Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

If Trump “Might” Accept Foreign Info on Opponents and Obama Actually Did, Who’s Guilty of What?

If Trump “Might” Accept Foreign Info on Opponents and Obama Actually Did, Who’s Guilty of What?

“Issa said the true issue is whether or not foreign governments were involved in spying on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7r0FBSkyDw

Trump-Deranged Democrats and their media cohorts, along with the remaining dregs of the #NeverTrump contingent, have their dander up over President Trump answering a hypothetical posed to him by Clinton stooge George Stephanopoulos.

They conveniently forget the role of the foreign-sourced, thoroughly debunked “Steele dossier” in their attempt to derail then-candidate Trump’s presidential campaign and in their attempted coup after he won.

The brouhaha began during an interview for ABC News.  Here is the relevant portion of the transcript:

Stephanopoulos: Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

President Trump: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, there’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, “we have information on your opponent.” Oh, I think I’d want to hear it.

Stephanopoulos: You want that kind of interference in our elections?

President Trump: It’s not an interference, they have information. I think I’d take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI. If I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research. Oh, let’s call the FBI. The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it, but you go and talk honestly to congressmen, they all do it, they always have. And that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.

Former representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) calls out Trump critics as hypocrites because they would happily accept dirt on a political opponent from a foreign source if it were filtered through the press.  He then notes that he believes the true issue is “whether or not foreign governments were involved in spying on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.”

Fox News reports:

Former Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said critics of President Trump’s opposition research comments are being hypocritical on “Outnumbered” Thursday, and claimed they’d have done the exact same thing.

. . . . “But, let’s go back again to the press. That oppo research will be taken by the press and will be run with. Okay? The reality is, in the normal course of politics, when people get dirt, they give it to the press,” he continued.

“So whether it goes through a campaign, through a lawyer or through the original source, the fact is opposition research, every politician who’s now crying he would never do this would love nothing more than the press running with it.”

Issa said the true issue is whether or not foreign governments were involved in spying on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and what the administration plans to do about it.

“I think the important thing is we’re losing track of what’s going on right now,” he said. “The attorney general is looking into whether or not foreign intelligence was asked for, paid for and weaponized against this president and the campaign.”

That does seem to be the true issue.  After all, one situation was a hypothetical question posed by a Democrat media stooge and the other . . . actually happened.

John Soloman, writing at the Hill, asks a pointed question: “Aren’t delirious Democrats now accusing Team Obama of treason?“.

Actually, what Trump told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos was that he’d consider taking intelligence dirt about a rival from a friendly ally. (Norway was the actual example he used.)

Sound familiar? That is EXACTLY what the Obama administration did in 2016. It’s something no one in the media or the political space grasped during the tsunami of breathless reaction that followed the interview.

In July 2016, the Obama administration accepted unsolicited information from Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat who just happened to have helped arrange a $25 million government donation to the Clinton Foundation years before. Downer said that he had witnessed a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, bragging about some dirt that the Russians supposedly had on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Though Downer’s claim was reported two-plus months after the alleged event, and was only hearsay gathered at a London tavern, the Obama administration gave it to the FBI which, in turn, thought it was weighty enough to justify opening a counterintelligence case against the lawfully elected Republican nominee for president.

In other words, the Democratic administration accepted dirt from a foreign friendly and used it to justify investigating its GOP rival.

And then, OMG, they did it again just a few weeks later.

. . . . For the second time in three months, the Obama administration took dirt on Trump from a foreign ally — this time, from one in Europe — and weaponized it for a criminal investigation.

. . . . And every Democrat and media pundit who accuses Trump of treason for considering taking dirt from, say, Norway in 2020 has now, by extension, accused the Obama administration of committing treason in 2016.

Personally, I wouldn’t call these instances of accepting foreign-sourced intel “treason” on Obama’s part, but then again, I’m not addled by Trump Derangement Syndrome and mindlessly latching onto anything that can vaguely be spun as a means to “get Trump.”

https://twitter.com/BuckSexton/status/1139322698713174016?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

If Trump “might” accept foreign info on his 2020 opponent and Obama actually did accept foreign info about his hand-picked successor‘s 2016 opponent—and weaponized it using the full weight of the executive branch against then-candidate Trump, who’s guilty of what?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Barr needs to expedite this inquiry. The sooner the truth comes out, the sooner a waterfall of indictments can begin. Barr needs to come right out and announce, “This shall not stand.”

    PersonofInterests in reply to bear. | June 17, 2019 at 10:22 am

    Nothing is going to happen while Deep State Operative Chris Wray is still in command of the politicized and weaponized residual assets at the “Fibbers Bureau of Insurrection.”

    Wray is in the way and has to go. His unwillingness to cooperate has already been on display and is likely protecting his Deep State Cronies and members of Team Obama, e.g., James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page.

    It was a Yuge Mistake to not have purged every top level weenie that arrived while Barack Obola soiled the White House with his presence and it’s a mistake to keep people like Wray who have demonstrated an unwillingness to do the job of outing these Russian Collusion Conspiracy that was as phony as the Ferris Mueller investigation and corrupt as the decision to appoint a Special Counsel, i.e., Rat Rod Rosenstein

    While we may hope that AG William Barr may finally be the person to deliver Justice for the American People in general and President Donald J. Trump in particular, the rate at which things are moving, given that there is already plenty of EVI DENCE, has more than a few thinking that this may be yet another effort to stonewall until the Statute of Limitations is reached or until the next Demtard Administration is elected.

    Mr. Barr should know that when officials do not perform to deliver Justice and protect We the People, then the System appears rigged and citizens are apt to do their jobs for them.

Calling Stephanopoulos a “stooge” is an affront to Larry, Moe and Curley. Steffy is just another partisan hack masquerading as a journalist, and doing a poor job of it. Like the rest of the dinosaur media.

The progs are spitting on themselves crying “TREASON” over Trump’s answer to a hypothetical. But we KNOW beyond question that the Dims actually DID this. We also know the penalty for treason is death. So who’s up first? Hillary? Comey? McCabe? Brennan? Jugears?

    oldgoat36 in reply to Paul. | June 16, 2019 at 7:17 am

    When it comes to the National Socialist Party the end always justifies the means.
    They don’t care at all that the Steele dossier was put together with lies from the Clinton Crime Family and Russian agents feeding Steele lies he could put in it, Obama’s regime used it to set our own Federal agencies against Trump, the CIA and the FBI were weaponized against a US citizen, but hey, it was against Trump so the National Socialists are OK with it.
    This foreign interference in elections happens all the time, Obama certainly did his best to unseat Bibi because he hated him. He treated him with contempt in any way he could, and the Media covered for him.
    I hope a day of reckoning is coming for the National Socialists, that not only the FBI leaders and CIA leaders who were involved in this coup attempt are indicted but also those in our government who have been working as Soros’ agents in his globalist efforts.
    Soros meddles in every election, but that is fine because he supports the National Socialists. Even though their whole party has moved to a threat against everything this country is supposed to stand for. Why isn’t he being condemned in the media… well, the propaganda machine would never go against the wishes of their masters.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Paul. | June 17, 2019 at 1:31 pm

    Paul, I recommend Obama be the first to be fitted with the new hemp neck tie for traitors.

People are wringing their hands over Trump’s hypothetical about information from foreign governments. But, let’s take a look at what his statement accomplished. It allows every Trump supporter in the US to point out that the Clinton campaign did not hypothetically accept information from foreign government sources it actually DID it, through three cut-outs [such a fortunate occurrence]. And, Steele actively shopped the dossier material to the news media, BEFORE the FBI used it in the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

So, either Trump is incredibly lucky or equally brilliant. You be the judge.

Or Mark Warner and Adam Schiff willing to accept info on Trump?

Colonel Travis | June 15, 2019 at 8:34 pm

Hypothetical – At a debate, Trump said he might not respect the results of the election and that was a THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!

Reality – Clinton, Obama and others actually did not respect the results of the election. Cherry on top – (D) party is trying to get rid of the electoral college because they can’t win using the Constitution’s rules.

Hypothetical – Trump accepting dirt by foreigners.

Reality – Multiple (D)s actually went to Russia for dirt on Trump. Clinton paid for that dirt.

The facts here are so blatant and make the (D) party look so stupid, they have to pretend like none of what happened actually happened, and must focus all attention on what didn’t happen.

Up is down.
Black is white.

It’s a @#$%! farce.

It is not a crime to talk to Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and depending on the year, other persons of other nationalities. It is not a crime to get information from them, whether or not they’re agents, military, civilians, or otherwise.

It is, however, required that if you hold a clearance that you report any such contacts- after the fact – to the appropriate security agency or to your chain of command. It’s also important to recall that some answers you give to questions are canned, and not deviated from, whether you’re talking to a Communist agent of a foreign government or a member of the U.S. press, as if there was any ideological difference between them for most of my life. Some of the canned answers I had memorized were- “Deeper than 400 feet.” “Faster than 20 knots.” “I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board a vessel of the United States Navy.”

There were a few times I had brief conversations with Soviet merchant seamen in overseas bars. I reported each one. We were also supposed to report any conversation where people pushed us for information, whether they were friendlies or not. Especially if they were good looking women, aka potential swallows. Never had any of those. Paranoia is virtually a security requirement.

If someone offers to set up a meet with you to give you information, well, different rules come into play. First- how high up are you? If you’re really low on the totem pole- you report first and ask for instructions, even if there’s time criticality. If you’re a decisionmaker, you decide if you’re going to meet. You might or not inform others beforehand, but you will make notes. And afterwards, you’ll follow standard reporting protocol.

If you’re a civilian, and don’t hold a security clearance, not a single one of these rules apply. Even if you’re part of a political campaign. They apply to me until the day I die. Saying a civilian who doesn’t hold a clearance can’t meet up with foreigners and listen to what they have to say would be blatantly unconstitutional. Even if it’s dirt on a politician. Saying that you can’t approach and pay a foreigner to dig up and supply such information, OTOH, can be made illegal. And, BTW, that’s what Hillary and her campaign did. The whole Russian collusion thing is and has been nonsense from the start.

That pic of Barry says it all.

Complete and Total Arrogant ButtHead!

How the American Electorate elected this Fool is beyond me.

Riffing on today’s Video of the Day, here’s to Dear Leader and each and every one of his Obamaratchiks.

Chain ’em away, Sam!

Chain Gang

So, apparently, our new standard is that all Presidents are not allowed to listen to anybody.

All listenings should be left up to our State Department.

Wrskrkdppl.

Wray is clearly in the enemy camp. The entire CIA is complicit. The entire State Department is complicit. We already know that Obama sent all info on who was doing what and what part of the hoax they were responsible to every agency a couple days before he left the White House. This was so they could hide, burn, coordinate information re the hoax.
Declassify. The suspects already know what their co-conspirators will say. There will be no process crimes, per se.

At War With HOA | June 16, 2019 at 2:09 am

Still basking in the glow of the 2016 election.

The thing of value that Democrats keep harping on was never meant to be speech. How does that jive with the First Amendment? Does every statement by a foreigner have to be assessed for dollar value. When they said a thing of value, what was meant was something like a watch, a painting. Something tangible.

“Little wise guy.” That is going to be the stephanopoulos legacy. A clintonista shill, who didn’t have the sense to avoid being exposed by Preident Donald J. Trump.

Not only is information not “a thing of value” in this context, neither is volunteer labor. Every campaign, Republican or Democrat, welcomes alien volunteers.

According to the FEC:

Volunteer services are not considered contributions as long as the volunteer is not paid by anyone. (If services are compensated by someone other than the committee itself, the payment is considered a contribution by that person to the committee.) A volunteer may spend unlimited money for normal living expenses.

Hosting a political event at ones home is also not considered a contribution, so long as the costs for invitations and for food and beverages served at the event are under $1000 per election ($2000 if it’s for a party rather than a candidate).

Also,

An uncompensated individual or group of individuals may engage in internet activities for the purpose of influencing a federal election without restriction. This exemption applies to individuals acting with or without the knowledge or consent of a campaign or a political party committee.

So how can giving a campaign information that is true and of interest to the voters possibly be considered a contribution?

    Milhouse: Not only is information not “a thing of value”

    Leaving aside the ethical implications, simple information is probably not considered “a thing of value”, however, a collection of information, such as an email list, a dossier, or polling data, are almost certainly “a thing of value”, as they require time and money to produce. A campaign operative talking to an individual Russian citizen is probably not illegal, but if the information provided is “a thing of value”, such as the result of a government action, whether legal or illegal, then it becomes a campaign contribution.

    Nor is it illegal for a campaign to hire a foreign entity. Otherwise, Trump couldn’t buy MAGA hats from China. But if China flooded the U.S with free MAGA hats, then it could be an illegal campaign contribution.

      Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2019 at 6:05 pm

      If one datum is not a contribution then neither can 1000 data be one.

      Actually if China were to flood the USA with free MAGA hats it would not be a contribution but an independent expenditure, and perfectly legal. The Chinese government, like every person in the world, has the freedom of speech that is inherent in human nature, and that the first amendment protects from Congressional interference. (Not being subject to US law it has no standing to challenge any infringement in a USA court, but of course not being subject to US law it also has no need to.)

        Milhouse: If one datum is not a contribution then neither can 1000 data be one.

        It’s the same reason individual grains of sand can never form a pile of sand.

        Milhouse: Actually if China were to flood the USA with free MAGA hats it would not be a contribution but an independent expenditure, and perfectly legal.

        Independent expenditures by foreign entities on campaigns is prohibited by law. See 11 CFR 110.20(f).

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | June 17, 2019 at 10:24 am

          And that purported law is bullsh*t.Congress, of course, has no jurisdiction over the Chinese government, and can’t tell it what to do or not to do. But to whatever extent it has jurisdiction on others involved in such an event, the purported law would be unconstitutional. Congress cannot take away any person in the world’s inherent right to express their opinion and to do their best to attempt to persuade and influence others.

          Milhouse: And that purported law is bullsh*t.

          You had said it was “perfectly legal”.

          Milhouse: Congress, of course, has no jurisdiction over the Chinese government, and can’t tell it what to do or not to do.

          According to that, the U.S. couldn’t indict overseas hackers {or even terrorists} employed by enemy governments. Oddly enough, the U.S. regularly indicts foreign nationals for breaking U.S. law. If they are in the U.S., then they can be tried. If they are not in a country with an extradition treaty, like all accused criminals avoiding capture, they can’t travel freely without risking arrest.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | June 17, 2019 at 3:16 pm

          It is perfectly legal. People outside US jurisdiction don’t have to care about US law, and people inside US jurisdiction are protected by the constitution which prohibits Congress from making such a law. Therefore the purported law is not a law at all.

          Milhouse: people inside US jurisdiction are protected by the constitution which prohibits Congress from making such a law.

          You make the claim, but offer no support. We pointed to the statute. Can you point to a court case ruling the statute is unconstitutional? Are you seriously contending that foreign entities can spend unlimited sums to promote candidates in U.S. elections?

I can’t find it now, but I clearly recall that in the last election senior Democrat officials (perhaps including President 0bama) openly encouraged aliens, who could not vote, to participate in other ways by volunteering for campaigns. I remember some Republicans misconstruing this as a call for them to vote, but I don’t remember anyone saying that they had no right to campaign either.

Also remember that anyone has the right to independently do whatever they like to try to influence voters. The only restrictions are on what you can do for a candidate’s official campaign. Giving it information could (but shouldn’t) be considered a contribution. But publishing the information without consulting the campaign is 100% protected speech.

They conveniently forget the role of the foreign-sourced, thoroughly debunked “Steele dossier”

That’s right. It was turned over to law enforcement, which is the appropriate response. Much of the information in the dossier was confirmed, though some of the information remains unsubstantiated.

In July 2016, the Obama administration accepted unsolicited information from Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat

That’s right. It was turned over to law enforcement, which is the appropriate response.

    gospace in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2019 at 2:01 pm

    Pretty much none of the Steele dossier has been confirmed- starting with – who were the sources? The Steele dossier exists because it was solicited by Democrats – from foreign sources. It was not “turned over” to law enforcement. It was shopped to media outlets, “leaked” to various anti-Trump politicians, and eventually made its’ way to law enforcement, and the reporting done by the media on the Steele dossier was used to verify it…. IOW, no verification.

      gospace: Pretty much none of the Steele dossier has been confirmed

      That is incorrect. Among the primary allegations of the dossier were that the Russian government was interfering in the U.S. election to damage Clinton and benefit Trump, that Russia was behind the WikiLeaks leaks of DNC emails, and that Russia was cultivating members of the Trump campaign. These have all been substantiated.

        gospace in reply to Zachriel. | June 17, 2019 at 12:53 pm

        Wrong on all three items. But hey, you’re just repeating talking points you read elsewhere and aren’t contributing anything meaningful to any conversation going on here, so from now on I’ll just ignore your comments for the trash they are.

          gospace: Wrong on all three items.

          The Mueller report established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome”; that Russian intelligence “hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)”; and that Russian agents “posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities”.

    Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2019 at 2:22 pm

    The question was, WHY was it “turned over to the FBI”?

    What happened with the Steele Dossier was that it was turned over to the FBI, then Steele, an independent contractor shopped it to the new media and then it was further leaked to the media by the FBI. And, according to Comey, the Dossier was composed of unverified, salacious material.

    The Downer “information” did not come from Downer, but from his aide, who is rumored to be an Australian Intelligence asset. And, as has become clear, the “Downer” info was nothing more than planted information designed to provide a predicate for the counter intelligence insurance policy.

    People have to keep things clear in this whole insurance policy situation. In the case of the Steele Dossier, the oppo research was initiated by a Republican Client. Steele came onboard in June, just when the Crossfire Hurricane CoI op was being launched. In September, Steele “briefed” reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo! News, The New Yorker and CNN [he was being paid by the FBI at that time]. The media stories and the dossier were used in October to secure the FISA warrant on Carter Page. Under oath in a British court case, Steele claimed that he “produced” the dossier based upon “anonymous” Russian sources between June and December 2016. Now, the interesting thing about Steele, is that he was a retired member of British intelligence. He, reportedly, gave his “intel” directly to British Intelligence and the FBI, Fusion GPS did not. He released his “dossier” to the media while working for the FBI as well as Fusion GPS.

    Here is a relatively good timeline on the Dossier. https://forerunnersofamerica.com/article/steele-dossier-timeline-just-the-facts/

    The Dossier was ALWAYS a wholly political smear campaign. Everyone who saw it agreed that it was useless for any intelligence purpose. It was crafted and given to the FBI solely for the purposes of justifying the opening of a CoI operation on Trump, the existence of which could be leaked to the media and which could be used to surveil the Trump Campaign. When the FBI was unable to gain FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign between June and October 2016, the dossier was used to justify the Title I warrant on Page.

    The dossier was never considered to be accurate or true in any regard. It was either designed to be a political smear campaign, which was later re-purposed as a predicate for spying on the Trump campaign, or part of the insurance policy from the beginning. In fact, there is no evidence that Steele gathered any of the purported intelligence from Russian sources at all. This could have come from Fusion GPS, where the Russian expert Nellie Ohr worked, and was simply routed through Steele.

      Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | June 16, 2019 at 6:09 pm

      In the case of the Steele Dossier, the oppo research was initiated by a Republican Client.

      No, it was not. A Republican had hired GPS Fusion earlier, to do oppo research on Trump; nothing wrong with that. But that was all over before Steele was hired for the Clinton campaign, and has nothing to do with it.

        Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | June 16, 2019 at 8:58 pm

        I’m sorry, but Glen Simpson admitted that Fusion GPS was doing oppo research on Trump for a Republican agent beginning in 2015. We have no idea what information Fusion had amassed. By the first of April, 2016, Trump had secured the nomination, numerically, though he would not be nominated until July 19, 2016. Fusion, then offered to continue the research on Trump on behalf of the HRC campaign. Fusion GPS subsequently did exactly that, beginning in April of 2016.

        Now, as Fusion GPS was engage in opposition research on Trump for Republicans and continued opposition research on Trump for Democrats, it is unlikely that any negative information that Fusion may have accumulated prior to being engaged by the Dems was discarded. The Trump opposition research simply continued under a different client.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | June 17, 2019 at 10:29 am

          Steele was not hired, and the whole operation of which Steele was a part, did not begin until after the previous job was over. There’s no connection between them. That Fusion reused information from the first job on the second is likely but irrelevant. They were two separate jobs.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | June 17, 2019 at 2:59 pm

          As to them being two separate jobs, this is, again, not quite accurate. What you are saying is that because the opposition research in Trump had different clients at different times, this makes them separate operations. This is wholly misleading. The opposition research on Trump, which was done for the HRC campaign and the DNC was not separate from that done for the Republican donor. It was merely a continuation of that research. It is like Northrop/McDonald-Douglas Aviation designing the YF-17 for the US Air Force. Though the Air Force did not buy it, the Navy did and continued the project to produce a fighter more in keeping with their needs. That’s right, the ORIGINAL program was CONTINUED by another client. The same applies to the Fusion GPS which continued the Trump opposition research project for the HRC Campaign.

          And, Steele did not approach Fusion FPS with his memos, Fusion sought him out and hired him to author the memos for the trump project. Steele was a close acquaintance of Nellie Ohr, Fuson’s Russia specialist. There is no evidence as to where Steele obtained info in the memos. He was unable to provide the identity of any of his alleged sources, which could be verified. So, for all we know, the info contained in the Steele Dossier could have come from Fusion GPS and Steele was hired to launder that info. In fact, it is possible that the info was wholly created in-house at Fusion and never came fro external sources at all.

    Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2019 at 6:07 pm

    It was not “turned over” to law enforcement, so they could investigate Downer, it was given to law enforcement ito act on as if it were true, for the benefit of the Clinton campaign! That’s the exact opposite of what you claim.

      Milhouse: It was not “turned over” to law enforcement, so they could investigate Downer, it was given to law enforcement ito act on as if it were true, for the benefit of the Clinton campaign!

      As much of the dossier was substantiated, including allegations that Russia was interfering the campaign to damage Clinton and help Trump, that Russia was the source of the WikiLeak leaks, and that Russia was attempting to infiltrate the Trump campaign, it was more than reasonable that U.S. conduct an investigation.

      Milhouse: It was not “turned over” to law enforcement, so they could investigate Downer

      Why would they investigate Downer? He told Australian intelligence who contacted their counterparts in the U.S. leading to the FBI conducting a counterintelligence operation. That’s how it is supposed to work.

        Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | June 17, 2019 at 10:34 am

        Downer and the Australians interfered in the election exactly like the Russians. But more effectively, because they were acting hand in glove with — and on behalf of — the 0bama administration and thus the Clinton campaign. The FBI was not a neutral party, it was actively working for Clinton, and Downer’s information was used as a weapon. All indications are that the CIA set the whole thing up in the first place, since Mafsud was working for it.

          Milhouse: Downer and the Australians interfered in the election exactly like the Russians.

          Uh, no. The Australians alerted U.S. authorities to a possible crime. The Russians committed a crime, then publicly released the information to interfere in the U.S. election.

          Milhouse: But more effectively, because they were acting hand in glove with — and on behalf of — the 0bama administration and thus the Clinton campaign. The FBI was not a neutral party, it was actively working for Clinton, and Downer’s information was used as a weapon.

          Oh gee whiz. Down the rabbit hole.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2019 at 3:22 pm

          The Australians alerted U.S. authorities to a possible crime.

          No, they did not. You are simply lying. The Australians had no information that would indicate the Russians had committed any crime. The only information they had was that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. That is not a crime.

          Further, the whole meeting between Downer and Papadopolous was set up for the purpose of hearing from him the bait that Downer already knew Mifsud had planted, so he could then report it to the administration. Downer was acting, in effect, as an agent of the Clinton campaign.

          Milhouse: The Australians had no information that would indicate the Russians had committed any crime. The only information they had was that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

          Not just “dirt”, but “thousands of emails”. That is according to Australian intelligence and a sworn statement by Papadopoulos.

Milhouse: And that purported law is bullsh*t.

You had said it was “perfectly legal”.

Milhouse: Congress, of course, has no jurisdiction over the Chinese government, and can’t tell it what to do or not to do.

According to that, the U.S. couldn’t indict overseas hackers employed by enemy governments. Oddly enough, the U.S. regularly indicts foreign nationals for breaking U.S. law. If they are in the U.S., then they can be tried. If they are not in a country with an extradition treaty, like all accused criminals avoiding capture, they can’t travel freely without risking arrest.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend