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.
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.
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.
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.
Now you're lying about what I said?? Really??? Get back with me when you can be honest.
Huh? Trump ran one of the cheapest campaigns for a while.
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.
Well, I was commenting on your apparent assertion that the electors were bought off. Not whatever else you want to bring up.
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.
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.
Never figured you for the blame America first crowd rev.
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.
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!!
Well, you could sure try. Your lack of an argument on this is noted.
No, no they didn't.
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.
My own example doesn't limit to wiretaps so why do you feel the need to make this point?
1) Warrant on B denied, SO
2) An investigation of B is never launched.
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.
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.
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.
No, I'm not. You do realize the difference between the warrant and what leads up to a warrant, yes?
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.
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.
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.