FBI Mole Spied on Trump Campaign?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
15,238
29,477
743
On the highway to heck
#1
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...bi-place-mole-inside-2016-trump-campaign.html

This is likely what has stalled the release of documents (and unreasonable redactions) by the FBI. This looks dirty to the core and the WSJ's Kim Strassel is all over it. Any American who isn't outraged by this (if true) is an idiot. After protesting that the dossier was the only source of the investigation, it appears there may be much more involved. Strassel has a good idea who it is but hasn't named them....yet.

Kimberley Strassel: Did the FBI place a mole inside the 2016 Trump campaign?

By Kimberley A. Strassel| The Wall Street Journal

Strassel: FBI used human intel to spy on Trump campaign
Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel urges the FBI to 'come clean' on surveillance of the Trump campaign, noting 'the American people need to see this.'
The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.
Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.
We’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible.​
House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”
This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.
Keep reading Kimberley Strassel's column in the Wall Street Journal.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,126
268
1,713
#2
And now, an article on the matter from someone who isn't already convinced the FBI is a criminal cabal. See if you notice the difference between the Fox News article and actual journalism. You know, like how they represent the views of both sides, how they don't add in their own incredibly biased commentary, how they don't title the article "Did the FBI place a mole within the Trump campaign?" without giving any evidence the FBI placed a mole in the Trump campaign...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3ac227b773c
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
15,238
29,477
743
On the highway to heck
#3
And now, an article on the matter from someone who isn't already convinced the FBI is a criminal cabal. See if you notice the difference between the Fox News article and actual journalism. You know, like how they represent the views of both sides, how they don't add in their own incredibly biased commentary, how they don't title the article "Did the FBI place a mole within the Trump campaign?" without giving any evidence the FBI placed a mole in the Trump campaign...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3ac227b773c
Lol! The wapo is actual journalism? Riiiight. Have another glass of Kool-Aid lefty. Fox was just the first source I pulled from. Multiple agencies reported Stassel's article. It's the WSJ's article not Fox's.

Better get over to MSNBC and Maddow to get the truth. :lol:
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,126
268
1,713
#4

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
15,238
29,477
743
On the highway to heck
#6
I'll respond to myself for you:

bleedinorange says: "Lol! The Pulitzer is an actual journalism award? Riiiiight. Have another glass of Pulitzer Kool-Aid you Pulitzer-loving lefty."

There, I saved you the time.
The article is from the WSJ genius. They know a thing or two about Pulitzer prizes. But please, enjoy your source for information and I'll do the same.

The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal is a U.S. business-focused, English-language international daily newspaper based in New York City. The Journal, along with its Asian and European editions, is published six days a week by Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corp. The newspaper is published in the broadsheet format and online.
The Wall Street Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States by circulation. According to News Corp, in their June 2017 10-K Filing with the SEC, the Journal had a circulation of about 2.277 million copies (including nearly 1,270,000 digital subscriptions) as of June 2017,[2] compared with USA Today's 1.7 million.
The newspaper has won 40 Pulitzer Prizes through 2017
 
Last edited:

Cowboy2U

Federal Marshal
Mar 31, 2008
10,967
1,632
1,743
#8
Lol! The wapo is actual journalism? Riiiight. Have another glass of Kool-Aid lefty. Fox was just the first source I pulled from. Multiple agencies reported Stassel's article. It's the WSJ's article not Fox's.

Better get over to MSNBC and Maddow to get the truth. :lol:
Maddow...what a patriot hater, laughable :lol::lol::lol:
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,126
268
1,713
#9
The article is from the WSJ genius. They know a thing or two about Pulitzer prizes. But please, enjoy your source for information and I'll do the same.

The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal is a U.S. business-focused, English-language international daily newspaper based in New York City. The Journal, along with its Asian and European editions, is published six days a week by Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corp. The newspaper is published in the broadsheet format and online.
The Wall Street Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States by circulation. According to News Corp, in their June 2017 10-K Filing with the SEC, the Journal had a circulation of about 2.277 million copies (including nearly 1,270,000 digital subscriptions) as of June 2017,[2] compared with USA Today's 1.7 million.
The newspaper has won 40 Pulitzer Prizes through 2017
Oh wait, but up above you said the Washington Post wasn't actual journalism and provided the very mature and scientific response of "Lol! The wapo is actual journalism? Riiiight." as your evidence it's not actual journalism. I then responded with a link to the number of awards WaPo has won, to which you responded with the number of awards the WSJ has won. Your measurement here for the evidence of the WSJ's journalistic integrity is that they've won 40 Pulitzer prizes. Well, the Post has won 47 Pulitzer prizes. So do you still contend that WaPo is not actual journalism and the WSJ is, even though by your last statement you seem to acknowledge that Pulitzers are a valid way of measuring a publication's journalistic integrity (you know, as it's one of the most prestigious awards in the industry)? And WaPo has inarguably won more Pulitzers than the WSJ. You'll have to forgive me for asking for the clarification on your stance, your argument seems to jump around a lot and it can be difficult having a logical discussion with someone who doesn't maintain consist viewpoints.

For the record, my viewpoint is that the WSJ and WaPo are both two of the best sources of journalism we have. And WaPo's 47 Pulitzers do nothing to diminish the WSJ's 40 Pulitzers in my eyes. You know, kind of like how more than one person can be really good at basketball in the NBA? More than one media outlet can be really good at journalism.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,667
17,926
1,743
#12
What’s a bigger threat to our country and freedoms?

Russia posting ads on Facebook in support of a American political candidate?

Or.....


The FBI, DOJ, Political Party, sitting President, and a presidential campaign conspiring to undermine an American election for President?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
64,347
47,192
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#13
And now, an article on the matter from someone who isn't already convinced the FBI is a criminal cabal. See if you notice the difference between the Fox News article and actual journalism. You know, like how they represent the views of both sides, how they don't add in their own incredibly biased commentary, how they don't title the article "Did the FBI place a mole within the Trump campaign?" without giving any evidence the FBI placed a mole in the Trump campaign...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3ac227b773c
The article by Strassel isn't a news article, it is an editorial, and it wasn't on Fox News, it was in the WSJ. You really should learn the difference, but it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't know it.

Again, you attack the source without addressing the substance, ad hominem.
 

Cowboy2U

Federal Marshal
Mar 31, 2008
10,967
1,632
1,743
#14
The article by Strassel isn't a news article, it is an editorial, and it wasn't on Fox News, it was in the WSJ. You really should learn the difference, but it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't know it.

Again, you attack the source without addressing the substance, ad hominem.
Chaaaaaaaaaaaaa ching...money again. Huck probably sees the FBI/DOJ foot dragging on docs as just "bad filing". :facepalm:
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,126
268
1,713
#18
The article by Strassel isn't a news article, it is an editorial, and it wasn't on Fox News, it was in the WSJ. You really should learn the difference, but it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't know it.

Again, you attack the source without addressing the substance, ad hominem.
Two of the links within his post went to Fox News. One went to a WSJ editorial behind a paywall. It was late on a Friday, so apologies if I overlooked the tiny little "opinion" label they placed on it. If you'll read through my responses you'll notice I talked about why the Fox News article was so terrible and also stated that the WSJ was some of the best journalism we have (even if what I could read of the article shared here was pretty junk)- not just attacking the source.

bleedinorange, however, simply responds "lol wapo" and yet here we are, with you coming to his aid and suggesting I'm the one simply attacking sources. It's also interesting that the one time I shared an opinion article on this site, I was derided for sharing an opinion article. Yet when someone you perceive to be on your side shares an opinion article, you come to their defense. Pretty good example of this board's tribalism right there.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,594
9,448
243
51
Bixby-Bristow OK
#19
Two of the links within his post went to Fox News. One went to a WSJ editorial behind a paywall. It was late on a Friday, so apologies if I overlooked the tiny little "opinion" label they placed on it. If you'll read through my responses you'll notice I talked about why the Fox News article was so terrible and also stated that the WSJ was some of the best journalism we have (even if what I could read of the article shared here was pretty junk)- not just attacking the source.

bleedinorange, however, simply responds "lol wapo" and yet here we are, with you coming to his aid and suggesting I'm the one simply attacking sources. It's also interesting that the one time I shared an opinion article on this site, I was derided for sharing an opinion article. Yet when someone you perceive to be on your side shares an opinion article, you come to their defense. Pretty good example of this board's tribalism right there.
If WaPo hadn't published so much nonsense in the past year that reinforces their TDR it would be hard not to take them seriously. They have had a bad time since the election. It's going to take time for them to restore their reputation on political news with conservatives.

They are in better shape than CNN with conservatives, I'll give them that.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,126
268
1,713
#20
If WaPo hadn't published so much nonsense in the past year that reinforces their TDR it would be hard not to take them seriously. They have had a bad time since the election. It's going to take time for them to restore their reputation on political news with conservatives.

They are in better shape than CNN with conservatives, I'll give them that.
Yeah, I see plenty of trash headlines from WaPo. I think it's kind of just the sad state of media right now. You have to wade through/ignore a lot of junk articles with almost every publication and just try to pay attention to their more quality stuff. And then try to get a good mix from both sides, which, incidentally is part of the reason I enjoy this board.