It’s kind of hard to deny the obvious at this point. Even though some pundits will try, and their fellow travelers will repeat.
What is he thinking? Is something missing from this piece?. The FBI has already admitted that it had an “informant” inside the Trump campaign. I realize they don’t admit he was a “spy”, but I think that’s a distinction without a difference.
Marco Rubio “speaking with “Face the Nation” on Sunday, said that ‘anything and everything’ he’s seen while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee indicates the FBI ‘did not spy on the campaign.’ “
Evidently, you will not accept a named source who is a Reuplican senator who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee…
For so many (and I’m not naming anyone here at CAF), it’s a cult of personality. Facts are what The Leader says they are. Truth is what The Leader says it is.
It’s no joke anymore.
While I’m mildly skeptical, I’m willing to accept that Rubio said it. I just wonder why he would say it after the FBI admitted that it had an “informant” in the Trump campaign.
It never was a joke. The “never Trumpers” invite it with their cult of anti-personality. I honestly don’t think I have ever seen any of the regular anti-Trumpers on here say so much as a single good word about him; not even Catholics affirming the appointment of Kavanaugh. It’s always negative, and not only negative. A good part of the time its bitterly derisive of Trump and those who support him.
It’s “incorrigibles” all over again, and you don’t expect anybody to react negatively to it; just take it day in and day out without saying anything in response. No, my friend. We won’t.
I’m absolutely shocked that the FBI would use the bog standard investigative technique of using an informant to gather evidence of crimes.
In the absence of a known crime, and particularly to affect a political campaign, it’s bizarre. But the whole Deep State is bizarre…and troubling.
It would be very odd in the absence of a suspected crime, but seeing as Page had been a subject of previous national security investigations and the FBI had evidence of ongoing wrongdoing it is not at all odd.
I don’t think that works even if the facts you state are true. At least in the first 100 pages of the application, it says nothing about other crimes or ongoing wrongdoing. It has the dossier information in it, at least by reference, BRennan’s unsupported statement about Russian involvement and the fact that Page had business contacts with Russian business people, two of whom the FBI suspected of being agents of the Russian government.
I wonder how many business people in the east would fit that same description. For some time, Russia was the “hot” place for business ventures. Nobody can be anything in Russia without having Putin connections, but nobody complained about that until Trump was elected. Now the Dem media pretends it’s something new when it has been going on for years. But the Dems have the whip hand, so Podesta skates for what Manafort will be tried for.
The FISA application has nothing to do with use of an informant.
Citation please. What has Podesta done that is equivalent to Manafort’s crimes?
Nor did I say it did.
The very same thing.
I guess my suspicions that it was a non sequitur were correct.
Minus the financial crimes of course.
Nor did I say Podesta is charged with everything Manafort is charged with. But he sure is charged with one crime that Manafort’s charged with, and he’s going to skate while Manafort goes to trial.
Amazing how so many Democrats have been given immunity by the Obama DOJ or Mueller (same thing, really) and not a single Republican has.
You said Podesta was going to skate for what Manafort is being tried for. Podesta is not skating for financial crimes.
How many Democrats have been given immunity and why does that number amaze you?
I have never counted them, but it would sure not be fewer than ten. To my knowledge no Repubs have been. What amazes me is that immunity has been given to a lot of Dems without the government ever getting anything for it. That goes for Hillary’s people. You ordinarily don’t give immunity for no reason.
But Podesta is still going to skate from what Manafort is beign tried for. I didn’t say Podesta is charged with everything Manafort is being charged for.
How would you know that if you haven’t counted them? Sorry, you’ll need to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously.
Right there in the first sentence of the story to which you link is a citation to “unnamed sources,” which I thought you distrusted and ignored on principle.
Or are some unnamed sources more equal than others?