NYT Reveals FBI Retaliated against Trump for Comey Firing

[redleghunter]

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.


The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

More at link below:

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/14...-Pm5JpJaUflel4XC5ReqYSIC8xeQT0LOyQo2qXIydHLu0

 

[Yarddog]

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.


The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

More at link below:

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/14...-Pm5JpJaUflel4XC5ReqYSIC8xeQT0LOyQo2qXIydHLu0

Another sloppy hatchet job by the Federalist.

 

[redleghunter]

Another sloppy hatchet job by the Federalist.

Comey fired FBI starts an investigation with no credible evidence. Think they have it about right.

 

[Yarddog]

Comey fired FBI starts an investigation with no credible evidence. Think they have it about right.

There was plenty of credible evidence or maybe you just weren't watching TV in those days.

 

[redleghunter]

There was plenty of credible evidence or maybe you just weren't watching TV in those days.

There was plenty of rhetoric that I remember. The FBI gives the reason that Trump's foreign policy is not to their liking. That's something third world internal security agencies do, not the FBI.

 

[Yarddog]

There was plenty of rhetoric that I remember.

Since rhetoric is the art of effective and persuavsive speaking, I agree. There was plenty of direct evidence pointing to Trump having involvement with Russia.

The FBI gives the reason that Trump's foreign policy is not to their liking.

I agree with them to the point that it may be treason.

That's something third world internal security agencies do, not the FBI.

It's the FBI's responsibility to investigate these matters.

 

[redleghunter]

Since rhetoric is the art of effective and persuavsive speaking, I agree. There was plenty of direct evidence pointing to Trump having involvement with Russia.

You mean the tainted DNC and HRC campaign paid for "Trump Dossier?" Complete garbage which has not produced any credible evidence.

It's the FBI's responsibility to investigate these matters.

Indeed but not create them.

 

[Halbhh]

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.


The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

More at link below:

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/14...-Pm5JpJaUflel4XC5ReqYSIC8xeQT0LOyQo2qXIydHLu0

I'm sorry to say that to very neutral eyes (that don't get involved in one side vs another), Trump is truly concerning as to whether he's been compromised by Russia. I'm glad it's being monitored and investigated.

Better safe than sorry.

If he has nothing to hide, then he merely gets exonerated, in that case.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm sorry to say that to very neutral eyes (that don't get involved in one side vs another), Trump is truly concerning as to whether he's been compromised by Russia. I'm glad it's being monitored and investigated.

Better safe than sorry.

If he has nothing to hide, then he merely gets exonerated, in that case.

I'm all for the FBI opening an investigation into any sitting President when there is evidence to do so. Did you see what they conjured up as reason for the investigation?

 

[Hank77]

You mean the tainted DNC and HRC campaign paid for "Trump Dossier?" Complete garbage which has not produced any credible evidence.

How do you know that it didn't contain any credible evidence? How do you know what other information they had that caused them to feel it was necessary to investigate?

 

[redleghunter]

How do you know that it didn't contain any credible evidence?

How many indictments have been produced from the Trump dossier? None.

Do you not see a problem also that our intelligence agencies, the FBI and DoJ accepted a DNC/HRC campaign paid for opposition research document to launch investigations, obtain FISA requests to spy on US citizens and even set up a special counsel?

 

[Hank77]

How many indictments have been produced from the Trump dossier? None.

Do you not see a problem also that our intelligence agencies, the FBI and DoJ accepted a DNC/HRC campaign paid for opposition research document to launch investigations, obtain FISA requests to spy on US citizens and even set up a special counsel?

Let me ask you this. If an investigative document lead the FBI/CIA to believe that Bill Clinton may have been compromised when Hillary was running for President, would you have wanted them to investigate it further, even if they needed a FISA warrant to do so? Would you have cared who paid the investigator? I can tell you right now I wouldn't have cared. I'd be more concerned about a President being in a position to be blackmailed.

 

[redleghunter]

Let me ask you this. If an investigative document lead the FBI/CIA to believe that Bill Clinton may have been compromised when Hillary was running for President, would you have wanted them to investigate it further, even if they needed a FISA warrant to do so? Would you have cared who paid the investigator? I can tell you right now I wouldn't have cared. I'd be more concerned about a President being in a position to be blackmailed.

First can you answer my question? After two years now with the Feds having the dossier how many indictments came from it?

And to answer your question, why would the FBI accept a paid for political campaign opposition research to conduct an investigation? So the answer is no.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm all for the FBI opening an investigation into any sitting President when there is evidence to do so. Did you see what they conjured up as reason for the investigation?

Reading the referenced article (already read the Federalist article):
F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I am willing to bet there was evidence. We just don’t know all of it.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

First can you answer my question? After two years now with the Feds having the dossier how many indictments came from it?

And to answer your question, why would the FBI accept a paid for political campaign opposition research to conduct an investigation? So the answer is no.

As has been discussed many many many times, the dossier did not start the investigation. There were other concerns. You and Fox News repeating this over and over does not make it true.

 

[Hank77]

First can you answer my question? After two years now with the Feds having the dossier how many indictments came from it?

Not yet....

And to answer your question, why would the FBI accept a paid for political campaign opposition research to conduct an investigation? So the answer is no.

The FBI might launch an investigation based on anything that they thought was even partially creditable, emails, traveling habits, reading material, statements made, etc. In this particular investigation they had worked with Steele before and he had provided them with credible information.

You must think that opposition research means it's tainted, therefore it can't contain truthful information?

 

[redleghunter]

As has been discussed many many many times, the dossier did not start the investigation. There were other concerns. You and Fox News repeating this over and over does not make it true.

Other concerns such as what based on what? Yet not until the dossier were there FISA requests issued.

 

[redleghunter]

Not yet....

I rest my case.

 

[redleghunter]

Not yet....

The FBI might launch an investigation based on anything that they thought was even partially creditable, emails, traveling habits, reading material, statements made, etc. In this particular investigation they had worked with Steele before and he had provided them with credible information.

You must think that opposition research means it's tainted, therefore it can't contain truthful information?

A political party and presidential candidate paid-for opposition research. The FBI did not hire Steele to investigate Trump.

I'm sorry but if this was any other candidate for President everyone would be crying foul long ago. What happened is our federal government assisted one political party over another by accepting opposition research, which is inherently used to dig up dirt for headlines, from another political party. Has Banana Republic written all over it. Nixon 6 feet deep is even blushing "why didn't I try that!"