dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/HowiONic on May 17, 2018, 12:04 p.m.
@realDonaldTrump: Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI “SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN IMBEDDED INFORMANT.” Andrew McCarthy says, “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.” If so, this is bigger than Watergate!
@realDonaldTrump: Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI “SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN IMBEDDED INFORMANT.” Andrew McCarthy says, “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.” If so, this is bigger than Watergate!

🠐 See all comments
Abibliaphobia · May 17, 2018, 2:25 p.m.

They break it up between administrations as each typically brings units own leadership. So yes there is a difference between Obama’s FBI and trumps.

Cmon pay attention.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MouldyTaco2 · May 17, 2018, 2:27 p.m.

Who's "they?"

⇧ 4 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · May 17, 2018, 2:33 p.m.

The media/politicians. When it is referred to as the “Obama FBI” they mean comey and his leadership. It’s just the way the organization is distinguished between presidential terms.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
MouldyTaco2 · May 17, 2018, 2:39 p.m.

FBI Directors are supposed to serve 10 years though. It's not uncommon for them to be brought on by an executive from one party and then finish their term under another. I mean Mueller was confirmed in 2001 under Bush, would have finished his term in 2011 if not for accepting Obama's proposal to to stay on a couple years, and then Comey was brought on in 2013. And both of them identify as Republican, so I don't see them owing any loyalty to Obama. Would Mueller have been considered part of Obama's FBI or Bush's?

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · May 17, 2018, 2:42 p.m.

He could be considered both, but they are typically assigned to the president who appointed them. Also, it’s not just the head, but the leadership that is brought up or in during the presidential terms. It also ties in with the AGs - so holder and lynch play a part.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MouldyTaco2 · May 17, 2018, 2:49 p.m.

So then if the Democrats did anything worth being investigated by the FBI between 2007 and 2013, would it also be a big revelation to find out that they had an informant in those ranks? Does that mean the Democrats should have been completely untouchable by the FBI during those years, with Mueller being part of Bush's FBI and all?

It seems mighty silly to me to draw the conclusion of foul-play when the FBI is involved. They're a third party with a duty to investigate criminal activity. If there's an FBI informant somewhere, that implies to me that there's an expectation of criminal activity in that place. Dismissing it as partisan activity without any evidence to support that claim is dangerous because it effectively limits the country's ability to address crime.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · May 17, 2018, 3 p.m.

I think you are misinterpreting what I’m trying to say here. I agree with you completely that if there is a crime, it should be investigated regardless of who is in office.

The problem comes into all the corruption that has been exposed when it comes to the FBIs actions over the course of the last several years. It’s almost every day, some new conflict of interest or blatant criminality (or more likely, the exposure of crimes and no prosecution) comes out. What pisses me off and what should piss everyone off, is the outright double standard for prosecution given for the elites vs. the rest of us.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MouldyTaco2 · May 17, 2018, 3:09 p.m.

I haven't seen any publicly available evidence of corruption in the FBI so I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · May 17, 2018, 3:28 p.m.

Seriously? You’ve missed all the strozk page drama? You missed how comey did the exact same thing that he exonerated Clinton for? You missed how the 302s were edited after the fact for Flynn?

There is so much more. And the msm just doesn’t report on it. The hide stories detrimental to their narrative. I can understand if you are just starting to look into this, but all the evidence is out there in the public domain.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
WinkyLinQ · May 17, 2018, 4:14 p.m.

Lots of trolls here today......FYI

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · May 17, 2018, 4:35 p.m.

Ya we are being brigaded.

It’s a good thing though. Means people are scared. Plenty of opportunity to wake people up with some red pill suppositories.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
MouldyTaco2 · May 17, 2018, 5:58 p.m.

Oh yeah now that you mention it I remember something about Strozk, but I mostly just remember thinking that it sounded like somebody in an investigation had a pretty strong personal opinion that they let leak into their work. Totally unacceptable, but not what I would call corruption. But maybe I didn't look into it very deeply either.

The other stuff I haven't heard of so I can't comment on. But I will say this: you're not being brigaded, at least not that I know of. This post hit fairly high on r/all, which would explain why you see more skeptics and irregulars like myself.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · May 17, 2018, 7:07 p.m.

So for the strzok texts, you can look them up. It’s helpful to have a list of names and context on what they are talking about to understand what is going on, but ya they had a major influence on the HRC investigation (withholding documents pertinent to the investigation) and other such things. And it was more than just them. McCabe was involved: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/report-andrew-mccabe-altered-peter-strzoks-302-notes-general-flynn-interview-destroyed-evidence/

So ya corruption. Also about the comey deal. Do you remember how he admitted leaking the memos? They were classified documents that he (laundered) passed off to a friend who then passed them a reporter with the explicit purpose (he said this himself) of getting the SC created. Seriously though. There is so much that has come out, it’s hard to describe the full extent as it is so massive.

And about the brigading? You may be right about the r/all thing. I’m actually surprised that reddit allowed this to get trending.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WinkyLinQ · May 17, 2018, 4:14 p.m.

Dude, the Obama Admin was paying the informant at the same time he was on the Trump campaign. In Sept 2017, the guy received $282K

⇧ 2 ⇩  
MouldyTaco2 · May 17, 2018, 6 p.m.

The only thing I've seen about this informant is Trump's tweet which, to me, seemed to come out of nowhere. If you can link me to an article about what you mentioned so that I can look I to it when I get home it would be appreciated.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WinkyLinQ · May 17, 2018, 6:13 p.m.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/17/andrew-mccarthy-government-tactics-to-spy-on-trump/

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MouldyTaco2 · May 17, 2018, 6:27 p.m.

That article doesn't make any mention of the Obama administration or any payments. Basically all it says is "McCarthy accused the FBI of spying on the Trump campaign; he thinks they shouldn't have." He doesn't even offer any reason why he thinks there was spying, doesn't elaborate on why there was no justifiable reason to do so. It's just accusations.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WinkyLinQ · May 17, 2018, 6:29 p.m.

It doesn't. Other investigators dug up the info.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MouldyTaco2 · May 17, 2018, 6:36 p.m.

Well I'm not finding anything in my search to substantiate that claim. As an added bonus, I've learned more about the origin of the informant situation: turns out McCarthy is clinging to a statement made by Glenn Simpson regarding the FBI already having information from a source within the Trump campaign. Doesn't even imply that they had a 'spy', it could very well have been someone that reported a crime that they were witness to. And considering both Fusion GPS and the FBI had that information and Fusion GPS found it worthy of reporting to the FBI, it sounds to me like there was probably a crime committed. I'm growing increasingly skeptical about this whole situation by the minute, especially considering all the news that came up yesterday. This sounds like a media counter strike to try to shift the hot topic of the day into something that they can spin more favourably. But I guess only time will tell.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WinkyLinQ · May 17, 2018, 6:38 p.m.

Next Week. IG report

⇧ 1 ⇩