^ 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"
it's illegal to use informants on Americans without formally opening a case -which is what they didAnd 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
I think Brennan/Clapper and Comey were already running an investigation, but did not want to do it by the booksPart 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.
do some research.
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?
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.
^ 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"
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
because it wasn't an intelligence transfer from one of the 5 Eyes to another ( despite previous claims).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?
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
you're the expert Frank. you would know, have an abominable day.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.
you're the expert Frank. you would know, have an abominable day.
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.
the FACTS are Downer directly contacted State instead of going thru 5 eyes.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.
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.