re: A Fatal Flaw in the claim that the ("Obama") FBI was working against Trump being elected

quote:

---

—-if the Obama FBI was working so hard against Trump, why didn't they leak the FBI Russian investigation?

---

With the Hillary situation, they were conducting an investigation (or was it a “Matter?”) based on known evidence of likely crimes. With the Russia situation, the Feds were *spying* on the Trump campaign- HOPING TO FIND evidence of crimes.

Obama Admin should have leaked that they were spying on a Republican campaign?

quote:

---

You stupid fricking idiot scumbag.

---

That made me laugh.

quote:

---

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this premise is the FBI wasn't working against trump. That is a nonsensical statement. The FBI was spying on Trump but not working against him? That is your conclusion?

---

Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that they were investigating the Trump campaign if they were working against Trump? Why did the FBI leak to the NYT that they were not investigating the Trump campaign?

If they said they were investigating the Trump campaign then the question of “why” immediately comes up. Their “why” was made up and could have blown up in their face right before the election.

Trump ran as an outsider, tamper with his campaign publicly before the vote and Trump would have screamed about it all the way up to election night. This would have pushed undecideds to Trump.

They chose to hold on to the Russia investigation in case they needed it later.

quote:

---

Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that they were investigating the Trump campaign if they were working against Trump?

---

Because it was a surreptitious, clandestine, and illegal act of spying. Not an investigation. You are a moron. How many times does it have to be spelled out for you?

quote:

---

Because it was a surreptitious, clandestine, and illegal act of spying. Not an investigation. You are a moron. How many times does it have to be spelled out for you?

---

Are you impaired?

If they leak a Trump-Russia investigation, Hillary wins. If Hillary wins, guess who would be the current Director of the FBI. Comey. End of story.

Until it's determined it was leaked to damage one candidate.

The “Russian meddling” talking point was sent out to the chattering class of pundits on election night round about the time Fox News called Wisconsin for Trump. I guess they truly held it as “beak glass in case of emergency” because they were so sure HRC would win (remember the exit polls at 6PM and the online markets reaching Clinton at 94% at this time. Frank Luntz on Katie Couric’s broadcast said that “the voters have spoken and they have massively repudiated the bigotry of Donald Trump.”

I watch these videos all the time on YouTube because I’m really weird. Steve Schmidt first brought up “Russian meddling” on MSNBC when Trump was at 244 electoral votes and then the floodgates opened. Ashleigh Banfield, Lawrence O’Donnell, David Frum, Ana Navarro, James Carville, and many others then ALL mentioned “Russian meddling” the next time they were on. None of them had mentioned it a single time before despite being on multiple times and throughout the night on their respective network panels.

It’s a clear example of the CIA / FBI embeds sending out a narrative. Similar to DJT’s “dark” and “dystopian” Convention speech where every fricking network and MSM paper in the country uses those exact adjectives to describe the speech. Operation Hummingbird.

quote:

---

Why didn't the FBI leak the fact that they were investigating the Trump campaign

---

The FBI didn't leak the fact that they were investigating the Trump campaign because revelation of an investigation requires a sound suspicion and/or charge be be in place. It presumably requires such action be based on fact. The IC was in no position to meet those requirements.

Espionage is obviously quite different.

Espionage often involves planting false evidence in order to mislead. One example would be a "frame-up". In the case of a frame-up though, framing perps need to be far enough removed from the scene so as to allow full focus on their target.

In the case of a frame targeting the Trump Campaign, gaining that distancing involved planting a nidus with Papadopoulos or Page, then allowing Papadopoulos or Page to seed it like viral particles amongst the Trump Campaign, hopefully up to Trump himself, spreading and infecting as many as possible in the process.

Unfortunately for the perps, it appears the spread was overtaken by public release of the same information prior to moving up the chain significantly. That release provided an inoculation of sorts.

Regardless, in contrast to an investigation, spying or espionage requires complete secrecy. As you rightly observe, the Comey-Strozk-Brennan-Halper nexus exhibited behavior more aligned with secrecy relevant to espionage than that of an investigation. So were they conducting an investigation at all? or were they planting information, then reporting it as "originating" from framed targets under the auspices of surveillance?

As we know, their behavior was far more simpatico with the latter

Which brings us round to your OP intimations, and the infamous "investigation vs matter" proposition. We might be able to agree that according to the FBI, Clinton was not involved in an investigation either. Right? Remember the terminology? In stark contrast to Trump, Clinton committed crimes. In contrast to Trump, she actually broke the law. In contrast to Trump, her activities were publicly known outside of any investigation.

Because her actions were publicly known, including to FBI rank-and-file, Comey had to look into them. He had no choice. However, recall even then, Comey did not call the subsequent investigation an investigation at all. Instead, he referred to it as a "matter", as he was directed to.

Odd terminology. Odd direction. Odd motivation. Such differential treatment renders your OP odd as well.

quote:

---

I have a few extras.

---

Hook a brother up. First round is on me