House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”
This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.
The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.
So obviously much of this is speculation at this point. But the one thing we do not have to speculate about is the fact that the DOJ and FBI are obviously hiding something of critical embarrassment to them. It seems unlikely that divulging intelligence information to people who have security clearance to see that intelligence is going to get anyone killed. I will file that up with Nancy Pelosi's suggestion that people will die if the tax bill was passed.
The harder the DOJ and FBI push back against Congress on this one, the more I tend to believe that they have something very interesting that they are hiding. A mole in the Trump campaign? Possibly. If so, I would think that we have bigger problems than just a little partisanship.
23 comments:
It's looks like the only legacy Obama has left is Government corruption 👎
Yes.
My dark lord and master returns
“If it were my call, I would not discontinue those programs. I'd have them active and ready to go,” Cheney said during an interview with Fox Business. “And I'd go back and study them and learn."
Cheney, a former secretary of Defense, has long defended the interrogation program that was launched after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. While critics denounce the techniques that were used as torture, Cheney says the program was necessary to keep the nation safe.
“I think the techniques we used were not torture. A lot of people try to call it that, but it wasn’t deemed torture at the time,” he told Maria Bartiromo. “People want to go back and try to rewrite history, but if it were my call, I’d do it again.”
Following the capture of terrorist suspects like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11, Cheney said the only method to collect information couldn't just be “please tell us.”
“You tell me that the only method we have is 'please, please, pretty please, tell us what you know?' Well, I don’t buy that,” Cheney said.
Lol, real men frighten the left.
I find it pretty obnoxious that mueller wants to probe any trump donation from a foreign source while ignoring the hundreds of millions the clintons took in from foreign sources.
Mueller proved himself nothing but a political hack.
Obama, remember knew everything that was going on. So he knew of this spy planted in Trump’s campaign.
And to think, trump got north Korea to the bargaining table without sending them billions of dollars on pallets and got those three captives released without trading any gitmo terrorists.
The art of the deal is turning Obama into an absolute embarrassment.
Obama's thingy with Iran was nothing more the his perfect pinkie-swear.
The art of the deal is turning Obama into an absolute embarrassment.
That's because Obumble hated this country
This sounds pretty scary, "When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign."
but then, when a government agency refers to a source, they also mean people who are average citizens who speak to people in the agency. You can call them "spies" or "snitches" but it begs the question, why shouldn't people in the Trump campaign have been willing to talk to the FBI? Why should we believe that there's something reprehensible about that?
A mole on the FBI payroll, undercover agent, that would indeed be a concern. But reading that opinion, and some of the news sources that it's based on, the source could simply be a concerned citizen. Which is more likely, which do you suppose happens more often, well you'll probably believe whichever side of it that you're predisposed to.
WP
I think if your argument was the case, then the Government would simply claim that the person was a whistle blower and entitled to the protections of that status.
But as you pointed out. You will be predisposed to believe whatever it is that you want to believe.
Looks like a fresh look is needed here. Try this:
Mueller investigating foreign donations to Trump inauguration
May 11th 2018 2:20PM
Special counsel Robert Mueller is looking into foreign donations made to President Trump’s inauguration committee, according to a report Friday.
Mueller’s team has questioned several donors with personal or business ties to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, ABC News reported.
Tom Barrack, a close Trump friend and real estate investor with deep ties to the Middle East, was interviewed by federal investigators working for Mueller last year, according to several reports.
Mueller is probing Russian election interference and potential connections between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Barrack, who chaired Trump’s inauguration committee, was grilled about Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and Manafort’s one-time deputy, Rick Gates, The Associated Press reported.
Gates pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy and lying in February, while Manafort, charged with bank fraud and other crimes, maintains his innocence.
Barrack was interviewed “months ago” and was asked a few questions about Gates’ work on Trump’s inaugural committee, one source told the news agency.
A second source told The AP that the questions were on a variety of topics, including financial dealings related to the Trump campaign, his transition and inauguration.
Investigators are also asking about specific donors, including Andrew Intrater, the CEO of investment firm Columbus Nova.
Intrater, who gave $250,000 to the inauguration, is a relative and close associate of Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. Both men attended Trump’s swearing-in ceremony.
Vekselberg, who has also been questioned by Mueller’s team, was linked to embattled Trump lawyer Michael Cohen earlier this week in documents released by an attorney representing porn star Stormy Daniels.
The documents allege that Veklesberg steered $500,000 to a consulting firm run by Cohen through Columbus Nova.
That is a does-not-follow that the government would simply make that claim. Perhaps, and a lot of reasons why they might not. Such as, wanting to protect your source (any true characterization of your source gives up clues to his identity).
The "lives are at stake" business would suggest a deeper involvement, but like almost everyone else, I discount that as the usual justifying platitude that may or may not be true.
This is another case of something that's easy to get riled up about based on a meager description, but rationally you know that it's oversimplified and clearly slanted. The part saying "refer to sources, they mean people who " is a big clue about that. You almost want to just trust that statement, because it validates a deep suspicion. But you look at it analytically, does it make logical sense? Is it factual, is it true more often than not?
On a deeper look, no of course it's not a factual statement! In the first place, the over-generalized reference to "government agencies" is itself a play to the audience, who have a general distaste for "government agencies". It's obvious from context that he means intelligence or investigative agencies, not all government agencies, but the phrasing hopes to suggest that this is just the way it is with agencies. So believe it for the FBI.
So on the face of it, it's wrong in a way meant to mislead the reader into an assumption, but you'll say that's trivial or grammarian or semantic or whatever, so fine then. On to the next problem.
Does the FBI always, or even mostly, or even occasionally mean an embedded Agency spy when they say "source"? Clearly, that's not even remotely true. The FBI refers to numerous sources, and generally not an undercover agent or paid civilian spy. You wonder, where did that actually come from, stated with such bold confidence, but so clearly inadequate given a second thought. Seriously, where did the author get that idea? I can't think of any source of it. Other than his own imagination.
So when I see that statement, upon which the rest of his outrage rests, and it's clearly non-factual and misleading, I think at the very best and giving the most benefit of the doubt possible that he's egregiously over-simplified. And without exception, whenever I've seen easy outrage over a simple situation described with generalities, there is *always* more to it. This has all of the earmarks of that situation.
So in this case Occams Razor should apply. There is no need for the mysterious FBI spy, no logical reason to expect the FBI to have wanted one, and therefore the most likely hypothetical is that their "source" is simply someone in Trump's camp who frequently spoke with them.
With nothing to Hide The name of the Obama spy will be released ??
Nothing to hide.
"The most transparent administration in history" oblunder
Nancy Pelosi hates all the prosperity snd keeps telling the country she wants to raise taxes.
Between her, hillary, aunt esther snd the rest, they're the gift that keeps on giving
by KEN KLUKOWSKI
11 May 2018
Washington, DC535
President Donald Trump’s State Department will reportedly announce a new trade agreement with United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Monday, scoring a victory in a trade dispute over UAE’s subsidizing its two state-owned airlines to the detriment of U.S. airlines and workers.
Breitbart News reported how several foreign nations – including the UAE – have been subsidizing their nation’s state-owned airlines to the tune of $52 billion, in violation of “Open Skies” executive agreements that those nations have with the United States. For the UAE, the two carriers are Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways. Those “Open Skies” trade agreements are designed to ensure free market competition between airlines, without government support."
So much Winning.
Gift that keeps on giving.
Maxine Waters.
Tells us that the logo MAGA, is, you guessed it "Racist".
to me, the most impressive part of strassel's article is this:
...I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it.
maggie haberman and the rest of those fucksticks at the ny times would've revealed the person.
"I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it."
Integrity.
Post a Comment