BMX Bandit said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Prefers the more accurate informant terminology?

---

It completely misrepresents what Gowdy's position is.

Gowdy takes issue with the use of the word "spy." Thats not uncommon for an attorney.

He has not disputed at all the FBI had someone in the campaign doing what has been alleged.

---

My issue with Gowdy is that he always reminds everyone he's a former prosecutor. Well, as Levin pointed out, Gowdy doesn't even seem to realize this was a counter intel investigation and not a criminal one.

He doesn't seem to grasp what is going on. I understand the reservations of playing Trump's media games, but he isn't even being truthful about what happened.

On top of all this, he didn't even see the documents that were requested and he hasn't seen the subpoena. So, he doesn't even know that he hasn't seen all the documents.

Whether on purpose or not, he is being used as a tool of the media/establishment/left.

Levin is wrong about that. Gowdy specifically said on Fox this was not a criminal investigation, but counter intelligence

BMX Bandit said:

---

Levin is wrong about that. Gowdy specifically said on Fox this was not a criminal investigation, but counter intelligence

---

Ok. But, Levin's point was, that is why Gowdy doesn't like the word "spy"

It is not used in a criminal investigation, what Gowdy has experience with.

So, by playing with semantics, Gowdy is being used as a tool to bash Trump with.

I understand Gowdy has no interest in playing media games(so he claims, while also being on TV or being the star of any hearing he attends) but, this is half the battle. Court of public opinion. He can ignore that fact if he wants, but it is not helping in the real world.

he doesn't like the word "spy" because hes a lawyer that sticks with specific definitions of things. Being careful with his words isn't playing semantics.

The Trump side is losing this battle in part because they insist using the word "spy" is some magic formula.

the facts are the FBI had someone in the campaign secretly gathering information on Trump. Whether you want to call that a spy, informant, or giraffe doesn't really change that. But the semantics of insisting on he be called a "spy" is giving MSM cover.

by the way, I completely understand the frustration you would have with Gowdy. but he can't change the way he processes information and responds in a manner in which precise definitions matter any more than Trump can change popping off on twitter. Its who they are.

BMX Bandit said:

---

the facts are the FBI had someone in the campaign secretly gathering information on Trump. Whether you want to call that a spy, informant, or giraffe doesn't really change that. But the semantics of insisting on he be called a "spy" is giving MSM cover.

---

The MSM can create cover no matter what Trump says. Gowdy should be pushing back and explaining that in reality, there isn't much different than a spy, informant, or giraffe. Just like you said.

Instead, all he said was, "The FBI did exactly what any American would want"

THAT is how you give media cover.

Just like Trump's wires were not tapped

BMX Bandit said:

---

by the way, I completely understand the frustration you would have with Gowdy. but he can't change the way he processes information and responds in a manner in which precise definitions matter any more than Trump can change popping off on twitter. Its who they are.

---

Totally agreed. I understand his want/need to be precise. But, sometimes he needs to realize he is not just a lawyer. He is the guy that is completely giving the MSM and left cover to call Trump a crackpot.

that's now a different topic.

If Gowdy believes the FBI did nothing wrong, do you think he should just remain quiet?

BMX Bandit said:

---

that's now a different topic.

If Gowdy believes the FBI did nothing wrong, do you think he should just remain quiet?

---

Well, no. But, the issue now seems to be that he didn't even see the documents he would need to see to make that claim.

And what makes it worse is he didn't even see the subpoena. So, he doesn't even know whether or not he's seen the documents. But, he's still out there just blasting away about how Trump is making **** up.

BMX Bandit said:

---

that's now a different topic.

If Gowdy believes the FBI did nothing wrong, do you think he should just remain quiet?

---

No, he should be screaming for the damn subpoenaed documents and not some BS "briefing" on what they contain.

Don't ever forget...Gowdy graduated from baylor.

Go to about the 9 minute mark. Gowdy is playing with words. He's doing the, "not answering the question he is asked, but answering the question he wished he had been asked".

He was asked if there was a spy.

His reply:

"That's not a term I've ever used in the criminal justice system. Undercover informant. Those are all words I am familiar with. I've never heard the term spy used."

He also says, "based on what I have seen".

I think the biggest issue with Gowdy is he is speaking lawyer/courtroom speech. However, most of the country doesn't speak or understand this. Hence we have been utilizing our TexAgs lawyers for the past however many months dissecting these and explaining them to us.

Trump understands that the everyday person knows what a spy is. The semantics of a spy versus a confidential informant versus whatever other name the msm pulls out next is just white noise to the real issue. He was spied on through electronics and now people.

Let the semantics work itself out in the courtroom.

Line Ate Member said:

---

I think the biggest issue with Gowdy is he is speaking lawyer/courtroom speech. However, most of the country doesn't speak or understand this. Hence we have been utilizing our TexAgs lawyers for the past however many months dissecting these and explaining them to us.

Trump understands that the everyday person knows what a spy is. The semantics of a spy versus a confidential informant versus whatever other name the msm pulls out next is just white noise to the real issue. He was spied on through electronics and now people.

Let the semantics work itself out in the courtroom.

---

That is what this is. It is a microcosm of the entire Trump takeover of the GOP.

Trump knows that 90% of the battle is court of public opinion. So, he attacks in a way that most of the country will understand.

Some may call his attacks dishonest, exaggerated, or outright lies. But, he is playing the game that he knows must be played and won. Just as he hammers on the culture wars, he hammers on this type of thing.

70% of the GOP still hasn't figured this out. They still shy away from the culture war and media attacks/strategies like this one.

If the media explained the "informant/spy" situation without using either word, most of the country's response would be, "Oh, so like a spy?"

My biggest disappointment with Gowdy is his tendency to get bogged down in the weeds. Works well in a court room when you are examining a witness, drilling down to the core. Not so much in a 3-4 minute sound bite.

He's also a law and order guy that respects the American judicial system and the FBI's role in it. The combination of the two leads to tunnel vision at very inopportune times.

This is one of those times.

Quote:

---

He's also a law and order guy that respects the American judicial system and the FBI's role in it. The combination of the two leads to tunnel vision at very inopportune times.

---

This is probably the biggest part of it. I am sure he believes, "The FBI and US law enforcement should never be attacked."

Well, sometimes they deserve to be attacked.

Spying(or w/e the F he wants to call it) on a presidential campaign is one of those times.

All these semantics over spy or informant or mole, or WTF ever it's the violation of 12333 sec 2.9 violation is the key to a lot of grief

I'm betting there is a balloon payment coming at the end



https://www.justice.gov/file/1067341/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

That is crazy. "In person meetings are better for us."

I'd love to see all the *******s hang.

I think Mueller is simply biding his time to see which way the OIG report goes for certain, and public sentiment

It's not a normal "wire". It's just an "transmitting microphone".

This is typical FBI practice when interacting with the public.

Just think of it like........ "OnStar".

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

I think Mueller is simply biding his time to see which way the OIG report goes for certain, and public sentiment

---

Exactly, I think Horowitz has played his cards so close to his vest that Mueller is at a put up or shut up point and real evidense isn't readily available and manufacturing something would be the death penalty for his career and possibly a little infringement on his freedom if he's caught. He knows Weismann well enough to know he can't be trusted when it comes to legit investigations, Weismann has left Mueller holding the bag in the past. But when you're in the drivers seat and the deck is stacked in your favor Weismann is who he'd want to take down a target. But they are on their heels on almost every case they are pursuing now, even their plea cases are rocky.

Nosmo said:

---

It's not a normal "wire". It's just an "transmitting microphone".

This is typical FBI practice when interacting with the public.

---

With Stingray technology it's not only a wire it's a real time GPS they can track without a warrant. Stingrays does not require a probable cause warrant, because they claim Stingrays are a kind of pen register tap, which do not require a warrant. I believe that's covered in Smith v Maryland, but that only covers data logging, I think that if they are to introduce conversations into court as evidense they are going to have to have a standard probable cause title 3 in hand, or at least back date one to say they did.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Nosmo said:

---

It's not a normal "wire". It's just an "transmitting microphone".

This is typical FBI practice when interacting with the public.

---

With Stingray technology it's not only a wire it's a real time GPS they can track without a warrant. Stingrays does not require a probable cause warrant, because they claim Stingrays are a kind of pen register tap, which do not require a warrant. I believe that's covered in Smith v Maryland, but that only covers data logging, I think that if they are to introduce conversations into court as evidense they are going to have to have a standard probable cause title 3 in hand, or at least back date one to say they did.

---

They never intended to make a criminal case, still don't. Hence admissibility was never a concern on any level.

In the immortal words of Didi Snavely:

Gaaaaaawwwwdddd damnit!

fasthorses05 said:

---

Once again, a tangent.

I saw a video of Trump on the tarmac at Ellington in Houston today. If I were Trump, I just would have stalled a about 30 minutes while some, if not all, of the press stood out in the heat.

Yes, I'm a petty SOB, but the amount of inaccurate, outright malicious and ignorant reporting sucks, so they deserve to be melted into the concrete on the tarmac.

---

You are a devious and insidious individual. Many props.