Posted on 12/30/2017 8:20:51 PM PST by mojito
Immediately following confirmation by Senator Lindsey Graham about the origin of the 2016 FBI Counterintelligence Operation against candidate Donald Trump, The New York Times, via Clinton’s favorite voice Maggie Haberman, pushes out an article attempting to cloud, obfuscate and justify the joint FBI and DOJ surveillance operation against Trump.
The timing, content and presentation of the disinformation is transparent in the intended motive. More and more people are recognizing the FBI application to the FISA court was based on political information, the Steele Dossier, assembled by political operatives and used by political operatives within the DOJ National Security Division and FBI Counterintelligence Division.
As such, now the people at risk within the FBI and DOJ attempt to shift the focus away from the political document known as the “Steele Dossier” and toward the useful distraction of a short-term volunteer Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos.
This approach, originated by the current sense within the intelligence community, indicates all dossier scrutiny is directly over the target; and the leadership knows the risk. This is why the upper-tier management of the FBI and DOJ have refused prior questions about the Dossier’s use. The DOJ/FBI officials know the outline of how the dossier was assembled implicates them in a verifiable conspiracy.
As to the substance of the NYT justification it is absurd on its face.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Can’t you hear me knockin’ on your window
Can’t you hear me knockin’ on your door
Can’t you hear me knockin’ down your dirty street, yeah
Can’t you hear me knockin’, ahh, are you safe asleep?
Can’t you hear me knockin’, yeah, down the gas light street, now
An internet guy can go where his questions lead him.
I just don't know what to do with everybody else.
They vote!
Don’t miss this one.
It’s quite the web.
The deep state will have to do something about the internet.
----------------------
Agreed. Doubt this drunken exchange with a foreign national in a bar would have triggered the investigation for a number of reasons.
1) Why wait six months after starting the investigation before interviewing little ol' Popadopolos if he was such a central part of the investigation?
2) Why would there be such a focus on Carter Page right out of the gate since he wasn't any part of the bar banter? Carter Page was a minor advisor for a short time but was covered extensively in the Dirty Dossier and was clearly a target of the investigation early on. The only way you generate interest in Carter Page is through the alleged deal making cited in the Dirty Dossier.
3) I'm still inclined to believe that Simpson and his wife created the framework of the DD in their own office based on ten year old research they had published together back when. She said as much in a published statement not so long ago when she said Simpson wasn't given enough "credit" for the Dirty Dossier. They dressed it up with a little current news (like Carter Page giving the speech) and some salacious lies that were cut from whole cloth to add a little spice. They then handed it off to Steele to flesh out some of the Russian names and any other rumors he could come up with through his paid informants and present it to his DOJ contacts which he had cultivated earlier. I've read somewhere that the writing styles on some the later memos are noticeably different than the early memos which would support the fact that it is a combined effort marketed to Steele's contacts as his own work.
I have wondered if Page was pumped up as a red herring. These things tend to take on a life of their own - especially over long periods of time. It almost becomes like the old game of telephone.
Thanks for posting that.
Possible I suppose but they went at him awfully heavy if they were just creating a ploy for other things? To be honest I don't give them that much credit. Their work is most often done with a heavy hammer rather than a scalpel? The predawn raid on Manefort's home with gun's drawn is more the FBI and Rosenstein's style: blunt and with overwhelming force.
The last point I neglected to include above:
4) If this boy scout Aussie was the underlying source which triggered the investigation, WHY IN HEAVEN"S NAME wasn't this put out a long time ago? There is nothing bad which will come of exposing his name and his revelations to the Congressional investigators so why would they demure, back peddle and refuse to comment so intensely about it? It makes no sense for them to be hiding these facts if indeed there is any truth to the matter. Indeed, it might be supporting facts in the FISA request and it might have been something they added later when it became known to them and the original request was turned down. But it makes no sense that this was the only smoking gun presented to the FISA Court. Doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion.
4) - excellent question. Someday we know the answer.
Although physics clearly shows that ALL objects fall at the same rate, you can't help but think that the extra mass in Hillary's @$$ will give her enough momentum to put her out of her misery quickly.
That's it, it's NOT the acceleration, it's the momentum that does the job, at least in Hillary's hanging scenario. For Hussein's (and Rosenstein's) hanging, they will have to tie a concrete block to their ankles.
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.