The FBI was actually trying to ‘Protect Trump’

[Leo123]

They are not facts, merely opinions. If you can't handle debate, then go read a book.

They ARE facts prove they are not. Calling what you are doing as 'debate' is ridiculous...You're just trolling. Show us your proof or STFU.

 

[Slyhunter]

He uses every word to describe a spy except spy.
Asset, Informant, Confidential informant is a spy.
clapper spy - Bing video

 

[asaratis]

Give us real news sources, not Fake Alt Right Media propaganda sources, that gives us factual, objective evidence that Clapper really said that. You know he did not.

Oh just stop it Jake. Obviously any source you don't agree with is 'fake'....Juvenile argument.

Yes, your juvenile argument does not stand when confronted for a request of factual, objective evidence in place of supposition, theory, and unsupported opinion.

That is never going to change, Leo123.

He doesn't have to change much. He already has good sense.

You, on the other hand, need a complete redo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

You are wrong. They have no evidence that Clapper said anything of the sort of which they accuse him.

 

[asaratis]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

You're denying of actual quotes of Clapper and others requires the dismissal of comprehension, logic and reason. You are a liberal sock puppet, a parrot of left wing talking points regardless of the truth being presented to you.

 

[asaratis]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

Actually, he did. After using it he said he didn't like that term.

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

You are wrong. They have no evidence that Clapper said anything of the sort of which they accuse him.

He said he didn't like using that word. He preferred to use the words confidential informant. ie another word for spy. Ding!

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

You are wrong. They have no evidence that Clapper said anything of the sort of which they accuse him.

He said he didn't like using that word. He preferred to use the words confidential informant. ie another word for spy. Ding!

Others said 'he said.' You have nothing from him saying that he placed an informant in the campaign: nothing.

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

You are wrong. They have no evidence that Clapper said anything of the sort of which they accuse him.

He said he didn't like using that word. He preferred to use the words confidential informant. ie another word for spy. Ding!

Others said 'he said.' You have nothing from him saying that he placed an informant in the campaign: nothing.

He didn't say he placed an informant in the campaign. He said he had an informant in the campaign. How he got there is immaterial.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quote exactly what he said in his own words with the source cite.

 

[Leo123]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

You are wrong. They have no evidence that Clapper said anything of the sort of which they accuse him.

He said he didn't like using that word. He preferred to use the words confidential informant. ie another word for spy. Ding!

Others said 'he said.' You have nothing from him saying that he placed an informant in the campaign: nothing.

Of course not because an 'informant' is one who comes out of an undercover spy operation to 'inform' those who put them there to gather information by SPYING. You dufus. Clapper is well aware of the legal lingo. You, sadly, are ignorant.

 

[Leo123]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

FACTS Jake.....FACTS....I gave you FACTS....Look it up.....Come back with anything other than verbal regurgitation of neo-marxist talking points. Troll...

 

[Slyhunter]

Quote exactly what he said in his own words with the source cite.

I posted the clip from the video that should be good enough.

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

You are wrong. They have no evidence that Clapper said anything of the sort of which they accuse him.

He said he didn't like using that word. He preferred to use the words confidential informant. ie another word for spy. Ding!

Others said 'he said.' You have nothing from him saying that he placed an informant in the campaign: nothing.

Of course not because an 'informant' is one who comes out of an undercover spy operation to 'inform' those who put them there to gather information by SPYING. You dufus. Clapper is well aware of the legal lingo. You, sadly, are ignorant.

ok, the view, and a liberal source trying to dispute what he said.

CLAPPER: "No, they were not. They were spying on, a term I don't particularly like, but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage or influence which is what they do."
BEHAR: "Well, why doesn't [Trump] like that? He should be happy."
CLAPPER: "He should be."
Seems pretty straightforward, right? Clapper makes crystal clear that the FBI was not spying on the Trump campaign. And he also makes clear that while he doesn't like the word "spying" -- because we are talking about the use of a confidential source -- that, to the extent there was any information gathering happening in conversations between the FBI's informant and members of the Trump campaign, it was entirely designed to shed light on Russian meddling efforts related to the 2016 election.

James Clapper did NOT say what Donald Trump keeps saying he said - CNNPolitics
ok, so he admits they were spying on the Russians. However, with an informant in the Trump campaign. Not an informant in the Hillary campaign, or an informant in with the Russians, but an informant in the Trump campaign. Thus, he was spying on the campaign. Simple logic.

 

[abrere]

that lying pos. If he said that the sun rises in the east, I'd look west FIRST to see the sunrise in the morning.

 

[asaratis]

I don't have to disprove anything when factual, objective evidence is not given, which is the case in the situations of asaritis and Leo123

Dude the only factual thing about your argument is that he didn't use the word "spy".

You are wrong. They have no evidence that Clapper said anything of the sort of which they accuse him.

He said he didn't like using that word. He preferred to use the words confidential informant. ie another word for spy. Ding!

Others said 'he said.' You have nothing from him saying that he placed an informant in the campaign: nothing.

Of course not because an 'informant' is one who comes out of an undercover spy operation to 'inform' those who put them there to gather information by SPYING. You dufus. Clapper is well aware of the legal lingo. You, sadly, are ignorant.

No. He is stupid.

 

[asaratis]

Quote exactly what he said in his own words with the source cite.

I posted the clip from the video that should be good enough.

He won't be satisfied with anything less than a quote of Clapper saying, The FBI spied on the Trump campaign."

He has already said that the FBI spied on the Russians from within the Trump campaign.

Why didn't they utilize spying from within the Clinton campaign also if their only interest was the Russians?

Answer:Their interest was in what Trump's campaign was doing....not the Russians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, so now the above admits that Clapper did not say they planted anyone in the campaign, despite the lies, etc., around their comments.

And only those defending people and orgs suspected of acting criminality would call a lawful surveillance "spying". I am sure that is how Capone et al thought of lawful surveillance.