Reply With Quote
Yes.
Durham also said yes.
hahahaha!
what about
a us citizen calls on a foreign enemy- in this case russia- and akss them publicly to attack the email server of another us citizen and 5 hours later- this actually happens
id start a FULL investigation after this One event
hahahahhaahahaha!
Yes.
Durham also said yes.
Investigation. It's in their name.
It's about time for your ignore shtick and personal attacks -- at least until you "locate" your "whistleblowers."
noooooooo he said it should have been a preliminary investigation not a full investigation
Trump campaign manager owed MILLIONS to a russian oligarch and then offered to run a presidential campaign for…
FREE!
this would be enough for me to open a FULL FBI INVESTIGATION!
….
russian spy chick is coincidentally caught at a trump event - being CHOSEN to ask trump a direct question- and she COINCIDENTALLY asks trump about his views about russia and the relationship he would try to have if he were elected president…
trump CONVENIENTLY answers that russia is a FRIEND to the usa….
that would get a reasonable person to open an FBI INVESTIGATION
Comrade TSA wants you to know that if a murder was committed
the killer was found and convicted of the murder
but the killer had a friend who led a govt agency….and this friend of the killer ordered another friend to
investigate the investigators
in the end - even tho the killer murdered this person IN PUBLIC AND EVERYONE SAW IT
well
after this “investigate the investigators” investigation concluded with the opinion that the killer should not have been investigated because - reasons
then you should forget the facts and be angry at the investigation was ever opened!
3. The opening of Crossfire Hurricane
The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane as a full counterintelligence investigation "to
determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of
and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. " 203 The starting point for the
Office's inquiry was to examine what information was known or available to the FBI about any
such ties as of July 31, 2016, prior to opening Crossfire Hurricane. That question then divided
itself into two related questions: (i) what was the information that predicated the opening of the
investigation and (ii) did that information support such an investigation being opened not as an
"assessment" or "preliminary" investigation, but from the start as a "full" investigation. In
exploring these questions, we determined the following:
a. The information used to predicate Crossfire Hurricane
In March 2016, the Trump campaign identified George Papadopoulos as a foreign policy
advisor. 204 Papadopoulos had previously worked as an energy consultant, with a particular focus
on projects in the Eastern Mediterranean. 205 At the time of his appointment, Papadopoulos was
employed in the United Kingdom at the London Center oflntemational Law Practice. 206 Among
Papadopoulos's acquaintances in London was a diplomat from another country ("Foreign
Government-I Diplomat-I"). Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I was familiar with an
Australian diplomat ("Australian Diplomat-l").207 On May 6, 2016, by prearrangement, Foreign
Government-I Diplomat-I introduced Papadopoulos to Australian Diplomat-I. 208 On May I 0,
2016, Papadopoulos and Australian Diplomat- I met again, and this time they were joined by Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer.209 Both meetings were over drinks in
public settings. 210
The Australian diplomats were interested in meeting with Papadopoulos because of
his role in the Trump campaign, and much of the conversation centered on the upcoming
U.S. election.211 Over two months later, on July 26, 2016, Australia provided the U.S.
Embassy in London certain information its diplomats had memorialized at or around the
time of the meetings with Papadopoulos. The next day, the State Department passed this
information on to the FBI's Legal Attache assigned to the Embassy in London ("UK Legat
l ")_212
"Paragraph Five" was the name given to the raw information provided by the
Australian government and included in a May 16, 2016 cable that do ented the
diplomats' encounters with Papadopoulos. 213 Paragraph Five is an abstract from the cable
and was quoted verbatim in the Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC, stating in its entirety that:
Mr[.] Papadopoulos was, unsurprisingly, confident that Mr[.] Trump could
win the election. He commented that the Clintons had "a lot of baggage" and
suggested the Trump team had plenty of material to use in its campaign. He
also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from
Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of
information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton
(and President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were
referring to material acquirnd publicly of [sic] through other means. It was
also unclear how Mr[.] Trump's team reacted to the offer. We note the Trump Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer.209 Both meetings were over drinks in
public settings.
210
The Australian diplomats were interested in meeting with Papadopoulos because of
his role in the Trump campaign, and much of the conversation centered on the upcoming
U.S. election.211 Over two months later, on July 26, 2016, Australia provided the U.S.
Embassy in London certain information its diplomats had memorialized at or around the
time of the meetings with Papadopoulos. The next day, the State Department passed this
information on to the FBI's Legal Attache assigned to the Embassy in London ("UK Legat
l ")_
212
"Paragraph Five" was the name given to the raw information provided by the
Australian government and included in a May 16, 2016 cable that do ented the
diplomats' encounters with Papadopoulos. 213 Paragraph Five is an abstract from the cable
and was quoted verbatim in the Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC, stating in its entirety that:
Mr[.] Papadopoulos was, unsurprisingly, confident that Mr[.] Trump could
win the election. He commented that the Clintons had "a lot of baggage" and
suggested the Trump team had plenty of material to use in its campaign. He
also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from
Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of
information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton
(and President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were
referring to material acquirnd publicly of [sic] through other means. It was
also unclear how Mr[.] Trump's team reacted to the offer. We note the Trump team's reaction could, in the end, have little bearing of [sic] what Russia
decides to do, with or without Mr[.] Trump's cooperation.
214
The Australian account reflects that two meetings of a casual nature took place with
Papadopoulos.215 These meetings were do ented by Downer on May 11, 2016 and by
Australian Diplomat- I later in the month. 216 Both diplomats advised that prior to the Spring
of 2016, Papadopoulos was unknown to them. 217 Notably, the information in Paragraph
Five does not include any mention of the hacking of the DNC, the Russians being in
possession of emails, or the public release of any emails. In addition, when interviewed by
the Office, Downer stated that he would have characterized the statements made by
Papadopoulos differently than Australian Diplomat- I did in Paragraph 5. According to
Downer, Papadopoulos made no mention of Clinton emails, dirt or any specific approach by
the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of
providing assistance. Rather, Downer's recollection was that Papadopoulos simply stated
"the Russians have information" and that was all.
218
As recounted to the FBI on August 2, 2016, by Australian Diplomat-I, the substance
of Paragraph Five was written in a "purposely vague" way. 219 This was done because
Papadopoulos left a number of things unexplained and "did not say he had direct contact with the Russians." 220 The impression Papadopoulos made on the Australian diplomats was
wide ranging. On the one hand, he "had an inflated sense of self," was "insecure," and was
"trying to impress."221 On the other hand, he was "a nice guy," was "not negative," and
"did not name drop."
222 Downer noted that he
was impressed Papadopoulos acknowledged his lack of expertise and felt the
response was uncommon for someone of Papadopoulos' age, political
experience and for someone thrust into the spotlight overnight. Many people
in a similar position would represent themselves differently and [Downer]
would have sniffed them out. If [Downer] believed Papadopoulos was a fraud
[he] would not have recorded and reported on the meeting [he] had with
Papadopoulos.
223
Downer also said that he "did not get the sense Papadopoulos was the middle-man to
coordinate with the Russians."224
The Australian diplomats would later inform the FBI, and subsequently the Office, that
the impetus for passing the Paragraph Five information in late-July was the public release by
WikiLeaks (on July 22, 2016) of email communications that had been hacked from the DNC
servers.225 As far as the Office's investigation was able to determine, Papadopoulos's
comments <li<l not undergo any additional analysis or scrutiny by Australian intelligence
officials.
b. The lack of intelligence information supoorting the oremise of Crossfire Hurricane
As an initial matter, there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to
closely examine the Paragraph Five information. The Paragraph Five information, however,
was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals
associated with the ongoing Trump campaign. 226 Significantly, the FBI opened a full
investigation before any preliminary discussions or interviews ,vere undertaken with either
the Australian diplomats or Papadopoulos. Further, the Opening EC does not describe any
collaboration or joint assessments of the information with either friendly foreign intelligence
services or other U.S. intelligence agencies. In effect, within three days of its receipt of the
Paragraph Five reporting, the FBI determined, 227 without further analysis, that the Australian information was an adequate basis for the opening of a full investigation into
whether individuals associated with an ongoing presidential campaign were "witting of
and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia."
\228
In his interview with the Office, Executive Assistant Director for National Security
Michael Steinbach commented on the sufficiency of the information in the Opening EC,
stating that it was "poorly written."229 Steinbach added that the EC should not be read to
suggest that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign, but only those potential
subjects within the campaign whose activities justified inquiry. 230 Steinbach was also
questioned separately by the OIG on the amount of information that should normally be
included in an EC opening a counterintelligence case. He stated that it should be a logical
summary sufficient to justify the opening. Steinbach told the OI G, by way of an example,
"It's, hey look, I have Mike Steinbach on this date met with a Russian who we know is
associated with this intelligence organization. And, lay that out, and open a PI (preliminary
investigation). "
231
Although not referenced in the Opening EC, FBI officials have later pointed to the
importance of the Australian information when viewed in conjunction with Russia's likely
connections to the Wiki Leaks disclosures and its efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S.
elections. 232 In addition, Trump had also stated in a recently televised campaign speech,
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,"233 a widely reported statement that appears to have referred to emails stored on the personal
server that Clinton used while Secretary of State. 234
The evidence the Office reviewed shows that there were internal discussions with
FBI Headquarters executives, including the Deputy Director, about the decision to open
Crossfire Hurricane. The executives were unanimous in supporting the opening of the
investigation and there is no indication that these discussions contemplated anything short of
an immediate full investigation, such as an assessment or preliminary investigation, into the
meaning, credibility, and underpinnings of the statements attributed to Papadopoulos. 235
The personnel involved in the decision to open a full investigation have stated that they
acted within the FBI 's governing principles as set forth in the AGG-Dom and DIOG that
required an authorized purpose and an "articulable factual basis for the investigation that
reasonably indicates" that an activity cons uting a federal crime or a national security
threat "may be" occurring. But notably the DJOG also explicitly cautions FBI employees to
avoid reputational risk to those being investigated by, among other things, specifying
different standards for opening an assessment, a preliminary investigation, and a full
investigation, with a corresponding continuum of permissible investigative activities. That
measured approach does not appear to have been followed with respect to Crossfire
Hurricane. Instead, as described above, on a Sunday and just three days after receiving the
tmanalyzed information from Australia, Strzok authored and approved the Crossfire Hurricane
opening EC. 236 Thus, a full counterintelligence investigation into a SIM 237 was triggered, at the
height of a political campaign, before any dialogue with Australia or the Intelligence
Community, and prior to any critical analysis of the information itself or the potential for the risk of error or disinformation, issues that appropriately are addressed during assessments or
preliminary investigations.
The information from Papadopoulos was, in the words of one FBI executive, "a
tipping point."238 When interviewed by the OIG, FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson stated that it would have been a dereliction of duty had the FBI not opened
Crossfire Hurricane. 239 For his part, FBI General Counsel James Baker told the 010 that
"[t]he opening of an investigation ... [a]nd doing it quickly is a good thing for oversight
because it forces the ins ution of the FBI and eventually the Department of Justice ... to
have appropriate management controls over what's going on."240 In this regard, the OIG
Review found that in early August 2016, after the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, NSD
officials "were briefed on at least two occasions" about the investigation. 241
FBI officials have acknowledged that they were aware that the information
concerning Papadopoulos did not come from Australia's intelligence services, but rather
from Australian diplomats who were previously unknown to the FBI personnel handling the
Paragraph Five information. 242
In various interviews, several FBI officials have opined that
the FBI was justified in opening Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation because, in part,
the information was given to the FBI from a trusted partner and therefore was deemed
reliable. 243 Although this sentiment is understandable, the FBI's well-placed trust in a
foreign partner should not equate to confidence in the shared information itself. Australia
could not and did not make any representation about the credibility of the information.
Although the Counterintelligence Division did eventually seek information about
Papadopoulos, 244 the Office found no indications from witness testimony, electronic
communications, emails, calendar entries, or other do entation that, at the time, the FBI
gave any consideration to the actual trustworthiness of the information the diplomats received from Papadopoulos - an individual whom they described as, among other things,
"insecure" and "trying to impress" them. 245
The information from Papadopoulos was clearly raw and unevaluated. It was not the
product of normal Intelligence Community collection and analysis, and it lacked the
standard caveats accompanying uncorroborated information from an individual whose
information was being seen for the first time. The information - involving an ongoing
presidential campaign - was precisely the kind of unevaluated information that required
rigorous analysis in order to assess its relevance and value.246 Nevertheless, the FBI
predicated Crossfire Hurricane and its subsequent investigative activities, including the use
of CHSs, undercover operations and FISA coverage, on the statements attributed to
Papadopoulos.
Thus, at the time of opening Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had (i) publicly available
information concerning Papadopoulos's role in the campaign as a volunteer foreign policy
adviser, (ii) information obtained from Papadopoulos by the Australian diplomats, (iii)
information about Russia's likely election interference activities, (iv) Trump's public
statements about Russia, and (v) unvetted media reporting on possible ties between Trump
and Russian businessmen.247 Significantly, beyond this, the FBI's Counterintelligence
Division and its Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not possess any intelligence or other
vetted, corroborated information regarding Trump or his campaign staff colluding with the
Russian government. 248 The FBI OGC Unit Chief who advised on many Crossfire Hurricane
matters and approved the case being opened as a SIM, ("FBI OGC Unit Chief-1") noted that she
lacked "knowledge of alleged ... ties between the Trump campaign and Russia prior to the (Crossfire Hurricane] investigation being formally opened."249 The FBI Inspection Division
Report describes similar statements by others. As noted in that FBI internal review, "[t]his total
lack of intelligence did not appear to have been considered significant [ ]" 250 when opening a full
investigation on persons associated with an active presidential campaign.
As the record now reflects, at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI did
not possess any intelligence showing that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was in
contact with Russian intelligence officers at any point during the campaign.251 Moreover, the
now more complete record of facts relevant to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane is illuminating.
Indeed, at the time Crossfire Hurricane was opened, the FBI (albeit not the Crossfire Hurricane
investigators) was in possession of some of the Steele Reports. However, even if the Crossfire
Hurricane investigators were in possession of the Steele Reports earlier, they would not have
been aware of the fact that the Russians were cognizant of Steele's election-related reporting.
The SSC! Russia Report notes that"[ s ]ensitive reporting from June 2017 indicated that a [person
affiliated] to Russian Oligarch I was [possibly aware] of Steele's election investigation as of
early July 20 l 6." 252 Indeed, "an early June 2017 USIC report indicated that two persons
affiliated with [Russian Intelligence Services] were aware of Steele's election investigation in
early July 2016."253 Put more pointedly, Russian intelligence knew of Steele's election
investigation for the Clinton campaign by no later than early July 2016. Thus, as discussed in
Section IV.D. l .a.3, Steele's sources may have been compromised by the Russians at a time prior
to the creation of the Steele Reports and throughout the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
TSA cycles into the "walls of text" stage of grief.
Turns out members of the Trump campaign were in contact with several Russian agents. Investigation justified.
"implied takedown" is the best TSAism since "unlawful exoneration"
noooooooo he said it should have been a preliminary investigation not a full investigation
c. Preliminary investigation
The factual predicate required to open a preliminary investigation is "information or an
allegation" that a federal crime or threat to the national security "may be" occurring. Authorized
investigative methods include undercover operations, trash covers, consensual monitoring, pen
registers, national security letters, and polygraphs. The FBI may also conduct physical searches
and use monitoring devices that do not require judicial authorization. A preliminary
investigation is to last a relatively short time and lead either to closure or a full investigation.75
d. Full investigation
The standard for opening a full investigation is "an articulable factual basis for the
investigation that reasonably indicates that ... [a]n activity cons uting a federal crime or a
threat to the national security ... is or may be occurring ... and the investigation may obtain
information relating to the activity.''76 The DIOG gives as examples of sufficient predication to
open a fuil investigation:
• "[C]orroborated information from an intelligence agency" stating "that an individual is a
member of a terrorist group."
• "(A]n analyst discovers on a blog a threat to a specific home builder and additional
information connecting the blogger to a known terrorist group." 77
The FBI may use "all lawful methods" in a full investigation, including court-authorized
electronic surveillance and physical searches. 78
ChaTSAbot more likely.
I mean it would've led to a full investigation because of Manafort alone. What are we arguing here?
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-17-2023 at 03:17 PM.
bUt ThE iNvEsTiGaTiOn wAs PrOpErLy pReDiCaTeD crowd in full blown denial. What a bunch of spineless cucks you all are, at least have the courage to say you are happy the FBI tried to take out Trump and handicapped his entire presidency with a baseless investigation. If you can't admit that then there is no point in discussing anything further with people as dishonest as yourselves.
Comrade TSA
always a traitor
now he is mad!
”how dare you actually investigate mother russia and the chosen russian asset!”
hahahahahaha! Priceless!
Trump's presidency was going fine RE: re-election until he decided to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans because he needed to own some libs for your sake.
It wasn't handicapped -- he simply didn't do anything but pass tax cuts for himself and people richer than you. It's all he really wanted to do. I don't think you have admitted that to yourself after pushing the 5-D chess narrative for seven years.
bUt NaRy a PeEp FoR hIm
October 2016
“WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”
“Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate. Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.
At least one part of the investigation has involved Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman for much of the year. Mr. Manafort, a veteran Republican political strategist, has had extensive business ties in Russia and other former Soviet states, especially Ukraine, where he served as an adviser to that country’s ousted president, Viktor F. Yanukovych.
But the focus in that case was on Mr. Manafort’s ties with a kleptocratic government in Ukraine — and whether he had declared the income in the United States — and not necessarily on any Russian influence over Mr. Trump’s campaign, one official said.
In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia’s biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin.
F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.”
“Mr. Reid, in a letter to Mr. Comey in August, asserted that Mr. Trump’s campaign “has employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to the Russia and the Kremlin.” Although Mr. Reid cited no evidence and offered no names explicitly, he clearly referred to one of Mr. Trump’s earlier campaign advisers, Carter Page.
Mr. Page, a former Merrill Lynch banker who founded an investment company in New York, Global Energy Capital, drew attention during the summer for a speech in which he criticized the United States and other Western nations for a “hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union.
Mr. Page responded with his own letter to Mr. Comey, denying wrongdoing and calling Mr. Reid’s accusations “a witch hunt.” In an interview, he said that he had never been contacted by the F.B.I. and that the accusations were baseless and purely partisan because of his policy views on Russia. “These people really seem to be grasping at straws,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/u...ald-trump.html
The FBI was leaking about their investigations and Steele accusations they knew weren’t true to a complicit press before the election.
Anything else you’d like me to debunk or have you had your pushed in enough for the day?
TLDR
The FBI OGC Unit Chief who advised on many Crossfire Hurricane
matters and approved the case being opened as a SIM, ("FBI OGC Unit Chief-1") noted that she
lacked "knowledge of alleged ... ties between the Trump campaign and Russia prior to the (Crossfire Hurricane] investigation being formally opened." The FBI Inspection Division Report describes similar statements by others. As noted in that FBI internal review, "[t]his total lack of intelligence did not appear to have been considered significant [ ]" when opening a full
investigation on persons associated with an active presidential campaign.
As the record now reflects, at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI did
not possess any intelligence showing that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was in
contact with Russian intelligence officers at any point during the campaign.
Lol this meltdown
Why did you say October when it clearly says 11/01?
October 2016
“WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”
“Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate. Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.
At least one part of the investigation has involved Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman for much of the year. Mr. Manafort, a veteran Republican political strategist, has had extensive business ties in Russia and other former Soviet states, especially Ukraine, where he served as an adviser to that country’s ousted president, Viktor F. Yanukovych.
But the focus in that case was on Mr. Manafort’s ties with a kleptocratic government in Ukraine — and whether he had declared the income in the United States — and not necessarily on any Russian influence over Mr. Trump’s campaign, one official said.
In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia’s biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin.
F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.”
“Mr. Reid, in a letter to Mr. Comey in August, asserted that Mr. Trump’s campaign “has employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to the Russia and the Kremlin.” Although Mr. Reid cited no evidence and offered no names explicitly, he clearly referred to one of Mr. Trump’s earlier campaign advisers, Carter Page.
Mr. Page, a former Merrill Lynch banker who founded an investment company in New York, Global Energy Capital, drew attention during the summer for a speech in which he criticized the United States and other Western nations for a “hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union.
Mr. Page responded with his own letter to Mr. Comey, denying wrongdoing and calling Mr. Reid’s accusations “a witch hunt.” In an interview, he said that he had never been contacted by the F.B.I. and that the accusations were baseless and purely partisan because of his policy views on Russia. “These people really seem to be grasping at straws,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/u...ald-trump.html
The FBI was leaking about their investigations and Steele accusations they knew weren’t true to a complicit press before the election.
Anything else you’d like me to debunk or have you had your pushed in enough for the day?
Also, this is not an FBI announcement.
Do you want your pushed in more?
the article says october. the url might just be from when the story was updated
but yeah, my comment was about the FBI airing hillary's laundry including making announcements right before the election while saying nothing about trump all the while. this article doesnt contradict that at all
If there was nary a peep from the FBI about multiple investigations into Trump we would not have known about them pre-election.
And lol @ pathetic ChumpDumper still begging for attention.
Chump I put you on ignore for something you lied about concerning the Russia investigation when you were still using your Pavlov account. With Durham releasing his final report everything concerning the Russia investigation is complete. With that said I’m taking your pathetic groveling ass off of ignore.
If there was nary a peep from the FBI about multiple investigations into Trump we would not have known about them pre-election.
And lol @ pathetic ChumpDumper still begging for attention.
Chump I put you on ignore for something you lied about concerning the Russia investigation when you were still using your Pavlov account. With Durham releasing his final report everything concerning the Russia investigation is complete. With that said I’m taking your pathetic groveling ass off of ignore.
You mean the same federal law enforcement agency that Durham himself recommended to have no policy changes?
And that was a pretty ty attack if he could get no convictions...
It doesn't.
Have you admitted yet this Durham investigation was a failure of epic proportions?
Hahahahaha!
comrade TSA melts down…time to add
“wrong about durham, wrong about pizzagate, wrong about the sacramento kings, wrong about every ing thing and wrong about defending russia 24/7”
to his account…
bwahahahahahahahaha!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
