branch of government — at least until their fellow non-ideological pragmatists return to power.

For this species of arrogance, setting the narrative is a jealously guarded prerogative. We are to understand the bureaucracy’s work as unimpeachably noble and that so, therefore, are its tactics. Consequently, the government’s “cooperator” is never to be called a spy.

He’s a “confidential informant” or, as James Comey put it, a “confidential human source.”

These are not neutral terms. The implication is that these operatives are always benign, even vital.

A “source” is that most treasured of intelligence assets, to be protected at all costs — even the need for accountability when power is abused must give way to the confidentiality of intelligence “methods and sources.” “Source” connotes a well-placed asset who has bored into the inner sanctum of jihadists or gangsters — an “informant” whose information saves lives.

But there is another side of the story.

By and large, “confidential informants” do not emerge from the womb with a passion to protect the United States.

Quite often, they become informants because they’ve gotten themselves jammed up with the police. Some are sociopaths: shrewd enough to know that the only way out of either a long prison term or a short life expectancy is to become the government’s eyes and ears; self-aware enough to know that, in undercover work, bad character, mendacity, and survival instincts are tools of the trade.

Not many Mother Teresas can infiltrate hostile foreign powers, drug cartels, and organized-crime networks.

According to the government, these effective but unsavory operatives are “confidential human sources,” too. To the rest of us, spy may be too nice a word for them. The printable labels are more like “snitch,” “rat,” “Judas,” etc. “

Many spies are real heroes. The CIA’s operations directorate performs the most commendable feats of valor — the kind that can never be celebrated, or even spoken of; the kind that are memorialized at Langley only by stars carved into a cold marble wall — now, 125 of them. Where would we be without FBI and DEA agents who bravely accept undercover assignments, at great strain on their families and their well-being, to take down society’s worst predators? And many informants, though they may not risk their lives the same way, patriotically serve their country by volunteering critical intelligence they come upon through their professions and their travels.

In the Trump–Russia affair, officials of the Obama-era intelligence agencies suggest that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was in a traitorous conspiracy with the Kremlin. On what grounds?

They’d rather not say. You’ll just have to trust them.

It is not about who the spies are. It is about why they were spying.

In our democratic republic, there is an important norm against an incumbent administration’s use of government’s enormous intelligence-gathering capabilities to — if we may borrow a phrase — interfere in an election. To justify disregarding that norm would require strong evidence of egregious wrongdoing. Enough bobbing and weaving.

Let’s see the evidence.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/obama-administration-politicized-intelligence-law-enforcement-apparatus/

[Tranquillus in Exile]

In our democratic republic, there is an important norm against an incumbent administration’s use of government’s enormous intelligence-gathering capabilities to — if we may borrow a phrase — interfere in an election. To justify disregarding that norm would require strong evidence of egregious wrongdoing.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/obama-administration-politicized-intelligence-law-enforcement-apparatus/

The National Review appears to be shocked that law enforcement agencies make use of informants. Somebody should clue them in.

And if the FBI wanted to "interfere in the election", why the **** did they keep the investigation secret until after the election? I may have asked this question before.

By early summer of 2016 the FBI had compelling reasons to open an investigation into the Trump campaign. They would have been failing in their duty if they had played safe and done nothing.

[Legion]

The National Review appears to be shocked that law enforcement agencies make use of informants. Somebody should clue them in.

If that's your takeaway from that article, I'd say they aren't the ones who need to be clued in.

And if the FBI wanted to "interfere in the election", why the **** did they keep the investigation secret until after the election? I may have asked this question before.

It has been answered before. Maybe you didn't like the answer you got.

By early summer of 2016 the FBI had compelling reasons to open an investigation into the Trump campaign. They would have been failing in their duty if they had played safe and done nothing.

So you say.

[Legion]

James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, said Friday that former President Barack Obama had “no knowledge” of an FBI spy in the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

“I am sure President Obama had no knowledge whatsoever,” Clapper said, adding that spies “provide very valuable information and do so in a legitimate way.”

Ari Fleischer asked, “What role did Barack Obama have? Did he know?”

Clapper said “it’s a good thing” there was an FBI spy in the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election cycle, and that President Trump should be "glad" a spy was embedded there.


http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/26/clapper-obama-no-knowledge-fbi-informant-trump/

[sear]

Spygate: DEMOCRAT hypocrisy in the news

hypocrisy (hî-pòk´rî-sê) noun plural hypocrisies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrinesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krinesthai, to explain (from krinein, to decide, judge).]

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Before this post, at time of its composition, I count four previous posts. Only one is visible due to "ignore".

I'd be thrilled to review "DEMOCRAT hypocrisy". But to do that, the allegation would have to include:

a) The alleged "DEMOCRAT hypocrisy".

b) The conduct that exposes the "DEMOCRAT hypocrisy".

Anyone care to share?

[Legion]

a) The alleged "DEMOCRAT hypocrisy".

b) The conduct that exposes the "DEMOCRAT hypocrisy".

Anyone care to share?

a) DEMOCRATS demanded the impeachment of a president in 1974 because operatives spied on political opponents
b) DEMOCRATS are denying that spying on political opponents in the present day is wrong.

[Tranquillus in Exile]

So you say.

Yep.

British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia
Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.

It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US.

Both US and UK intelligence sources acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016. One source called the British eavesdropping agency the “principal whistleblower”.

The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election. This was in part due to US law that prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants. “They are trained not to do this,” the source stressed.

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’”

According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.

The person described US intelligence as being “very late to the game”. The FBI’s director, James Comey, altered his position after the election and Trump’s victory, becoming “more affirmative” and with a “higher level of concern”.

Comey’s apparent shift may have followed a mid-October decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court to approve a secret surveillance order. The order gave permission for the Department of Justice to investigate two banks suspected of being part of the Kremlin’s undercover influence operation.

According to the BBC, the justice department’s request came after a tipoff from an intelligence agency in one of the Baltic states. This is believed to be Estonia.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the same order covered Carter Page, one of Trump’s associates. It allowed the FBI and the justice department to monitor Page’s communications. Page, a former foreign policy aide, was suspected of being an agent of influence working for Russia, the paper said, citing US officials.

In a report last month the New York Times, citing three US intelligence officials, said warning signs had been building throughout last summer but were far from clear. As WikiLeaks published emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee, US agencies began picking up conversations in which Russians were discussing contacts with Trump associates, the paper said.

European allies were supplying information about people close to Trump meeting with Russians in Britain, the Netherlands and in other countries, the Times said.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...m-links-russia

If even a tenth of that is correct, the FBI had compelling reasons to open an investigation.


P.S. This is what Legion replied to you, sear:

a) DEMOCRATS demanded the impeachment of a president in 1974 because operatives spied on political opponents
b) DEMOCRATS are denying that spying on political opponents in the present day is wrong.

Does that make sense?

[Darth Omar]

The National Review appears to be shocked that law enforcement agencies make use of informants. Somebody should clue them in.

And if the FBI wanted to "interfere in the election", why the **** did they keep the investigation secret until after the election? I may have asked this question before.

By early summer of 2016 the FBI had compelling reasons to open an investigation into the Trump campaign. They would have been failing in their duty if they had played safe and done nothing.

At the time the investigation was began the evidence was so thin it wouldn’t pass the sniff test: too many curious reporters asking inconvenient questions, not to mention congress.

Why wasn’t congress let in on it? I thought the FBI was supposed to answer to congress.

[Legion]

Yep.

Nope.

From the source you cited:

British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia
Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015
Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.

It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US.

Both US and UK intelligence sources acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016. One source called the British eavesdropping agency the “principal whistleblower”.

The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election. This was in part due to US law that prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants. “They are trained not to do this,” the source stressed.

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’”

According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.

The person described US intelligence as being “very late to the game”. The FBI’s director, James Comey, altered his position after the election and Trump’s victory, becoming “more affirmative” and with a “higher level of concern”.

Comey’s apparent shift may have followed a mid-October decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court to approve a secret surveillance order. The order gave permission for the Department of Justice to investigate two banks suspected of being part of the Kremlin’s undercover influence operation.

According to the BBC, the justice department’s request came after a tipoff from an intelligence agency in one of the Baltic states. This is believed to be Estonia.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the same order covered Carter Page, one of Trump’s associates. It allowed the FBI and the justice department to monitor Page’s communications. Page, a former foreign policy aide, was suspected of being an agent of influence working for Russia, the paper said, citing US officials.

In a report last month the New York Times, citing three US intelligence officials, said warning signs had been building throughout last summer but were far from clear. As WikiLeaks published emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee, US agencies began picking up conversations in which Russians were discussing contacts with Trump associates, the paper said.

European allies were supplying information about people close to Trump meeting with Russians in Britain, the Netherlands and in other countries, the Times said.


I underlined the words and phrases that you might want to focus on.

[Tranquillus in Exile]

I underlined the words and phrases that you might want to focus on.

Legion, on the very rare occasions when senior members of British intelligence leak information to the press, they don't give their names. Please tell me you understand that.

Alternatively, you may wish to argue that the Guardian made the whole thing up. You could go with that.

[Legion]

Legion, on the very rare occasions when senior members of British intelligence leak information to the press, they don't give their names. Please tell me you understand that. Alternatively, you may wish to argue that the Guardian made the whole thing up. You could go with that.

Anonymous sources supposedly making not-for-attrubution allegations with no supporting documentation to two notoriously leftist media outlets isn't evidence.

[sear]

" If even a tenth of that is correct, the FBI had compelling reasons to open an investigation. " TE #7

Thanks.
I have no compelling reason to doubt the legitimacy of the FBI or its investigation.

" P.S. This is what Legion replied to you, sear: " TE #7

Thanks.

a) DEMOCRATS demanded the impeachment of a president in 1974 because operatives spied on political opponents
b) DEMOCRATS are denying that spying on political opponents in the present day is wrong.
Does that make sense?

Not as you present it. I can't answer for them. But in such cases such differences often trace to differences in the two cases individual details.
That may not settle it from all points of view. But I've seen many cases from both POV.

[Tranquillus in Exile]

Why wasn’t congress let in on it? I thought the FBI was supposed to answer to congress.

In August/September 2016 Brennan gave classified briefings to the Gang of Eight, the top-ranking Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. He told them that the CIA and FBI had evidence the Kremlin might be trying to help Trump win the presidency.

But as we know from numerous impartial commentators - Breitbart, American Spectator, National Review, etc - this was a bad thing because it was part of the conspiracy to undermine Trump!

[Legion]

[Nordberg]

Our modern form of government does make technocrats a force to be reckoned with, and they abide supervision and oversight only by other progressives.

When a constitutionalist has the temerity to observe that technocrats are subordinate to executive political leadership and must answer to the legislature that created and funds their agencies, they brood about their “independence.”

In their minds, they are an unaccountable fourth branch of government — at least until their fellow non-ideological pragmatists return to power.

For this species of arrogance, setting the narrative is a jealously guarded prerogative. We are to understand the bureaucracy’s work as unimpeachably noble and that so, therefore, are its tactics. Consequently, the government’s “cooperator” is never to be called a spy.

He’s a “confidential informant” or, as James Comey put it, a “confidential human source.”

These are not neutral terms. The implication is that these operatives are always benign, even vital.

A “source” is that most treasured of intelligence assets, to be protected at all costs — even the need for accountability when power is abused must give way to the confidentiality of intelligence “methods and sources.” “Source” connotes a well-placed asset who has bored into the inner sanctum of jihadists or gangsters — an “informant” whose information saves lives.

But there is another side of the story.

By and large, “confidential informants” do not emerge from the womb with a passion to protect the United States.

Quite often, they become informants because they’ve gotten themselves jammed up with the police. Some are sociopaths: shrewd enough to know that the only way out of either a long prison term or a short life expectancy is to become the government’s eyes and ears; self-aware enough to know that, in undercover work, bad character, mendacity, and survival instincts are tools of the trade.

Not many Mother Teresas can infiltrate hostile foreign powers, drug cartels, and organized-crime networks.

According to the government, these effective but unsavory operatives are “confidential human sources,” too. To the rest of us, spy may be too nice a word for them. The printable labels are more like “snitch,” “rat,” “Judas,” etc. “

Many spies are real heroes. The CIA’s operations directorate performs the most commendable feats of valor — the kind that can never be celebrated, or even spoken of; the kind that are memorialized at Langley only by stars carved into a cold marble wall — now, 125 of them. Where would we be without FBI and DEA agents who bravely accept undercover assignments, at great strain on their families and their well-being, to take down society’s worst predators? And many informants, though they may not risk their lives the same way, patriotically serve their country by volunteering critical intelligence they come upon through their professions and their travels.

In the Trump–Russia affair, officials of the Obama-era intelligence agencies suggest that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was in a traitorous conspiracy with the Kremlin. On what grounds?

They’d rather not say. You’ll just have to trust them.

It is not about who the spies are. It is about why they were spying.

In our democratic republic, there is an important norm against an incumbent administration’s use of government’s enormous intelligence-gathering capabilities to — if we may borrow a phrase — interfere in an election. To justify disregarding that norm would require strong evidence of egregious wrongdoing. Enough bobbing and weaving.

Let’s see the evidence.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/obama-administration-politicized-intelligence-law-enforcement-apparatus/

This informant worked with The Bushes ,Nixon and others. he is a Republican.