10 Key Takeaways From The New York Times’ Error-Ridden Defense Of FBI Spying

NYTimes‘ story, the investigation seems to have been sparked by suspicions over some campaign members’ pre-existing connections with Russia before they joined the campaign.

Flynn, a retired three-star general, was once paid $45,000 by Russian outlet Russia Today for a 2015 speaking engagement; Paul Manafort — a veteran Republican strategist — had lobbied for pro-Russian interests in Ukraine long before he joined the Trump campaign; Carter Page had previously worked in Moscow and Russian spies had tried to recruit him. In Papadopoulos’s case, he “seemed to know” Russia had “political dirt” on Clinton.
Click to expand...
this starts an investigation? ordinary business activities with Russians?
Papa was cleared of Espionage charges - why use that as an excuse to investigate?
 
I Love America said:
Why is John Kerry talking to Iranians?

People talk to foreigners all the time. There is nothin illegal about talking to foreigners. Only leftists angry about losing an election are trying to criminalize normal activity.

This issue is over. Mueller has nothing.

Let's review shall we?


We now know that the Obama administration was surveilling Trump communications
We now know that the Obama administration had an spy in the Trump campaign

One would think that if there was anything incriminating Mueller would have it by now and could wrap this thing up. And don't give me this "he wants to be thorough" bullshit. Trust me, if they had Capone on a murder charge, they aren't going to wait three years trying to investigate every single thing. They are going to roll him up.

This is why you see the left running to Stormy. But, they have great risk in doing that.
Click to expand...

If nothing wrong then why lie about it? Please answer that.
 
Gotcha68 said:
If nothing wrong then why lie about it? Please answer that.
Click to expand...

The FBI getting someone to "lie" to them isn't exactly a heavy lift. All they have to do is get you to be inconsistent in one single answer and POOF you are busted.

Ask yourself this question. If you were sitting across the table from two FBI agents without a lawyer present with you and asked to speak in detail about a conversation you had 3 months ago, could you do it? I sincerely doubt it. We all have conversations every day that aren't remarkable when they are happening.

Michael Flynn was doing what any NSA head would do as part of the transition. He was reaching out to foreign governments

Mueller has nothing. You know it but won't admit it.
 
noise said:
this starts an investigation? ordinary business activities with Russians?
Papa was cleared of Espionage charges - why use that as an excuse to investigate?
Click to expand...

Ordinary business with Russians?

LMFAO
Who has
Ordinary business with Russians?
 
noise said:
specious and without refutations or references.
The OP is very specific in it's push back on the NYTimes blandishment article.

You should try the same instead of "targeted for suspicious activity with Russian authorities"
what activities? why are they enough for an investigation?

That's what the OP does and you just gloss over it

FBI counterinteligence probe started in July 2016
Click to expand...

In other words, you want to relitigate once again all the innuendoes based upon implications the right has formulated based upon circumstantial evidence, no thanks, been there, done that, even when demonstrated as bogus you still wouldn't buy the reality

As I said, the narrative did the exact same thing, employed the Times article, which once again I can say with relative accuracy that few reading her opinion actually saw, to regurgitate the same
 
archives said:
In other words, you want to relitigate once again all the innuendoes based upon implications the right has formulated based upon circumstantial evidence, no thanks, been there, done that, even when demonstrated as bogus you still wouldn't buy the reality

As I said, the narrative did the exact same thing, employed the Times article, which once again I can say with relative accuracy that few reading her opinion actually saw, to regurgitate the same
Click to expand...
nothing is being "relitigated". it's being discovered.
The Times is supposed to be the paper of record ( at one time long ago before fake news)-
why would few have read it?
 
Rune said:
Ordinary business with Russians?

LMFAO
Who has
Ordinary business with Russians?
Click to expand...
unbelievable..so ALL Russian business is suspect?You sound like the FBI/Mueller. sorry. except for the bastard SC - investigations have limitations.

In fact ( and especially before sanctions) there are/were many business ties -commensurate with the size of the Russian economy ( about 1/7 the size of china's)
 
Rune said:
Idiot!
It wasn't unlimited until Mueller.
One year.
Which is nothing compared to Ben Ghasi or STARR.

STFU you whining little baby.
Click to expand...
2 years you ignorant fool. learn to count. A congressional investigation is a far cry from a special prosecutor.

The Starr chamber was an abomination -why would you want anything like it from Mueller?
 
The real irony is that essentially the NYT article vindicates Trump and confirms all the reports against Clinton, Mueller, the FBI, spying, tapping, phony dossier and no evidence of a crime. And, yet the libs in here are ignoring one of their favorite sources of news (NYT) and STILL obsessively pursuing their "personal" investigations, biases and allegations............based on NOTHING. There's no crime. There's no collusion. It's all over but the indictments, which are coming with the IG report. Brennan, Clapper, Rogers, Comey, others are taking cover as we speak.
 
Stretch said:
The real irony is that essentially the NYT article vindicates Trump and confirms all the reports against Clinton, Mueller, the FBI, spying, tapping, phony dossier and no evidence of a crime. And, yet the libs in here are ignoring one of their favorite sources of news (NYT) and STILL obsessively pursuing their "personal" investigations, biases and allegations............based on NOTHING. There's no crime. There's no collusion. It's all over but the indictments, which are coming with the IG report. Brennan, Clapper, Rogers, Comey, others are taking cover as we speak.
Click to expand...
Mueller will issue a report with Impeachment fodder.
He's not going to do all this and then fail to bring back a couple scalps
 
It's noisy in this thread

noise
Verified User

This message is hidden because noise is on your ignore list.
Today, 10:54 AM
noise
Verified User

This message is hidden because noise is on your ignore list.
Today, 10:57 AM
noise
Verified User

This message is hidden because noise is on your ignore list.
Today, 11:05 AM
noise
Verified User

This message is hidden because noise is on your ignore list.
Today, 11:07 AM
Stretch
Verified User

This message is hidden because Stretch is on your ignore list.
Today, 11:12 AM
noise
Verified User

This message is hidden because noise is on your ignore list.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I don't disagree at all with the fact that the Trump campaign's characters were under surveillance; they were properly so. Your (group your) outrage about it, though, is hysterically funny. If Obama or Clinton's workers had been flying to Russia, having secret and not-so-secret meetings with Russians (or any other foreign nationals), and chatting via insecure phones with Russians, you guys would be calling them traitors and setting up the gallows for some hangings. But since the Russians connived and Trump got selected, you're now all butthurt that this is being revealed.

You (group you) are traitors to the United States.
Click to expand...

Nope, all of that falls under a criminal investigation. Anything else, and it’s spying.

When was Trump ever the subject of a criminal investigation?
 
noise said:
2 years you ignorant fool. learn to count. A congressional investigation is a far cry from a special prosecutor.

The Starr chamber was an abomination -why would you want anything like it from Mueller?
Click to expand...

No you fucking retard.
Two year investigation but only one year unrestricted.
Obviously it isn't long enough yet or the dirty would be behind bars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top