• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at Breitbart, InfoWars news sites

ReverendHellh0und said:
I accept your concession, get back to me when you have actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Now you're lying about what I said?? Really??? Get back with me when you can be honest.
 
jmotivator said:
Oh, but you HAVE implied a conclusion because you can't conceive of a scenario where the Russians can be investigated without directly investigating Trump and his campaign staff. Your underlying assumptions are clouding your judgement of what Comey said.
Click to expand...

Are you a lawyer by chance? You're twisting words like a pretty good one, that's for sure. I"m sure "the Russians" can be investigated without investigating Trump. What I can't conceive of is a scenario in which the FBI can investigate "whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts" and not investigate members of the Trump campaign, who they met with, when, who they talked to, if they were paid by anyone, who, how much, when, any emails or text messages, etc.

Of course they can. They can do it the same way they gathered incidental communications on Trump staff members.

Example: It is suspected that Person A, a known criminal, if plotting a bank heist. There is sufficient evidence to get a warrant to collect phone conversations, emails and surveillance of Person As home. It is also suspected that Person B, a store owner in his neighborhood, is also involved, because Person B has done business with Person A in the past, but a request for a warrant on Person B is rejected because there is not sufficient evidence on that suspect to grant a warrant so an investigation into Person B is never launched. In conducting surveillance on Person A the police find no communications between Person A and Person B to indicate that Person B is involved in plotting the bank robbery with Person A. In this case Person B is cleared without ever being the subject of an active investigation.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced you're in PR for the WH and practicing your lines on us because no one but a paid advocate distorts the facts like this to make a point.

What you're ignoring is the FBI just told us they were, in this example, investigating whether B conspired with A on the crime. And you insist they can figure whether B conspired with A but never investigate B! In other words, to figure out whether B was involved, what they will NOT do is follow B's movements, talk to B's associates, check his alibi for the crime, at least investigate if he's made any significant purchases, like a new car, a diamond ring for the wife. No, they aren't going to look at B at all! :shock: :lamo

BTW, if they cannot get a wiretap approved, that does not in fact exhaust their options. There are many things they can do other than listen in on phone calls or check emails. We know this because cops solve crimes every day without FISA warrants and wiretaps. Really!!
 
Verax said:
More evidence of Russian tampering in our elections. It is proven beyond any doubt they assisted Donald Trump every chance they could. The only question that remains, did the Trump administration have any kind of active role in this? I'm very curious if the FBI or CIA have SIGINT with Trump or his associates making any kind of incriminating statements.
Click to expand...

Lol @ your definition of evidence. I have evidence that we didn't land on the moon because I just pulled that theory out of my ass, just now.
 
Removable Mind said:
Donald Madoff Ponzi Trump pulled off the greatest exploitation of all time against people who felt powerless and disenfranchised because of a number of generations of 535 elected and appointed members who controls our government sold their allegiance to the highest contributors to their election collection plates.
Click to expand...

Huh? Trump ran one of the cheapest campaigns for a while.
 
Moot said:
Now you're lying about what I said?? Really??? Get back with me when you can be honest.
Click to expand...



Don't announce a flounce if you are not going to keep your word.


I'll be here when you get some actual evidence.
 
Fishking said:
Huh? Trump ran one of the cheapest campaigns for a while.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know much about Trump's life. My comments weren't at all related to Trump's contributions. I was speaking more to his overall character, his integrity, his lack of honesty.

Our government's elected members no longer believe that they have an obligation to give their allegiance to the citizens.
 
Removable Mind said:
Apparently you don't know much about Trump's life. My comments weren't at all related to Trump's contributions. I was speaking more to his overall character, his integrity, his lack of honesty.

Our government's elected members no longer believe that they have an obligation to give their allegiance to the citizens.
Click to expand...

Well, I was commenting on your apparent assertion that the electors were bought off. Not whatever else you want to bring up.
 
Fishking said:
Well, I was commenting on your apparent assertion that the electors were bought off. Not whatever else you want to bring up.
Click to expand...

Uhmmmmmmmm...

Originally Posted by Removable Mind

Donald Madoff Ponzi Trump pulled off the greatest exploitation of all time against people who felt powerless and disenfranchised because of a number of generations of 535 elected and appointed members who controls our government sold their allegiance to the highest contributors to their election collection plates.
Click to expand...

Point out the word "electors" in the above....
 
Jetboogieman said:
Never figured you for the blame America first crowd rev.
Click to expand...



Blame america? not at all. but if using tax payer money to influence elections, spying on allies, etc. It would be unamerican of me to support such nonsense. My point is, if you don't want other countries to "influence" our elections (apparently with newsbots, wow. . . .) you shouldn't be trying to meddle in the affairs of another countries election.


Obama, and his administration was never my "america" anyway. *shrug*
 
JasperL said:
Are you a lawyer by chance? You're twisting words like a pretty good one, that's for sure. I"m sure "the Russians" can be investigated without investigating Trump. What I can't conceive of is a scenario in which the FBI can investigate "whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts" and not investigate members of the Trump campaign, who they met with, when, who they talked to, if they were paid by anyone, who, how much, when, any emails or text messages, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, you could sure try. Your lack of an argument on this is noted.

I'm convinced you're in PR for the WH and practicing your lines on us because no one but a paid advocate distorts the facts like this to make a point.
Click to expand...

You convince yourself of a lot of things that aren't true so this is not really shocking.

What you're ignoring is the FBI just told us they were, in this example, investigating whether B conspired with A on the crime. And you insist they can figure whether B conspired with A but never investigate B! In other words, to figure out whether B was involved, what they will NOT do is follow B's movements, talk to B's associates, check his alibi for the crime, at least investigate if he's made any significant purchases, like a new car, a diamond ring for the wife. No, they aren't going to look at B at all! :shock: :lamo
Click to expand...

No, no they didn't.

BTW, if they cannot get a wiretap approved, that does not in fact exhaust their options. There are many things they can do other than listen in on phone calls or check emails. We know this because cops solve crimes every day without FISA warrants and wiretaps. Really!!
Click to expand...

My own example doesn't limit to wiretaps so why do you feel the need to make this point?
 
jmotivator said:
Well, you could sure try. Your lack of an argument on this is noted.
Click to expand...

I made an argument - you quoted it and ignored it. Maybe you can address it the second time?

"I"m sure "the Russians" can be investigated without investigating Trump. What I can't conceive of is a scenario in which the FBI can investigate "whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts" and not investigate members of the Trump campaign, who they met with, when, who they talked to, if they were paid by anyone, who, how much, when, any emails or text messages, etc."

No, no they didn't.
Click to expand...

Let's quote Comey again:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating, the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.
Click to expand...

It's there in black and white - FBI investigating if the Trump campaign was a co-conspirator. You keep insisting words mean something other than the clear and obvious meaning.

My own example doesn't limit to wiretaps so why do you feel the need to make this point?
Click to expand...

What you said was this: "It is also suspected that Person B, a store owner in his neighborhood, is also involved, because Person B has done business with Person A in the past, but a request for a warrant on Person B is rejected because there is not sufficient evidence on that suspect to grant a warrant so an investigation into Person B is never launched. In conducting surveillance on Person A the police find no communications between Person A and Person B to indicate that Person B is involved in plotting the bank robbery with Person A. In this case Person B is cleared without ever being the subject of an active investigation. "

How are we supposed to read that?

1) Warrant on B denied, SO
2) An investigation of B is never launched.

So in your example, the denied warrant DID exhaust their options because after it was denied they decided to do NO other investigation of B. Of course only an incompetent investigator who suspects B would limit his investigation to A - what kind of moron would consider that a thorough "investigation?"

To believe that the FBI is investigating "whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts" and doesn't turn its attention, i.e. investigate, the Trump campaign is just stupid. With that strategy they'd have to identify ALL (100%) of the Russians who might have been involved in the election tampering efforts, directly or indirectly, their associates who they might use as cutouts, the bank accounts of all those people, phone calls, emails, texts, meetings, movements, etc..... to see if any of that list of likely hundreds, maybe thousands, had contact with members of the Trump campaign.

OR - they could look at e.g. Manafort and who he contacted, his movements, meetings, if necessary phone calls and wire transfers and use 1/1,000th the efforts AND be a lot more confident about their conclusion.

You insist the FBI is a bunch of morons, and demand we assume that as well. :roll:
 
JasperL said:
1) Warrant on B denied, SO
2) An investigation of B is never launched.
Click to expand...

Before we get into the rest of your post, please explain to me how the investigation into Person B would continue?

Pro-Tip: Most of what you are believing would constitute a continuation of an investigation is actually completed before the warrant.

Circumstantial evidence (interviewing neighbors, public surveillance, etc.) is collected in pursuit of gathering enough evidence to get the warrant necessary to gather the hard evidence needed for an indictment. When the warrant is filed the investigators have determined they have exhausted all circumstantial data gathering.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Before we get into the rest of your post, please explain to me how the investigation into Person B would continue?
Click to expand...

You just said, "My own example doesn't limit to wiretaps so why do you feel the need to make this point?" Are you now changing your mind and suggesting that the only tool available to FBI is wiretaps? That's stupid.

Pro-Tip: Most of what you are believing would constitute a continuation of an investigation is actually completed before the warrant.

Circumstantial evidence (interviewing neighbors, public surveillance, etc.) is collected in pursuit of gathering enough evidence to get the warrant necessary to gather the hard evidence needed for an indictment. When the warrant is filed the investigators have determined they have exhausted all circumstantial data gathering.
Click to expand...

That's obviously BS so I don't know who you're trying to fool. Obviously at what point in an investigation the FBI requests a warrant and what they do if/when it's denied will be highly facts and circumstances dependent and to claim you know some rule about what happens at that point in EVERY investigation is just obvious nonsense.

And your conclusion is double stupid because you are claiming that the FBI would "exhaust all circumstantial data gathering" before requesting a warrant, but that makes no sense. I'm 100% positive if they can get a warrant on day 1 of an investigation they do that AND pursue other leads, and it would be completely idiotic to shut down 'circumstantial' data gathering the moment a warrant was approved.

Second, if we believe the stories, the FBI requested a FISA warrant back in the summer and it was denied. If your ludicrous statement above is true, the investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russian efforts to tamper with the election came to a complete halt AT THAT MOMENT because, hey, no warrant and FBI is totally incapable of taking the investigation any further. BUT WE KNOW THAT IS NOT TRUE!

Second, what we think we know but cannot be sure is there was a FISA warrent requested and denied back in the summer, and a more limited warrant approved in October. If that covered e.g. Manafort and Stone and Page, then obviously the FBI could have spent the past 5 months investigating those three! OR, there could be criminal or FISA warrants not yet leaked.
 
Last edited:
RE: FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at Breitbart, InfoWars news sites
I deleted my post.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
You just said, "My own example doesn't limit to wiretaps so why do you feel the need to make this point?" Are you now changing your mind and suggesting that the only tool available to FBI is wiretaps? That's stupid.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. You do realize the difference between the warrant and what leads up to a warrant, yes?
 
Zyphlin said:
As I have had to point out to people, routinely....

Showing that Russian action occurred in a fashion that was beneficial to Trump and harmful to Clinton does not necessarily indicate a "favoring" of one candidate over another.

There is a potential legitimate strategically reason why an entity such as Russia, if it was looking into sowing discord in our election process, would go the route of pumping up Trump and hurting Clinton. Going into the general election, it was a largely forgone conclusion that Hillary Clinton would win, and likely win significantly. Leaking out information to hurt Trump....which, frankly, was occurring continually throughout the campaign on it's own...would not have been nearly as much "bang for your buck" in terms of creating mistrust within the American electorate. Rather, it would simply make Clinton's victory that much more inevitable, lowering the focus on the Presidential race and lessening the amount of chaos and discontent found within the American people.

Going after Clinton DOES however have benefits. It helps Trump out, turning what many figured would be a boring and one sided campaign into one that ultimately was tightly contested. This kept the American people focused on the campaign more than a one sided contest would, and specifically kept them arguing. It created a situation where, no matter who won, significant levels of distrust would exist. If the LIKELY scenario happened, Hillary won, then Russia could have figured they'd significantly damaged her ability to gain any coalition within the American political spectrum due to the various leaks and information that came out on her. If the UNLIKELY scenario happened, and Trump won, then he'd be embroiled in controversy from the onset for the appearance of outside influence as we're seeing here.

Helping Hillary in the election would be a "lose / lose" type of situation for the Russians....helping Trump would potentially be a "win/win". Putin, historically, is the type of political calculator that likes to shoot for "win/win" scenarios.

Is it feasible that they simply see Trump as the friendly candidate towards Rusia? Sure (though debatable). Is it feasible that they actively "favored" Trump? Sure. Is it feasible that they have dirt on Trump and wanted him in there to blackmail him? Sure, I guess in theory. But those are just that...theories, guesses. And there's just as plausible and legitimate of a theory that their attacking of Clinton (there's been FAR more of that, then there has been direct support of Trump) had far less to do with any true "favoring" of one candidate over the other, but rather that it was simply strategically the best move for Russia's interests because of the chaos it would cause to ensue.
Click to expand...

That would be an OK description of Russian involvement if it wasn't for the "constant communications" the Trump campaign had with the Russians and now the obvious quid pro quo behavior of Trump since he won the election. Then there is the $10 million paid to Manafort. You can't blame Putin as he was being "patriotic" to Russian interests but the involvement of Trump in the plot makes them traitors. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/theres-a-smell-of-treason-in-the-air.html
 
jmotivator said:
No, I'm not. You do realize the difference between the warrant and what leads up to a warrant, yes?
Click to expand...

First of all, you ignored the entire substance of my response to ask this stupid rhetorical point.

Playing along, sure, you need to present the court with enough evidence to justify a warrant. It does not mean that once you get that warrant all other activities stop, or if it's denied that the FBI goes, "Well boys, we're done here - let's all go get a beer!" We know that the FBI requested a warrant in the summer, it was denied, and the investigations have continued TO THIS DAY.

Besides this is all beside the point anyway. The question is whether,

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating, the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.
Click to expand...

Is an investigation of...the campaign or whether FBI will or has only looked at Russia and won't in fact be checking into Manafort, Page, etc. Unless the FBI are morons, and they are not, they'll look directly at members of the campaign to determine if the campaign coordinated with the Russians. We already suspect that warrant in October covered one or more of them, so the odds are nearly 100% that has already been done and is continuing.

Bottom line is just like above, you're making dishonest arguments, ignoring my responses, sending the discussion to red herrings and straw men and otherwise making assertions of fact that are quite frankly nonsense, and when challenged, you ignore the responses and go to some other point.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries - LA Times


In the bigger picture, I don't think newsbots are tampering.
Click to expand...

I just caught a little blurb about this on the news before some basketball the other night. The reporter was showing how easy (and cheap) it was to hire these bots to retweet news articles. Just because an American can purchase the use of these bots from Russian sources doesn't mean Russia was directly responsible for their usage. It's like blaming smith and Wesson when one of their customers shoots someone.
 
Johnson said:
I just caught a little blurb about this on the news before some basketball the other night. The reporter was showing how easy (and cheap) it was to hire these bots to retweet news articles. Just because an American can purchase the use of these bots from Russian sources doesn't mean Russia was directly responsible for their usage. It's like blaming smith and Wesson when one of their customers shoots someone.
Click to expand...




It's a continuation of the propaganda war, were they expect, and we see the gullible, believing speculation as fact. When asked to show actual facts, they quote someone from an agency that has lied to you in the past. you say. no what methods, sources, and tech was used and how do they positively link it to Russia, etc. you get called a "Trumpanzee" or some stupid ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom