More Never Trumpers waking up to the Russia collusion farce, when will you?

a reply to: underwerks

You should have a gander at the definitions of both words and see how they mean exactly what is topical here.

The purpose of the informant or spy is based only on the agency that initiated the acquisition of information. That agency was run under the Obama administration.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Reasonable request.

At this point, it appears to say it was "spying" is a disingenuous and wrong. The campaign was not the focus of the investigation. It was people they were surrounding themselves with that were.

Exactly. I doubt I’ll get any sort of actual evidence because, well there isn’t any.

This whole spy business is based off a disingenuous tweet by the president that people jumped to validate, using anything they could.You don’t get to the truth by starting with a conclusion and then searching for evidence to fit it. That’s what religious nuts do to try to make sense of things, and it seems Trump cultists do it too.

There is an investigation into Russian Meddling, against Trump. I invite you to look into that a bit with your bits of wisdom in mind.

Why do you assume there was no evidence of questionable contacts before the investigation started?

Perhaps the "informant" was not put in place in the campaign as part of an investigation, but a "matter"?

We need to get rid of the DNC thesaurus before it ruins our country.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

Your source is an obvious piece of propaganda and is based on one giant assumption.

Which assumption is that?

The assumption that the Left, the media, etc, has fallen back on specific responses because of the "revelation" the Trump campaign has been spied on.

That assumes to know the intent behind their actions and assumes their actions are based on those new "revelations", which are not revelations. They are, in fact, conspiracy theories itself.

The source itself seems to rely on unfounded conspiracy and assumptions.

The author's conclusion, "Crossfire Hurricane can no longer be assumed an apolitical and legitimate investigation", is to point out we cannot assume that there are zero political motives behind the investigation. None of your arguments refutes that conclusion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Threads like this do more to make me believe you guys want to end the investigation illegitimately than it does to convince me that the actual investigation is illegitimate.

In the interest of parity, perhaps the Trump investigation should continue in the same manner as the ones involving HRC and the DNC leaks... you know, those 'legitimate' investigations that permitted the physical destruction of phones and computing devices, tens of thousands of deleted emails, a multi-week interruption of HRC's server's Chain of Custody by the FBI, and finally, no physical inspection what-so-ever of the DNC servers.

Justice really is blind.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Well, the NYT and Washington post articles pretty much admitted that the FBI sent a spy to get info from trump team members.

And I havent seen that disputed in any credible way, only the claim it was an "informant" not spy, which is laughable.

Bit I dont mind people being skeptical.

So you are saying if it does come out that the FBI sent Stefan Halper to get info on people like Page Papadopoulos and others, then you will change your mind?

Links to those articles that say without a doubt that the FBI sent spies into the Trump campaign?

I have already told you, the articles use the term "informant" which is just a clever way to try to differentiate this from the word spy.

But yes the articles exist showing that.

Many of them.

Here is the first one from the NYT.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

So they were after one of his advisors, and not Trump. Anything saying they were after Trump personally? Or are we making the leap in logic that people Trump surrounds himself with being under surveillance means he, himself was the target?

Those are two different things, which the president is trying to conflate to control the narrative the way he wants.

Now wait, you are now changing what you said.

Allow me to remind you.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

You said if it was shown people in trups campaign were spied on, you would change your mind.

That is what this artilce showed.

Now you want proof they were directly after trump?

I think that is not necessary to show abuse. Were the watergate people spying on just directly documents from MCGovern, or were they disgusting and criminal for spying on behavior of the campaign in general?

If the FBI was spying on trumps team, it would have clearly effected trump himself in a very negative way.

And by your own standards of what you said about "Trumps campaign" potentially being spied on, this should change your mind.

The relevant parts for context are the words before the ones you bolded, and the ones after. Picking out two parts of that statement and trying to make it say what you want doesn’t work. And is part of the problem.

Nothing you or the article said leads toward any evidence of the Obama administration planting a spy in Trumps campaign. Which is what this is supposedly about. I mean, that’s what Trump himself said. And it’s what I said I wanted to see evidence of. If there is any.

Man you are all over the place.

SO your last post said basically prove that this spy spied on trump himself.

When I show you that you originally didnt say it had to be on trump himself, but his campaign, you now say this isnt proof of a spy.

So are you another claiming that Halper was only an "informant" and thus not a spy? Or are you denying the FBI ever sent Halper?

Don’t accuse me of being all over the place because I’m trying to hit the goalposts you are constantly dragging everywhere.

Informant doesn’t mean spy in this context. I know you don’t want to face that, because that’s the one thing this entire theory hangs on. But that’s what it is. It takes some nebulous definition of “spy” to make this even halfway work. Which is why I call crap on it.

Nebolous definition of spy?

What are you talking about?

from googles dictionary, number one entry.

spy

a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

www.google.com...=spy

from dictionary.com

spy

noun, plural spies.

a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs.
a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.
a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor:

www.dictionary.com...

Webster

Definition of spy
plural spies
1 : one that spies:
a : one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information
b : a person employed by one nation to secretly convey classified information of strategic importance to another nation; also : a person who conveys the trade secrets of one company to another

www.merriam-webster.com...

Please post the definition you are using.

In all three of these definitions, what the FBI did meets the criteria easily.

The FBI sent in a person to gather information in secret against their bosses (Obama) competitor.

Again, this argument is so stupid.

By your definition then, Trump should be allowed to place "informants" into any Democrats team he wants, because he wouldnt be spying.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Perhaps the "informant" was not put in place in the campaign as part of an investigation, but a "matter"?

It's amazing how easily one will adopt someone's euphemism and use it in his day to day language.

I don't know about that. It's as if you seek to make the definition of spy so particular that it it now doesn't include leakers or informants. What would China consider such an "informant" if they infiltrated a gov agency or major corporation?

it also could be a legitimate informant or surveillance situation, in which case your characterization could work.
a reply to: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

a reply to: DBCowboy

WITH HRC Campaign paid for Russian disinformation directly from the Kremlin.

Spied on the opposition using UK and others.

Leaked the HRC Campaign paid for Russian disinformation to media friends who then parroted it nonstop with ZERO proof of collusion

I’m a liberal and for the first time in my life I voted for Trump NOT because of SpyBook ads or because I own Siberian Huskies (Russian spies??) but because I despise HRC. She is a criminal and deserves nothing less than execution. Everyone with a sane moral compass regardless of political ideology can clearly see she breaks laws and her friends cover for her.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: face23785

Odd characterization by the author of groups that people fall into. I know there are others like myself who believe that Trump's campaign eagerly sought information from the Russians and that the Russians were all too willing to spy on both parties to get in favor with whoever won. The Democrats turned them away, but eager novices like DJT Jr hopped to the bait.

And I think there's enough evidence for that stance.

I think you are somewhat correct in some of Trump campaign members including his son were basically handed the old fashion "a pig in a poke" that lasted a few minutes before they looked in the sac and saw nothing. As to the Democrats it seems the Dossier was their "a pig in a poke" that actually gained a lot of ground even up through the FISA court before anyone actually looked in the sac to find nothing.

I'm just not sure which direction should everyone be looking, one hand there was a short meeting that seems both sides were not totally sure what was going on to have the meeting end very quickly as everyone realized it was all a scam. Then you have the DNC financing a mostly fake Dossier with what appears to have Russia's finger prints all over it, and that goes on to support FISA warrants, wire tapping, planting people in a campaign etc... Add to that a number of high FBI officials involved in all this were very pro Hillary and were willing to do things for political reasons.

I don't think I would spend two years investigating a 20 min meeting that wasn't illegal in the first place, while sticking our heads in the ground in a lame attempt to not see behind the Dossier curtain.

a reply to: Grambler

You didnt even want an investigation into the investigators like Strzok and Page

Because it would be embarrassing for the GOP and we didn't want them to be laughing stocks of the country again. Hasn't it been a rough enough year for you guys in that column?
Memos that don't deliver.
Congressional findings that even other GOP members couldn't believe was presented with such a lack of serious investigation.
Your afore mentioned Strzok and Page and the secret society thingy. That got more than a few laughs around the water cooler.
This latest demand for proof of a spy that wound up validated the actions of the FBI and not trump.
Failure to find any error on the FISA warrant that for what ever reason seems an important lynch pin in the whole story. Consider who it was for and ponder why he would be so important to the case. He's a professor in a silly hat that gives confusing yet candid interviews. A nobody to even hear trump tell it but this warrant on him after he left the campaign is so important. Why?
So I ask... how many times do you guys want to be laughed at. I've never heard the phrase conspiracy theory mentioned in the news so much before. Trumpers already cry unfair unfair at every opportunity. When are you going to stop laying yourselves across the sacrificial alter?

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

I hope everyone gets a good look at this.

You went from

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

To well prove that it was a spy on trump.

To well informant could mean many things and that doesnt mean Obama placed a spy to disrupt.

All in the span of basically an hour.

Further proving that its not about proof, because some people will find reasons to move the goal posts again and again and again to justify the intel communities actions against trump, no matter how corrupt they are.

Show me proof. I’m still waiting.

Of a spy. Not an “informant” which isn’t the same thing in this context. Especially in the article you linked. Unless you want it to be.

Which is what this is really all about. Mischaracterizing the shady people around Trump being investigated as an attack by Obama on Trump.

Say I had friends who were under DEA investigation for selling drugs, and the DEA sent an informant (in the true sense of the word) to see what someone I don’t even know personally had heard about my friends shady dealings. How is that the DEA placing a “spy”to go after me? The leaps to make that kind of logic work are huge. But that’s what’s required for Trumps “Obama spied on me!” theory to work.

No need for personal attacks. Let the evidence speak for itself. You know, the evidence everyone says is irrefutable.

Ok lets take your dea argument.

Your orginal statement was

"Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with."

You didnt say Trump himself, you said spied on trumps campaign.

So in your example, if the dea sent in someone to gather info in secret against a group of people, yes, they spied on them, period. What your "I dont even perosnally know" comment proves is nothing.

Are you claiming trump didnt know the members of his team that were soide on, like page and papadopoulos?

Were you spied on? That depends, were you the head of that team as trump was the head of his campaign?

Nonetheless, this meets your original claim of show any (ANY) evidence that Obamas fbi spied on "Trumps campaign"

They did, its not in dispute.

Now you are trying to wiggle out, by claiming it wasnt on trump himself, and that somehow this isnt the defintion of spying, even though I provided several definitions that this fits and you have provided none.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I wish i had a meme that matched the amount of absurdity you've written as it is a memeworthy post.

I don't.


Sadly.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

Your source is an obvious piece of propaganda and is based on one giant assumption.

Which assumption is that?

The assumption that the Left, the media, etc, has fallen back on specific responses because of the "revelation" the Trump campaign has been spied on.

That assumes to know the intent behind their actions and assumes their actions are based on those new "revelations", which are not revelations. They are, in fact, conspiracy theories itself.

The source itself seems to rely on unfounded conspiracy and assumptions.

The author's conclusion, "Crossfire Hurricane can no longer be assumed an apolitical and legitimate investigation", is to point out we cannot assume that there are zero political motives behind the investigation. None of your arguments refutes that conclusion.

That's not a point I was trying to refute.

Of course we cannot assume there were not political motives behind this. We also cannot assume there were political motives behind this.

We have to have clear evidence to assert either.

I've asserted neither.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You are literally the most laughed at person on ATS.

For you to claim that we dont need to investigate the investigators, because trump supporters will get laugfhed at is such a stupid comment that it barely is worth responding to.

But I will, because you make me laugh!

Just beacuse you didnt have a problem with the dossier being used for fisa warrants to wiretap trump associates doesnt mean reaosnable people didnt have a problem with it.

Just beacuse you dont have a problem with strzok, page, mcacabe, comey, Brennan, and clapper having a bias against trump and acted accordingly doesnt mean reaosnable eople dont.

You continue to act like yo0u have proof of Trump russia collusion, and any day now trump will be taken down.

Yet you dont have one piece of evidnece, as shown in this thread where you refuse to provide it and demand I provide proof of trumps innoncence instead.

The only thing you offer is sercet meeting which you cant even prove the vast majority of.

Yet when I show you just one secret meeting between bill clinton and Putin himself (which bill was personally paid half a million a week later from a russian bank) you ignore that because I guess somehow only trumps connected peoples meetings with russia are proof of collusion to you.

You are a joke, but a funny one, and I love your posts.

You make the pro trump case by your ridiculous posts agaisnt him more than I ever could by logically defending him, so keep up the good work.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

Your source is an obvious piece of propaganda and is based on one giant assumption.

Which assumption is that?

The assumption that the Left, the media, etc, has fallen back on specific responses because of the "revelation" the Trump campaign has been spied on.

That assumes to know the intent behind their actions and assumes their actions are based on those new "revelations", which are not revelations. They are, in fact, conspiracy theories itself.

The source itself seems to rely on unfounded conspiracy and assumptions.

The author's conclusion, "Crossfire Hurricane can no longer be assumed an apolitical and legitimate investigation", is to point out we cannot assume that there are zero political motives behind the investigation. None of your arguments refutes that conclusion.

That's not a point I was trying to refute.

Of course we cannot assume there were not political motives behind this. We also cannot assume there were political motives behind this.

We have to have clear evidence to assert either.

I've asserted neither.

Hahahahahaha!!!!


Who wrote this last page?

The FBI did not infiltrate the campaign for the sake of spying on the campaign.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "infornant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert

Of course they all know that.

Imagine the outrage these very same people would show if Trump placed spies in his opponents campaign, and then said it was ok because they were just informants.

There attempts at using semantics to jsutify this behavior is appalling.

The challenge here, though, is that there is absolutely no proof that "spies" were placed in the Trump campaign for political purpose. That's the narrative Trump is pushing for obvious reasons. If true, yes, it would be a big problem.

However, where a cointel op is concerned, using an informant to make contact with those 3 individuals was a pretty typical next step. Based on what that informant does or does not learn, the investigative team weighs potential next steps--surveillance, etc. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the more logical conclusion is that the F.B.I. was just running the cointel playbook.

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Threads like this do more to make me believe you guys want to end the investigation illegitimately than it does to convince me that the actual investigation is illegitimate.

In the interest of parity, perhaps the Trump investigation should continue in the same manner as the ones involving HRC and the DNC leaks... you know, those 'legitimate' investigations that permitted the physical destruction of phones and computing devices, tens of thousands of deleted emails, a multi-week interruption of HRC's server's Chain of Custody by the FBI, and finally, no physical inspection what-so-ever of the DNC servers.

Justice really is blind.

So we should have 8+ investigations and they should continue and be talked about LONG after Trump leaves office?

Rudy Giuliani says Bob Mueller's appointment is illegitimate, which means his investigation is illegitimate.

Does that imply that Mueller can safely be ignored by the White House?