James Comey

[trumped]

[trumped]

Hmmmmm

[trumped]

[soonernvolved]

[trumped]

[#winning]

May 26, 2018 14:47:34 GMT -6 trumped said:

Also, Sharyl Attkisson. She tells of her laptop going on on its own. 

[sooner98]

May 26, 2018 13:17:54 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

Clapper speaking again:

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

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


“I am sure President Obama had no knowledge whatsoever of an informant,” Clapper said, adding that the FBI has many informants who play various roles within the department “who provide very valuable information and do so in a legitimate way.” (RELATED: Clapper: It’s ‘A Good Thing’ FBI Was Spying On Trump Campaign)

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for President George W. Bush, asked on Fox News, “What role did Barack Obama have, did he know that the FBI was keeping informants there, and I’ll guarantee the answer is yes.” He continued to say that the FBI must have gone through the White House first before putting an FBI informant in a presidential campaign.

Clapper has also said “it’s a good thing” there was an FBI informant in the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election cycle, and that President Trump should be glad an informant was embedded there. (RELATED: James Clapper Says Trump Should Be Glad There Was An FBI Informant In His Campaign)

James Clapper lies about absolutely everything. Therefore, Obama definitely knew about all of it.

[trumped]

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2018/05/27/clapper-trump-campaign-not-warned-russia/

During an interview with Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Clapper seemed to argue that the Russian threat “had [not] reached the point” where the FBI would alert the campaign, but apparently had reached the point where the FBI would send in an informant.


“The first thing is just to determine what was going on,” Clapper said. “If there wasn’t a concern about the Russians…perhaps no reason to do that. You know, the FBI has rules and protocols for when they decide to do something like that and I don’t think that at that point it had reached the point where it would be appropriate to engage the head of the campaign or the nominee.”

Clapper also denied any knowledge of the operation, explaining that it would not be “appropriate” for the DNI to know the identities of any informants working with the FBI.

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2018/05/27/michael-hayden-james-clapper-russia/

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden called out James Clapper on Sunday for claiming to know that Russians decided the 2016 election.

Play Video
Clapper wrote in his new book that he has “no doubt” Russian meddling swung the election in favor of Trump, but during a Friday night CNN interview he all but admitted he has no evidence for the claim. (RELATED: Clapper Fumbles Explanation For Claim That Russia Decided The Election)

Hayden told Martha Raddatz on ABC’s “This Week” that it is “unknowable” how much Russians influenced the election and he knocked the former director of national intelligence for claiming otherwise.

“I agree that the Russians affected the election but how much they affected is not just unknown, it is unknowable and so we should stop talking about it,” Hayden asserted. “Donald Trump is the president.”

“You invite folks like us on your show because we’re the fact witnesses, not because we have opinions,” he added.

[trumped]

[trumped]

[trumped]

[soonernvolved]

[trumped]

[soonernvolved]

[trumped]

This is a great read to understand step by step the basics of spygate:

Thread by @thelastrefuge2: "1. Understanding "Spygate", the Big Picture.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1000862125944864768.html

[soonernvolved]

Explained to them:

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Flashback:

[#winning]

May 27, 2018 10:37:35 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

dailycaller.com/2018/05/27/clapper-trump-campaign-not-warned-russia/

During an interview with Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Clapper seemed to argue that the Russian threat “had [not] reached the point” where the FBI would alert the campaign, but apparently had reached the point where the FBI would send in an informant.


“The first thing is just to determine what was going on,” Clapper said. “If there wasn’t a concern about the Russians…perhaps no reason to do that. You know, the FBI has rules and protocols for when they decide to do something like that and I don’t think that at that point it had reached the point where it would be appropriate to engage the head of the campaign or the nominee.”

Clapper also denied any knowledge of the operation, explaining that it would not be “appropriate” for the DNI to know the identities of any informants working with the FBI.


They didn't say anything because they figured Hillary was going to win and didn't want to muck things up. In fact they counted on her winning so business as usual would continue and everything that is coming to light would have remained buried. Clapper has done nothing but lie from the git go.

Flashback...Remember when there were the terrorist bombings overseas in the morning and when interviewed that evening he knew nothing about them?

[soonernvolved]

medium.com/@brian_Whit/salient-facts-the-tangled-web-around-joseph-mifsud-9bc16355594e

Salient facts: The tangled web around Joseph Mifsud

[trumped]

May 28, 2018 9:59:41 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

medium.com/@brian_Whit/salient-facts-the-tangled-web-around-joseph-mifsud-9bc16355594e

Salient facts: The tangled web around Joseph Mifsud

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-russia-investigation-obama-administration-spying-hypocritical/

The Obama Administration’s Hypocritical Pretext for Spying on the Trump Campaign
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
May 29, 2018 6:30 AM


Where was its concern about Russia during its eight years in power?
As I argued in my weekend column, it is hard to imagine a more idle question than whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. Of course it did. If you want to argue the point, imagine what the professors, pundits, and pols would have said had the Bush administration run an informant against three Obama 2008 campaign officials, including the campaign co-chairman; any hair-splitting about whether that technically constituted “spying” would be met by ostracism from polite society.

There is, in addition, more evidence — at least, more public, verified evidence — that Stefan Halper was a spy for the FBI than that Carter Page was one for Russia. This is not a small point.

Spy vs. ‘Spy’

It has been credibly reported that Halper, a longtime source for the CIA and British intelligence, was tasked by the FBI in the Trump-Russia investigation to make contact with and get information from at least three Trump campaign officials. He even sought a role in the campaign from co-chairman Sam Clovis. Page, on the other hand, was the target of four FISA court surveillance warrants, which enabled the Justice Department and FBI to monitor him for a year, starting at the height of the 2016 campaign.

To obtain such a warrant under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), the FBI and Justice Department must convince a judge that there is probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power — in Page’s case, of Russia. As we’ve previously outlined (here, last section), because Page is an American citizen, the Obama administration had to have told the court that he was either: (a) “knowingly engage[d] in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of [Russia], which activities involve[d] or may [have] involve[d]” federal crimes; or (b) “knowingly engaged in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of [Russia], that were undertaken “pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of [Russia],” and that “involve[d] or [were] about to involve” federal crimes.

(See Section 1801(b)(2) of Title 50, U.S. Code. I am assuming it was not alleged that Page was knowingly engaged in sabotage, international terrorism, or the use of false identities, the alternative statutory grounds for claiming that a U.S. citizen is acting as an agent of a foreign power.)

Assuming the Obama administration told the FISA court that Page was a clandestine agent of Russia, I’d make two observations: First, the only publicly known allegations that Page was engaged in such clandestine activities come from the Steele dossier, and appear to be unverified.

Second, Page has never been charged with a crime, which would be odd if the FBI had been able to verify its FISA application claims — posited four times over a year of surveillance — that he was engaged in activities that appeared to be federal crimes. (We have not been permitted to see the FISA applications; I am assuming here that the Justice Department would not seek a FISA warrant, and the court would not grant one, unless the application addressed FISA’s requirements for showing an American to be an agent of a foreign power.)

To put the matter more succinctly: We know why it is claimed that Halper was a spy; we still do not know why it was claimed that Page was a spy.


To repeat previously covered ground, we know that Russian spies tried to recruit Page in 2013. Yet, it appears that he cooperated with the FBI and Justice Department in the prosecution of the spies. (The Justice Department used his information in the arrest complaint — here, pp. 12-13, paras. 32-33, referring to Page as “Male-1”.) The Russian spies, moreover, expressed contempt for Page, referring to him as “an idiot” in a monitored conversation. This would not seem to be a promising jumping-off point for any future recruitment efforts.

The Norm Against Political Spying

I want to be clear: I am not offended by the word spy. If Halper’s mission was righteous, the Justice Department and FBI should be proud that he was a spy. And if, on behalf of Russia, Page conducted clandestine anti-American activities that constituted felony violations of American law, I would enthusiastically support labeling him a spy and prosecuting him to the full extent of the law. I’d want any official who knew about and supported such traitorous activities to be removed from office and prosecuted.

But there are two things to bear in mind.

The first is that while the law liberally permits criminal investigators and intelligence officers to use informants, there are situations in which spying is resisted. Among the most important are those involving our politics, particularly elections. We have an important norm in this country against political spying — a matter of tradition, of democratic institutions, of constitutional principles, and of modern history’s Watergate chapter. The incumbent administration must not use its awesome counterintelligence, counterespionage, and law-enforcement powers against its political opposition absent compelling evidence of egregious misconduct.

[soonernvolved]

[trumped]

[trumped]

[soonernvolved]

amp.dailycaller.com/2018/05/29/grassley-fusion-gps-glenn-simpson/

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is accusing Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson of giving “extremely misleading” statements, if not telling “outright lies,” during Senate testimony in 2017.

Simpson may have lied when he denied working for clients to investigate President Donald Trump after the 2016 election, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said in a May 24 letter made public on Tuesday.

Fusion GPS, which Simpson started in 2011, worked for the Clinton campaign and DNC to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Russia. The opposition research firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele, who would go on to write a dossier alleging Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin.

Grassley noted that in his Aug. 22, 2017, testimony, Simpson claimed after the election, he was not working for a client to continue his Trump work. (RELATED: Back Channel To Christopher Steele Goes On The Record About Senate Testimony)

“So you didn’t do any work on the Trump matter after the election date; that was the end of your work?” Simpson was asked during the interview.

Simpson responded, saying: “I had no client after the election.”

Grassley said Simpson’s denial was false.

“As we now know, that was extremely misleading, if not an outright lie,” the Republican wrote to his fellow Judiciary Committee member, Delaware Sen. Chris Coons.

“Contrary to Mr. Simpson’s denial in the staff interview, according to the FBI and others, Fusion actually did continue Trump dossier work for a new client after the election,” Grassley said.

Grassley pointed to statements a former Senate Intelligence Committee staffer, Daniel Jones, gave to the FBI in March 2017 about his work alongside Fusion GPS to investigate Trump’s possible Russia links.

A group of seven to 10 wealthy donors from California and New York paid $50 million to fund the project, Jones told the FBI. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Cabal Of Wealthy Donors Paid $50 Million To Continue Trump-Russia Investigation)

Jones’ consulting firm, the Penn Quarter Group, “had secured the services Steele, his associate [redacted], and Fusion GPS to continue exposing Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election,” he told the FBI.

The group planned to push the information from the independent investigation to lawmakers, the media and the FBI, Jones also told the bureau.

“So, despite the fact Mr. Simpson said he had no client after the election, he in fact did, and that client revealed himself to the FBI,” Grassley said.

[trumped]

[trumped]

Some crolled folks in this fake Russia scam.