F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016

[apdst]

That's definitely spying. Straight up.

The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?

The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation.

F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016 - The New York Times

 

[daeler]

That's definitely spying. Straight up.

So if the F.B.I sends an undercover agent in to try to gather information from say a Drug cartel they are spying and not doing an investigation?

 

[apdst]

So if the F.B.I sends an undercover agent in to try to gather information from say a Drug cartel they are spying and not doing an investigation?

Is illegally selling drugs a crime? Will the FBI be able to present reasonable grounds for the surveillance? Yes, or no.

 

[jimbo]

So if the F.B.I sends an undercover agent in to try to gather information from say a Drug cartel they are spying and not doing an investigation?

Like the Russians, the FBI has no business interfering in our elections.

 

[americanwoman]

Is illegally selling drugs a crime? Will the FBI be able to present reasonable grounds for the surveillance? Yes, or no.

Papadopoulos was indicted. It's not unreasonable to conclude the FBI had reasonable grounds at that time for surveillane. Yes or no?

 

[Slyfox696]

Papadopoulos was indicted. It's not unreasonable to conclude the FBI had reasonable grounds at that time for surveillane. Yes or no?

Yeah, I guess I'm not seeing why this is news. In the middle of an ongoing investigation, the FBI did investigating.

Not only was Papadopoulos indicted, he put himself on the radar by blabbing about Russian hacked materials to a diplomat.

 

[Mycroft]

Papadopoulos was indicted. It's not unreasonable to conclude the FBI had reasonable grounds at that time for surveillane. Yes or no?

LOL!!

Do you know what he was indicted for?

(hint: it wasn't for anything to do with Russia)

 

[Slyfox696]

LOL!!

Do you know what he was indicted for?

(hint: it wasn't for anything to do with Russia)

He was indicted for lying about his contacts with Russians (both receiving information that Russia hacked the DNC and trying to set up a meeting between Putin and Trump, with his supervisor encouraging him) as part of the Trump campaign.

How do you figure that has nothing to do with Russia?

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, I guess I'm not seeing why this is news. In the middle of an ongoing investigation, the FBI did investigating.

Not only was Papadopoulos indicted, he put himself on the radar by blabbing about Russian hacked materials to a diplomat.

The problem, though, is that there wasn't an investigation going on at the time.

And no...he didn't blab anything about "Russian hacked materials to a diplomat".

 

[Slyfox696]

The problem, though, is that there wasn't an investigation going on at the time.

In September 2016, there was most definitely an investigation going on at the time. The FBI launched their counterintelligence investigation in July.

You are posting a lie.

And no...he didn't blab anything about "Russian hacked materials to a diplomat".

Uh, yes he did.

Why are you posting such obvious lies?

 

[americanwoman]

LOL!!

Do you know what he was indicted for?

(hint: it wasn't for anything to do with Russia)

Since that has already been answered (thanks slyfox) I'll just move on.

Maybe the FBI was trying to gather information if he was criminally stupid. Remember you want those deemed criminally stupid to be jailed.

 

[Mycroft]

He was indicted for lying about his contacts with Russians (both receiving information that Russia hacked the DNC and trying to set up a meeting between Putin and Trump, with his supervisor encouraging him) as part of the Trump campaign.

How do you figure that has nothing to do with Russia?

sigh...

You should really read the indictment before you spout off with spun half-truths. Here, this will help: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

 

[Mycroft]

Since that has already been answered (thanks slyfox) I'll just move on.

Maybe the FBI was trying to gather information if he was criminally stupid. Remember you want those deemed criminally stupid to be jailed.

Slyfox is wrong.

Perhaps you should take a step back from moving on and get yourself up to speed.

In any case, Papadoupolus was naive and stupid, but not criminally so. As you can see from the OP's article, he was a victim.

 

[Lutherf]

Papadopoulos was indicted. It's not unreasonable to conclude the FBI had reasonable grounds at that time for surveillane. Yes or no?

First, Papadopolous took a plea on a charge of lying to the FBI.

Second, we have the Mueller report out now so anyone interested in seeing what role Papadopolous played in this "Russia Collusion" hoax.

Third, Mueller dedicated more than 13 pages of his report to Papadopolous and STILL didn't charge the guy with conspiracy. Interestingly enough, Mueller doesn't mention the FBI investigation into Papadopolous in any of those 13+ pages.

 

[Barnacle]

Papadopoulos was indicted. It's not unreasonable to conclude the FBI had reasonable grounds at that time for surveillane. Yes or no?

Papadopoulos was not indicted because of the surveillance finding something ... he was indicted because he "lied" to the FBI and got exactly 12 days of prison. :lol:

 

[PLizzy]

First, Papadopolous took a plea on a charge of lying to the FBI.

Second, we have the Mueller report out now so anyone interested in seeing what role Papadopolous played in this "Russia Collusion" hoax.

Third, Mueller dedicated more than 13 pages of his report to Papadopolous and STILL didn't charge the guy with conspiracy. Interestingly enough, Mueller doesn't mention the FBI investigation into Papadopolous in any of those 13+ pages.

Regardless, the FBI ha a duty to find out what the nature of Papadoplous's contacts with Russian operatives were, and they broke no laws in doing so.

There is no evidence it was politically motivated, nor that they conspired to prevent Trump from becoming president; especially in light of the fact that the FBI kept the investigation confidential, when there were constant policy breaches during the Clinton probe.

The greatest "hoax" is this deep state conspiracy.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That's definitely spying. Straight up.

Totally called for. Straight up.

 

[apdst]

Papadopoulos was indicted. It's not unreasonable to conclude the FBI had reasonable grounds at that time for surveillane[sic]. Yes or no?

You didn't really just post that! :lamo

 

[daeler]

Is illegally selling drugs a crime? Will the FBI be able to present reasonable grounds for the surveillance? Yes, or no.

As to the first question I would think that was obvious, yes it is a crime, as to the second question I would assume they would but I would be foolish to answer with a definitive without further knowledge.

But seriously if the F.B.I. is doing an investigation into something they consider a crime that is not spying. Doesn't matter who they do it too. If they were listening in on conversations and handing that information over to say the Democrats for no other reason than to build a case that would be spying.

 

[Grand Mal]

That's definitely spying. Straight up.

According to Barr, 'spying' isn't a perjorative.

 

[apdst]

Regardless, the FBI ha a duty to find out what the nature of Papadoplous's contacts with Russian operatives were, and they broke no laws in doing so.

There is no evidence it was politically motivated, nor that they conspired to prevent Trump from becoming president; especially in light of the fact that the FBI kept the investigation confidential, when there were constant policy breaches during the Clinton probe.

The greatest "hoax" is this deep state conspiracy.

The FBI should have interviewed Popadopolous. Not sent someone to spy on the campaign.

 

[apdst]

According to Barr, 'spying' isn't a perjorative.

And?....

 

[apdst]

As to the first question I would think that was obvious, yes it is a crime, as to the second question I would assume they would but I would be foolish to answer with a definitive without further knowledge.

But seriously if the F.B.I. is doing an investigation into something they consider a crime that is not spying. Doesn't matter who they do it too. If they were listening in on conversations and handing that information over to say the Democrats for no other reason than to build a case that would be spying.

Collusion isn't a crime.

 

[apdst]

Since that has already been answered (thanks slyfox) I'll just move on.

Maybe the FBI was trying to gather information if he was criminally stupid. Remember you want those deemed criminally stupid to be jailed.

Or, maybe the FBI was trying to gather information to be secretted to the Clinton campaign.

 

[daeler]

Collusion isn't a crime.

Who said anything about collusion? **** for all you know they were worried he was going to be passing classified information and were just investigating that. You said they were spying, I am just pointing out that your word usage is wrong.