Posted on 05/17/2018 9:58:39 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
The young’uns may not believe it, but back before it was known as “classic rock,” you couldn’t just play your crossfire hurricane on Spotify. You had to spin it. Fittingly, that is exactly what the New York Times has done in Wednesday’s blockbuster report on the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady “buried the lede.” Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign — and to note that the Times learned this because “current and former officials” leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked “Extortion!” when Congress asked about it.
But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.
That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.
The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.
It’s also bunk. Just because the two FBI cases are both referred to as “investigations” does not make them the same kind of thing.
The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence. Mrs. Clinton does have one legitimate beef against the FBI: Then-director James Comey went public with some (but by no means all) of the proof against her. In is not proper for law-enforcement officials to publicize evidence from a criminal investigation unless formal charges are brought.
In the scheme of things, though, this was a minor infraction. The scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged. She likes to blame Comey for her defeat; but she had a chance to win only because the Obama Justice Department and the FBI tanked the case against her — in exactly the manner President Obama encouraged them to do in public commentary.
By contast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation. Unlike criminal cases, counterintelligence matters are classified. If agents had made public disclosures about them, they would have been committing crimes and violating solemn agreements with foreign intelligence services — agreements without which those services would not share information that U.S. national-security officials need in order to protect our country.
The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.
The Times averts its eyes from this point — although if a Republican administration tried this sort of thing on a Democratic candidate, it would be the only point.
Like the Justice Department and the FBI, the paper is banking on Russia to muddy the waters. Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage — hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.
But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.
The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things. That explains the desperation to convince the public that Putin wanted Trump to win. It explains the stress on contacts, no matter how slight, between Trump campaign figures and Russians. They are trying to fill a gaping void they hope you don’t notice: Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.
That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)
But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.
To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.
That’s your crossfire hurricane.
“Meddling” is a broad term.
Some trolls on the internet posing as someone else?
So what? Millions of people do it.
Someone stated that Trump knew they were spying on him so he used the Rolling Stone song ‘ You cannot always get what you want ‘ on the campaign trail to troll Obama,Hillary and the Deep State :-)
Strictly a talking point. There has yet to be any convincing evidence that Russia meddled much at all. The FB stuff is small potatoes, but this is the only item that appears to have any legitimacy.
*can`t
Exactly, and are they Russian operatives or Russian citizens? No distinction is ever made. “Have you talked to the Russians” Yes, I talk to Russians every week at work. So what?
“Mr. Rosenstein, what should we do about this document Congress wants to see which shows we spied on the Trump campaign?”
“Paint it black!”
bump
“paint it black”
~snicker~
Haven't I read that the Russians were expending resources to steer the NRA away from supporting Hillary? That's some pretty deep strategy to help Trump win. Convince gun owners that Democrats want to confiscate guns and repeal the Second Amendment? Other than direct quotes from Democrats how would one go about this?
LOL. Rosey’s face looks like he is having his 19th nervous breakdown.
“It’s just a shot away.”
5.56mm
“19th nervous breakdown”
Ha !
Obama desecrated the Constitution. Used all law enforcement powers and sweeping intelligence resources to destroy a human being whom he disagreed with politically.
It is a disgrace.
Take a good, long, hard look at any extant photos of Clapper and Brennan. Look them in the eyes (if you can find them. What do you see? Isn’t it OBVIOUS.
These guys are psychopaths.
Do either of these guys look like a man you would trust to be your National Intelligence Director or CIA Director? I wouldn’t even trust either one of them to take my pre-pubescent son on a camping trip.
And yet Clapper and Brennan are Barack Obama’s kind-of guys.
I don’t to be in the same zip code with either one.
Brennan is truly scary and psycho!
He is as wild eyed and skinny as a freak on speed!
I’m betting that no only were there multiple moles, but that they weren’t all US...
Jumpin’ Jack Flash
The Rolling Stones
I was born in a cross-fire hurricane
And I howled at the morning driving rain
But it’s all right now, in fact, it’s a gas
But it’s all right. I’m Jumpin’ Jack Flash
It’s a gas, gas, gas
I was raised by a toothless, bearded hag,
I was schooled with a strap right across my back
But it’s all right now, in fact, it’s a gas
But it’s all right, I’m Jumpin’ Jack Flash
It’s a gas, gas, gas
I was drowned, I was washed up and left for dead
I fell down to my feet and I saw they bled , yeah yeah
I frowned at the crumbs of a crust of bread
Yeah, yeah, yeah
I was crowned with a spike right through my head
But it’s all right now, in fact, it’s a gas
But it’s all right, I’m Jumpin’ Jack Flash
It’s a gas, gas, gas
Jumping Jack Flash, its a gas
Jumping Jack Flash, its a gas
Jumping Jack Flash, its a gas
Jumping Jack Flash, its a gas
Jumping Jack Flash, its a gas
Jumping Jack Flash, its a gas
Yes. Especially Brennan. The face of hateful evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.