So now we know the Justice Dept/FBI Set Up Papadopoulos....
 

https://nypost.com/2018/05/19/cambri...rump-campaign/

So, the FBI and Justice planted an informant in the Trump campaign. That informant then planted the "hacked emails" story with Papadopoulos.

The revelation, stemming from recent reports in which FBI sources admitted sending an agent to snoop on the Trump camp, heightens suspicions that the FBI was seeking to entrap Trump campaign aides. Papodopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, while Page was the subject of a federal surveillance warrant.

Days later, Halper contacted Papadopoulos by e-mail. The professor offered the young and inexperienced campaign aide $3,000 and an all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to write a paper about energy in the eastern Mediterranean region.

“George, you know about hacking the e-mails from Russia, right?” the professor pressed Papadopoulos when they met, according to reports — a reference to Trump’s campaign-trail riffs about Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server.

Wouldn't be surprised to learn that this plant's info was coupled with the Hillary purchased Steel "dossier" to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

And, of course, Obama and company were at the center of this abuse of power:

The Halper revelation also shows the Obama administration’s FBI began prying into the opposing party’s presidential nominee earlier than it previously admitted.

Halper’s sit-downs with Page reportedly started in early July 2016, undermining fired FBI Director James Comey’s previous claim that the bureau’s investigation into the Trump campaign began at the end of that month.

And they compensated Halper generously for his services:

It is not clear if the professor was paid to speak with Trump campaign figures, but public records show that he has received large payments from the federal government in the last two years.

The Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment — a shadowy think tank that reports directly to the secretary of defense — paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017.

...and it looks like the FBI/Justice turned to someone who may have had some experience spying on presidential campaigns:

When Bush became Ronald Reagan’s running mate, Halper was implicated in a spying scandal in which CIA officials gave inside information on the Carter administration to the GOP campaign.

You guys still want to defend this Russian conspiracy BS?

^^You need to get a life. Seems it is pretty dull if all you do is read conspiracy stories.

What we know is that the FBI's counter-intelligence investigation looked into a number of Russia-huggers on Trump's campaign staff (who lied repeatedly about their Russia connections). Not doing so would have been irresponsible and a dereliction of their duty to protect the country from ongoing Russian efforts to mess with the election.

I see, however, that you've bought into the latest Trump/Nunes attempt to undermine the investigation, just as you did with all the previous discredited attempts to do so.

Trump Jr. and Other Aides Met With Gulf Emissary Offering Help to Win Election

Some real news for our village idiot. The entire Trump crime family belongs behind bars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/u...nce-zamel.html

Yep, Real Americans support Russian (and Qatari and Israeli) collaboration with the Trump campaign, money-laundering, influence-peddling and obstruction of justice. True patriots.:rolleyes:

I deleted it since I thought afterward Trump was successful in getting me to categorize Whell as the "other".

That jerk (Trump) isn't as dumb as I think he is. Although he is not self-aware of his many limitations and moronic beliefs.

THIS is conspiracy BS.

The placement of this individual inside the campaign preceded the special counsel investigation, and therefore would need to have been approved by Justice. You can't tell me that Justice / the FBI would have planted an operative inside the Trump campaign without White House foreknowledge and approval.

The operative was placed inside the campaign during the Summer of 2016, which means that the FBI would have had to contact and arrange his placement before that. Podesta "hack" didn't occur until March 2016 (and, of course, there has been no FBI forensics conducted on the DNC email system). The FBI claims its counter-intel investigation didn't even start until July 31, 2016.

So, your claim that this pointing this out is "undermining the investigation" is laughable. Lots of questions here about what this individual was doing, and why the FBI would have recruited him, before the FBI investigation even started.

Can't find evidence of Russian collusion, so now we have allegations of "assistance" from the Saudis? Hilarious. :rolleyes:

I guess real Americans drive around with "Resist" bumper stickers and throw as much meaningless shit against the wall hoping against hope that something sticks.

If Junior had simply called the FBI when he was reached by the Russians, all would be well. Instead he took a meeting, got the attention of the FBI and the rest is history. Go and knock yourself silly, it's MAGA.

...and then the Russians talked about adoption at that meeting. :rolleyes:

In the meantime the NT Times claims that the plant inside the campaign was "investigating" not spying. Except that the FBI's counter Intel investigation hadn't started yet. :confused:

If you believe this crap, you're living in cloud cuckoo land, Mike. :p:(

Yes, it is.

Tell me, if there is nothing there, why the conniptions over Mueller?
Why fire Comey? Why bitch over Jeff Sessions recusal?
Why the contradiction between the House and Senate reports?
Why did Flynn and Gates plead guilty?
Why do you keep insisting that there was no collusion and how do you know?

If honest and upright in their actions, then having an undercover operative involved would find nothing. Now on the other hand if not so, then would be very upset to learn later. Much like is happening now it would seem.

Unless the undercover operative's job was to manipulate.

Covered most of this already in other threads and in some detail.

There are no "conniptions" over the Special Counsel, other than the existence of a Special Counsel is a constant source of distraction to any President. I've posted here - I believe in response to you - a reminder about how the Clintons dealt with Ken Starr and company. This is no different.

Comey would have been fired whether or not Trump had been elected. Sessions was an idiot to recuse himself, and he played right into the politics of the moment.

What "contradictions" are you referring to? Need specificity on that question.

You'd need to ask Flynn and Gates, though their plea deals do not have anything to do with "collusion". A similarly interesting question would be why Mueller has requested twice to delay Flynn's sentencing.

I keep insisting that there's no evidence of collusion because there isn't any. Could the investigation have found evidence and simply not yet have made such evidence public? Sure, but that seems very unlikely to me given the number of almost daily leaks that occur from ananymous sources.

There have been no leaks from the Mueller team. And yes, there's plenty of evidence of collusion, obstruction of justice and financial crimes. Patience, grasshopper.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!
10:37 AM · May 20, 2018

The moron is completely out of control, yet assholes like Whell think this is normal!? Whell, you are beyond disgusting.

What do you call the constant attacks by the Dotard and his surrogates on Comey, Mueller, Sessions, Rosenstein, FBI and the Justice Department?

So why are the findings so different between the two committee reports, one from the House of Nunes and the other by the Senate?

As for distractions, they begin with all the lying and turmoil within the administration.

Dan Bongino
@dbongino
The NY Times has gone full Pravda. They’re all in on the coverup. Journalism died a long time ago but this is a new level of police-state advocacy from an alleged “newspaper.”

Donny is quoting this moron? Only a fool like Whell would believe anything this idiot has to say. :rolleyes:

Don't get the NY Times part. Did you mean the NY Post?

Pretty sure Dan meant what he wrote. :cool:

Gimme a break. I've already posted previously samples of a number of times that Muellers team has leaked.

And no, there is no hard evidence. There are allegations and leaks and circumstantial evidence upon which there has been hyperventilating speculation, but that's about it.

1. It's called politics.

2. Who says that they were looking at exactly the same things, with exactly the same process, and even trying to reach the same conclusions?

Show me leaks that definitely came from Mueller. (True) leaks, regardless of source, and circumstantial evidence are both evidence.

Now, the Dotard is fund-raising off of his demand for the DOJ to investigate the investigation into himself.

https://action.donaldjtrump.com/petition-to-the-doj

Was quoting a tweet from one of Whell’s uninformed idiots, whose nuttiness Donny is now using to justify his all out assault on the DOJ.

Guess they didn't teach you about the use of quotation marks in Proper English class. :rolleyes:

There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these leaks came from Mueller or anyone on his team. The "sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" have frequently been shown to have been witnesses who have spoken to Mueller (or their lawyers) revealing the questions asked or information shown to them or from Congress and/or their staffs. Lastly, the White House leaks like a sieve. That said, not one of the leaks shown can be sourced directly to Mueller.

edit - not worth the keystrokes

I see, thanks.

This link doesn't support your claim, which should be relatively easy to support if true. Provide a link to the article and copy the text that provides factual evidence of Mueller or a member of his team leaking information about their investigation.

Uh huh, right. "Sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" most certainly be the tangential folks you describe. :rolleyes:

Facts are facts. These are leaks that have steadily come from the Mueller investigation over an extended period of time. One leak might be an exception to the rule. Two might be a coincidence. But a list like this is far less than coincidental, and almost certainly purposeful.

Bullshyte on a shingle.

It doesn't whatsoever support your claim that these leaks came from Mueller. That said, it's hilarious to see a loyal Trumpkin bitching about leaks. Trump's White House leaks a year worth every single day.:rolleyes:

Its as plain as the nose on your face. That said, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

In the meantime, here comes Mark Penn, a Clinton fellow traveler:

“Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again.”

Yup, as I've said before the Mueller investigation is an investigation in search of a crime. It is not an investigation into an actual crime. And more:

Mr. Penn wrote that the F.B.I. and the Justice Department “broke their own rules” to end the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server. He implied that Mr. Clinton’s encounter with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch on a Phoenix airport tarmac in 2016 really was as suspicious as Republicans found it. And he suggested that “Clinton Foundation operatives” got the F.B.I. to investigate Mr. Trump.

“I spent a year working with President Clinton against Ken Starr and that effort,” Mr. Penn said on Fox this month. “I just find that that was child’s play to what’s going on here.”

And finally, the piece that relates all of this back to the OP:

In his column this week, he said the Australian diplomat who told the F.B.I. about an incriminating bar conversation with George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, was responsible for a $25 million contribution to the Clinton family’s foundation.

There it is again. A contribution to the Clinton family slush fund. A number of Russian business types contributed to that, but that doesn't appear to be of any interest to anyone in ferreting out whether the Russians influenced the 2016 election. :rolleyes:

“You don’t need much imagination to figure that he was close with Clinton Foundation operatives who relayed information to the State Department, which then called the F.B.I. to complete the loop,” Mr. Penn wrote. “This wasn’t intelligence. It was likely opposition research from the start.”

So, George P was set up as part of a likely sting operation in an attempt to create a crime. The initial info was fed to George P by an in informant on the FBI's payroll that was planted in the Trump campaign by the FBI.

Its amazing you guys call THIS a conspiracy theory, and treat the imaginary "Russian collusion" thing as fact. If this happened, its really not that hard to envision, particularly as it may have occurred against the backdrop of years of Democrat losses in the House, Senate, state House and Senate races, and Governors offices. Its not that hard to believe particularly when the folks who would have been involved in orchestrating this were the same folks who "fixed" the Democrat nomination in 2016. If they were willing to do that, what else were they willing to "fix"?

Finally:

In his writings and television appearances, Mr. Penn has said he was not motivated by party politics but by concern for the state of the country.

“Stopping Mueller isn’t about one president or one party,” he wrote. “It’s about all presidents and all parties. It’s about cleaning out and reforming the deep state so that our intelligence operations are never used against opposing campaigns without the firmest of evidence.”

I'm sure that the Dems and their allies will start in earnest trashing Penn.

So, it's OK for you to jump to conclusions about a grand conspiracy based upon spin from (an always-lying) White House, its discredited lapdog Devin Nunes, and a stray op-ed piece, whereas it's totally out of line for others to surmise that there's pending trouble for the Trump crime family based upon gobs of evidence in the public record, not to mention a bunch of indictments and convictions and cooperating witnesses? You've repeatedly shown that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that you're indeed a tool.