There's a very interesting report from the NY Times today. The paper reports that in 2016, the FBI sent a female agent to London to go undercover and meet with George Papadopoulos to try to gain information about the Trump campaign and its contacts, if any, with Russia. As you may recall, at one time the FBI claimed that statements made by Papadopoulos to an Australian diplomat were the basis for the FBI's commencing a counter intelligence investigation concerning Russian attempts to influence the Trump campaign. Those statements were supposedly made in London. Now we hear that there was an FBI agent in London trying to get information from Papadopoulos.
Think about that. How could the FBI have an agent in London trying to trick Papadopoulos into giving up information at the same time that Papadopoulos was just making statements that led to the start of the investigation. It would require the ability to travel through time for the FBI to know to send an agent to London before the supposed Papadopoulos statements.
This report, if true, completely undermines the credibility of the prior reporting on the commencement of the FBI investigation. So how can it be that the NY Times, one of the principal purveyors of the Russia collusion story is undermining the FBI and the previous explanation of how this mess began?
The answer is actually quite simple. It consists of just one word: Horowitz. Mr. Horowitz is the inspector general who is just about complete with his investigation regarding, among other things, the genesis of the FBI spying on the Trump campaign. That spying was just part of a coordinated effort including media outlets like the NY Times and the WaPo as well as intelligence agencies and Obama White House personnel to destroy president Trump. If Horowitz reveals all this in his soon-to-be-released report, it will make the Times look like the bunch of dishonest schemers that they actually are. In a bid to avoid that label, the Times is now publishing today's "news" which the Times hopes will disclose enough dirt on the FBI and other schemers so as to allow the Times to claim that it has always been objective and neutral in its reporting.
It isn't going to work. Anyone who has paid even the slightest attention knows that the Times is an integral part of the conspiracy. They'll have to come up with something new at the Times.
Think about that. How could the FBI have an agent in London trying to trick Papadopoulos into giving up information at the same time that Papadopoulos was just making statements that led to the start of the investigation. It would require the ability to travel through time for the FBI to know to send an agent to London before the supposed Papadopoulos statements.
This report, if true, completely undermines the credibility of the prior reporting on the commencement of the FBI investigation. So how can it be that the NY Times, one of the principal purveyors of the Russia collusion story is undermining the FBI and the previous explanation of how this mess began?
The answer is actually quite simple. It consists of just one word: Horowitz. Mr. Horowitz is the inspector general who is just about complete with his investigation regarding, among other things, the genesis of the FBI spying on the Trump campaign. That spying was just part of a coordinated effort including media outlets like the NY Times and the WaPo as well as intelligence agencies and Obama White House personnel to destroy president Trump. If Horowitz reveals all this in his soon-to-be-released report, it will make the Times look like the bunch of dishonest schemers that they actually are. In a bid to avoid that label, the Times is now publishing today's "news" which the Times hopes will disclose enough dirt on the FBI and other schemers so as to allow the Times to claim that it has always been objective and neutral in its reporting.
It isn't going to work. Anyone who has paid even the slightest attention knows that the Times is an integral part of the conspiracy. They'll have to come up with something new at the Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment