Posted on 05/20/2018 4:20:56 PM PDT by Kaslin
President Donald J. Trump announced via Twitter that he will officially order the Department of Justice to investigate whether or not President Obama's Department of Justice or the FBI infiltrated his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes.
This announcement comes after the New York Times and Washington Post confirmed a story first reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation's Chuck Ross that a Cambridge professor had been used by the American government to gain access into Trump's presidential campaign.
From Chuck Ross:
"A top-secret CIA and FBI source who spied on two Trump campaign advisers and initiated contact with a third was all but outed Friday night.
The New York Times and The Washington Post provided a detailed description of the source in articles published Friday night, but did not identify him by name, citing concerns about his physical safety.
But the reports match up exactly with a Cambridge University professor first described in a Daily Caller News Foundation report from March. That professor, Stefan Halper, contacted Trump advisers Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Sam Clovis during the 2016 campaign.
President Donald Trump commented Friday on the existence of an informant, who he asserted was “implanted” on the campaign “for political purposes.”
“Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,” Trump tweeted on Friday. “It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a ‘hot’ Fake News story. If true — all time biggest political scandal!”
Democrats, liberal pundits and some news outlets blasted Trump’s statement, saying there was no evidence that the FBI planted a spy inside the campaign. He was also accused of coordinating with House Republicans to expose the identity of the source, who has long provided information to the FBI and CIA. The source has also provided information for the Russia investigation both before and after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment on May 17, 2017."
As Matt said on Friday, the question now is "what did Obama know, and when did he know it?"
From Matt:
"Katie wrote about it this morning. It’s confirmed, folks. The FBI had a spy embedded with the Trump campaign. She added the bureau did not have enough evidence to launch a criminal investigation, so they executed a counterintelligence probe instead in July of 2016. The code name was “crossfire hurricane.” This was the investigation signed off by FBI agent Peter Strzok. Sztrok was a top counterintelligence agent before being transferred to human resources after his extramarital affair with bureau lawyer Lisa Page was made public and the two’s texts, which numbered in the tens of thousands, were riddled with anti-Trump and pro-Hillary sentiments. Once then-FBI Director James Comey was fired by President Trump in May of 2017, Robert Mueller took over the investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversees him.
[..]
"... the FBI and CIA are supposed to act as independent agencies, not pawns for a coordinated political effort. It hasn’t been the FBI’s best moment. The bureau’s reputation has been scarred due to the level of bias and potential tipping of the scales that occurred concerning both the Russia and Clinton investigations. But these new revelations take it to a new level—and Obama remains under the radar, though all of this happened under his administration. "
CRTV's Nick Short, and many other conservatives on Twitter, reiterated Matt's point after this announcement.
Maybe it’s time some “reporters” start asking Obama what he knew & when he knew it? After all, former FBI Director Comey briefed National Security Council Principal’s about Carter Page in “late Spring 2016.” This was a counterintelligence investigation, not criminal, Obama knew. https://t.co/plUr0ZhyAZ— Nick Short ???? (@PoliticalShort) May 20, 2018
Plus, they were bugging the White House after the inauguration. Because Russia. Which was all a fabrication to spy.
that’s repulsive
How the Trump family sold U.S. foreign policy to the highest bidder | Will Bunch
There is no evidence of that in domestic policy. Trillions in spending, endless chuck n nancy deals that fund every liberal agenda, hillary and l lynch are still raking in the dough and we have all of that spending and. No. Wall.
Lets see what action he takes on the latest school shooting, because he promised he will take action.
If Will Bunch thinks that the Obama/Iran Deal is what America had been working towards for years, then he probably would buy ocean front property in Montana!
That was the biggest bunch of B.S. that I ever wasted my time reading and keep in mind that I was forced to waste much of my childhood time reading books that SUCKED! They didn’t all suck, but many did!
Will Bunch is a far leftist who may not be entirely scrupulous with the facts.
Here’s CNN’s take on the Qatar visit:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/charles-jared-kushner-666-fifth-avenue/index.html
First, getting foreign financing is not some kind of mark of Cain. Foreigners have plenty of cash looking for a safe haven. If Jared Kushner weren’t working for Trump, his father would probably have gotten foreign financing on easier terms that it was possible to do domestically (which is why so many seek foreign financing).
Second, Qatar is actually a frenemy. On the one hand, it funds al Jazeera, whose non-Qatari agenda might be described as a weird combo of jihadism and Marxism. On the other, it hosts US bases as insurance against conquest and annexation by its Arab neighbors. Is it truly a friend, or even a reliable ally? Not really. But do we derive any benefit from keeping the country independent? Sure. We don’t need the fairly concentrated oil market from getting even more concentrated via some neighbor’s addition of a new province to their emirate/kingdom/Islamic republic.
The Qatari thing is paper-thin. I don’t think Bunch is bright enough to discern this, although he’s certainly dishonest enough to weave a convoluted skein of BS around it. Trump’s warning to Qatar was a shot across the bow. Qatar may be paying both jihadists and Iranians off. Meanwhile, we are providing security to them for free in the form of a tripwire force, so we need them to knock that off. To be frank, if we want to really reassure them, we need a formal security guarantee of the kind we’ve issued to Japan - a mutual defense pact. The hemming and hawing over the reconquest of Kuwait in 1990 (mainly by the Democrats) can’t have reassured them about Uncle Sam’s long-term commitment to their sovereignty. That’s why they’re paying danegeld to every highly-motivated and violent major player in the region.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-warned-trump-2016-russians-would-try-infiltrate-his-campaign-n830596
“Does US law allow foreign nations to legally contribute to US candidates? If so, why did the FBI warn the president and Hillary about Russia’s intentions to infiltrate their campaigns as soon as they were their parties nominees? Why did Bannon say he’d have never taken the meeting that Jared, Manafort, and Trump Jr. took?”
I’m not saying Trump’s a choir boy. I personally think he’s a bit of a jerk. But most of the stuff they’ve unearthed about him selling out to foreign powers is purely circumstantial, and related to liberals always having the megaphone so they choose what questions to ask and of whom. So Hillary gets all the softballs, and Trump gets asked why he betrayed his country and for how much money.
You’re getting into the weeds of Trump’s personal conduct and how he’s a horrible person. I agree he’s a scumbag. But my concern was that his scumbaggery would translate to him stabbing us in the back a la Arnold. Instead, he’s mostly stuck with his campaign promises.
As a voter, I far prefer Trump to Romney, McCain, Dole or both Bushes. Compared to Trump, those other men are Boy Scouts. But those Boy Scouts stuck it to us every chance they got. Whereas Trump has kept most of his promises. Whereas Bush I gave us tax increases and a liberal Supreme Court justice and Bush II tried to foist both a liberal Supreme Court justice (Harriet Miers) and amnesty on us. From a GOP voter standpoint, the problem with these other men is that they are faithful to their wives and reserve their infidelities for the people who pulled the lever for them.
That’s why, as disapproving of Trump’s personal conduct as I am, Trump has, in my view, been a far better president for Republicans than any of the last several post-Reagan GOP presidents and presidential contenders. If Trump sticks it out, we might even get a 7-member Supreme Court conservative majority. Then we might kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye.
Trump has really stabbed Steve Bannon in the back and I understand why Bannon wants to get a few licks in. I admire Bannon as much as I dislike Trump. At the same time, I think Trump is indispensable to the GOP for the next 6-1/2 years. He has swept past shibboleths and knocked down any number of totems.
George Shultz, Reagan’s SoS, used to put his newly-minted envoys through this routine:
And he’d say, “OK, Mr. Ambassador or Madame Ambassador, you’ve passed all the tests. You’ve been confirmed by the Senate and you’ve passed your security investigation. You’ve done all the things to get the position of ambassador, but you have to pass my test. I have one more for you.” And he’d take them over in the Secretary’s office to where there was this massive globe, and he’d say, “I’m going to spin the globe and I want you to put your hand on your country.”
Shultz would tell this story, and he said, “Every single one of them failed. But I let them go anyway.” Because whenever he spun the globe and he’d say, “I want you to put your hand on your country,” they’d always put their hand on the country that they were going out to. His point was your country is the United States.”
Today, our envoys don’t even pretend to represent the US any more. That needs to change. Trump is ruffling feathers, but he is doing something that is essential - reminding our allies that we will not fight their wars to the last dead American, and that we will not take their passive-aggressive unfair trade policies lying down, and our enemies that they shouldn’t count on Obama-era passivity in response to their challenges.
Besides, I don’t understand why you’re so trusting of the liberals running these stories? Do you really think liberals are worked about about Trump being too dovish? The fact is that Russia is mostly an afterthought, in security terms. And how hawkish was Obama on Russia, really? He talked a lot and did nothing in terms of sending weaponry to Ukraine. Whereas Trump is not only providing light weaponry, we are sending them Javelins. Note also that Trump approved the attack on the Russian unit in Syria that was attacking Kurdish positions near Manbij, where Russian KIA were estimated to be in the hundreds. Would Obama have okayed such an attack?
Putin has big ambitions, but he doesn’t have the conventional forces to work his will. Whereas China does. Much as Nixon went to China to wrest it out of the Soviet orbit, Trump must go to Russia to take it out of the Chinese orbit. The sanctions against Russia are counterproductive. The sanctions we should impose are against China.
The other aspect I don’t get about your animus against Trump - do you realize the liberal media hate him because he is pro-Israel and anti-Iran? Obama would never have moved the embassy to Jerusalem. And he would never have scuttled his own Iran deal/payoff. So apart from Trump’s carrot/stick approach towards Russia, what’s your beef with his policies? Is there any possibility Obama/Hillary wouldn’t have criticized and joined with the world in its criticism of Israel’s role in the 60+ Palestinian deaths from Hamas’s attempt to infiltrate Israel’s border communities?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trump+defends+clinton+1998
The thing with Trump is that he thinks he can screw our allies the way he sticks it to his friends. He’s pretty sociopathic in his personal dealings. I wouldn’t want to be his friend, and I definitely wouldn’t want to be his enemy. Having said that, a sociopathic scumbag may be what we need in the realm of foreign relations right now. For decades, we’ve been taken advantage of by allies and adversaries alike. A sociopath can set them straight.
In some ways, it’s good that Trump’s a hair breadth away from impeachment. That helps keep his liberal instincts in line. The only reason DACA’s not the law of the land? Trump fears the loss of a Congressional majority and subsequent impeachment. He keeps saying things that make me uneasy. But he’s stuck to the straight and narrow, more or less.
From a foreign policy standpoint, I feel for the Iraqi Kurds, who were abandoned by Trump and the Syrian Kurds, who are about to be abandoned. But all of our allies are starting to understand that they had better start pulling their weight. Or else. The time to take their training wheels off is now, before there’s a serious threat of war.
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.