What’s this new “doJ spy” tactic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And doesn’t “Perspective” mean it’s an opinion piece?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spin in this article is even worse. How anyone can make this claim, given what we know, is either naive or so partisan that she shouldn’t be writing articles. Given her background, it is likely the latter.

No bias here. Nope.

Um, doesn't he shake everyone's hand on graduation day?

Yes.

So the point of this picture is to prove that in fact she graduated from Quantico and is therefore qualified to opine on counterintelligence? Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the "operative" is a former GHWB CIA operative who is teaching in London now, and you all want to keep blaming the Democrats?

The Dems paid for the dossier.

And the Russians paid for Trump. Name one thing in the Dossier proven inaccurate. Hint: You can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bitch set me up.

RIGHT??

I was just thinking that. This is exactly the same thing. Trump is now gromming his base to believe his claim that he was set up.

It's not even a setup. All they did is talk with these guys. The informer didn't actually encourage them to do anything other than talk about what they were doing.

Can we use correct terminology, please. There is no “informant.” There is however an operative or asset known as a “counterintelligence source.” The principal purpose of a counterintelligence investigation is not to bring criminal charges, unless this becomes warranted.

[Anonymous]

Can we use correct terminology, please. There is no “informant.” There is however an operative or asset known as a “counterintelligence source.” The principal purpose of a counterintelligence investigation is not to bring criminal charges, unless this becomes warranted.

And, is it warranted to give misinformation to one of the targets? Sounds like a set-up to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can we use correct terminology, please. There is no “informant.” There is however an operative or asset known as a “counterintelligence source.” The principal purpose of a counterintelligence investigation is not to bring criminal charges, unless this becomes warranted.

And, is it warranted to give misinformation to one of the targets? Sounds like a set-up to me.

So said John Gotti’s defense lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can we use correct terminology, please. There is no “informant.” There is however an operative or asset known as a “counterintelligence source.” The principal purpose of a counterintelligence investigation is not to bring criminal charges, unless this becomes warranted.

And, is it warranted to give misinformation to one of the targets? Sounds like a set-up to me.

Not sure what you are talking about, but investigators give misinformation to suspects all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can we use correct terminology, please. There is no “informant.” There is however an operative or asset known as a “counterintelligence source.” The principal purpose of a counterintelligence investigation is not to bring criminal charges, unless this becomes warranted.

And, is it warranted to give misinformation to one of the targets? Sounds like a set-up to me.

Not sure what you are talking about, but investigators give misinformation to suspects all the time.

"Are you a cop, because if you are, you have to tell me!" LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spin in this article is even worse. How anyone can make this claim, given what we know, is either naive or so partisan that she shouldn’t be writing articles. Given her background, it is likely the latter.

No bias here. Nope.

Um, doesn't he shake everyone's hand on graduation day?

Yes.

So the point of this picture is to prove that in fact she graduated from Quantico and is therefore qualified to opine on counterintelligence? Thanks!

Perhaps you would like this photo better. Note the shirt Ms Rangappa is wearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can we use correct terminology, please. There is no “informant.” There is however an operative or asset known as a “counterintelligence source.” The principal purpose of a counterintelligence investigation is not to bring criminal charges, unless this becomes warranted.

And, is it warranted to give misinformation to one of the targets? Sounds like a set-up to me.

Not sure what you are talking about, but investigators give misinformation to suspects all the time.

Frazier v. Cupp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No bias here. Nope.

I honestly think some posters here need to go back to 7th grade and learn standards and expectations for different types of writing.

There is a difference between news reporting, an opinion piece, and an analysis, for instance. Here's an explanation I use with my students: http://thespeaker.co/difference-news-opinion-analysis/

An opinion article voices a point of view. It is completely acceptable for someone writing an opinion piece, therefore, to have an opinion. It is even acceptable for him or her to take sides (aka having "a bias") as long as their bias is stated upfront (usually they state their opinion in their opinion piece, after all)

In Asha Ragnappa's case, she was identified at the start of her opinion piece as being a former FBI agent. MANY FBI agents were supporters of Comey especially after he was fired.

It would really be good if people such as the PP could go back to school and get the education they need to take part in civic discourse. But if that isn't going to happen, members of the media might need to be more explicit in highlighting which pieces are opinion (or satire for that matter), as it appears we can no longer count on the general reading public to be able to determine that for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No bias here. Nope.

I honestly think some posters here need to go back to 7th grade and learn standards and expectations for different types of writing.

There is a difference between news reporting, an opinion piece, and an analysis, for instance. Here's an explanation I use with my students: http://thespeaker.co/difference-news-opinion-analysis/

An opinion article voices a point of view. It is completely acceptable for someone writing an opinion piece, therefore, to have an opinion. It is even acceptable for him or her to take sides (aka having "a bias") as long as their bias is stated upfront (usually they state their opinion in their opinion piece, after all)

In Asha Ragnappa's case, she was identified at the start of her opinion piece as being a former FBI agent. MANY FBI agents were supporters of Comey especially after he was fired.

It would really be good if people such as the PP could go back to school and get the education they need to take part in civic discourse. But if that isn't going to happen, members of the media might need to be more explicit in highlighting which pieces are opinion (or satire for that matter), as it appears we can no longer count on the general reading public to be able to determine that for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Okay, blah blah blah...

So now everything boils down to discrediting the Mueller investigation with outright lies.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/389570-giuliani-rails-against-mueller-probe

All these little f*cks like Giuliani are now so scared of what evidence will come out their only defense is to try and bad mouth Mueller and make up informant plant nonsense. Fox news is then happy to dole out this spygate conspiracy theory to the millions of rubes who will believe it and beg their congressman not to impeach trump, because they're so gullible or they just want their biases confirmed, even if a report is issued by Mueller detailing all his crimes. It's crazy. Let the investigation finish. Let the report come out. Stop trying to end the probe before its time. Stop trying to say that it's a democratic led probe when Mueller is Republican, Rosenstein was appointed by trump etc. YOU F*CKS who support these types of tactics are traitors. THIS SH*T UNDERMINES OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. F*CKING STOP.

[Anonymous]

Muller served with honor in the Vietnam War.

Trump and Giuliani bailed on Vietnam.

Mueller has had one wife, decades of marriage.

Trump and Giuliani have had countless wives and mistresses over the years.

I'll go with Mueller on this one, where honor is concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the "operative" is a former GHWB CIA operative who is teaching in London now, and you all want to keep blaming the Democrats?

The Dems paid for the dossier.

And the Russians paid for Trump. Name one thing in the Dossier proven inaccurate. Hint: You can’t.

The peeing hasn't been proved either way.