• 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!

Serious Concerns About DOJ Influencing US Elections

F

FreeWits

Banned
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
279
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There are serious concerns that the Department of Justice influenced the US elections. We know that the Clinton campaign was investigated. Nobody would dispute that. New information is coming to light that not only was the Trump campaign being investigated, a DOJ spy actually infiltrated the Trump campaign. This is very, very concerning that the DOJ would use tools that often require help from other countries to spy on a major Presidential Political Campaign, and it's even more concerning when you realize they were investigating both of the major party's campaigns. This is exactly what people mean when they talk about a corrupt Deep State. This doesn't mean the DOJ tried to pick a winner, but it's easy to see how they were in the situation to pick a winner. I'm very concerned by what the DOJ has gotten away with up to this point, and it has nothing to do with the last election, but everything to do with future elections.

Nunes: DOJ Never Should Have Opened Counterintelligence Investigation Into a Political Party | Fox News Insider
 
Their excuse will be that they had probable cause. Hillary has her email server fiasco, whether that was a mountain or a mole hill depends on who you ask. She had very clear collusion between her and the DNC to end Bernie primary shot, which, imo, is what REALLY cost her the election.

They would say for Trump that, once certain things came to light about possible connections to Russia, symbiotic or not, it had to be looked into. And Trumps own actions, in refusing to be more transparent, and in just barely skirting around conflict of interest issues, have justified their actions.


As is usual with American politics these days...there are no winners, because we're all slowly losing.
 
"Spy" is more hyperbole....more misuse of sloppy language. Though not as yet verified there are reports that there was an embedded informer which is not the same thing as an informer that was imbedded by the FBI. This could be an informer who determined that he might be witnessing criminal activity seeking to report same or could be an agent imbedded by the FBI because they had evidence of criminal activity.

Interestingly, the Clinton investigation was aired during the campaigns likely having an impact on the outcome while even if this is true, none of it relating to the Trump campaign leaked out or was announced by the FBI. So as usual nothing to complain about. More comic relief as is most of the stuff Rudy blathers on about during the course of the day.
 
FreeWits said:
There are serious concerns that the Department of Justice influenced the US elections. We know that the Clinton campaign was investigated. Nobody would dispute that. New information is coming to light that not only was the Trump campaign being investigated, a DOJ spy actually infiltrated the Trump campaign. This is very, very concerning that the DOJ would use tools that often require help from other countries to spy on a major Presidential Political Campaign, and it's even more concerning when you realize they were investigating both of the major party's campaigns. This is exactly what people mean when they talk about a corrupt Deep State. This doesn't mean the DOJ tried to pick a winner, but it's easy to see how they were in the situation to pick a winner. I'm very concerned by what the DOJ has gotten away with up to this point, and it has nothing to do with the last election, but everything to do with future elections.

Nunes: DOJ Never Should Have Opened Counterintelligence Investigation Into a Political Party | Fox News Insider
Click to expand...

While it is a fact that certain people in the DOJ and the FBI were working against the Trump campaign, I am not aware that anyone in the DOJ was investigating the Clinton campaign.

Could you provide some info on that, please?

Note: The investigation into Clinton's email server was not an investigation into her Presidential campaign.
 
Mycroft said:
While it is a fact that certain people in the DOJ and the FBI were working against the Trump campaign, I am not aware that anyone in the DOJ was investigating the Clinton campaign.

Could you provide some info on that, please?

Note: The investigation into Clinton's email server was not an investigation into her Presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

I love how you had to put the note, because even you realize how semantical your argument is. Whether the candidate or the campaign was technically under investigation in legal speak, that matters not, because either would impact the campaign.
 
FreeWits said:
I love how you had to put the note, because even you realize how semantical your argument is. Whether the candidate or the campaign was technically under investigation in legal speak, that matters not, because either would impact the campaign.
Click to expand...

Clinton actually broke the law. We're going on two years with zero evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy.

Operation Cross Fire Hurricane was an obvious--illegal--attempt to sway the election. That's worse than the Russians doing it.
 
FreeWits said:
I love how you had to put the note, because even you realize how semantical your argument is. Whether the candidate or the campaign was technically under investigation in legal speak, that matters not, because either would impact the campaign.
Click to expand...

If nothing else, I try to be precise in the wording I use and, while it is perhaps expecting too much, I expect others to be just as precise.

To me, there is a big difference between investigating someone for their personal actions and investigating that person's campaign.

Anyway, I take it you don't have any information about an investigation into Hillary's campaign. Am I correct?
 
Mycroft said:
If nothing else, I try to be precise in the wording I use and, while it is perhaps expecting too much, I expect others to be just as precise.

To me, there is a big difference between investigating someone for their personal actions and investigating that person's campaign.

Anyway, I take it you don't have any information about an investigation into Hillary's campaign. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

I've already stated what I meant by it. An investigation into the person that is the candidate is considered an investigation into the campaign by me, because both will impact the campaign. I don't care what you expect of other people in terms of language. The point is that the DOJ had their hands in both campaigns. That gives the DOJ great power to pick who the winner of the election is, and that is very worrisome.
 
FreeWits said:
I've already stated what I meant by it. An investigation into the person that is the candidate is considered an investigation into the campaign by me, because both will impact the campaign. I don't care what you expect of other people in terms of language. The point is that the DOJ had their hands in both campaigns. That gives the DOJ great power to pick who the winner of the election is, and that is very worrisome.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't share your sloppy consideration, but never mind.

In any case, we did see how certain individuals from both the DOJ and the FBI...working together...influenced the election. I agree this is a very bad thing. "Very worrisome" doesn't come close to describing it. The fact that they failed in their attempt is a testament to Trump's abilities and the power of the American people.

I think, because of all the attention to this corruption, we won't have to worry about this happening in future elections...at least, not any time soon. However, if Hillary had won I don't think I could make that same statement. In fact, if Hillary had won we wouldn't even know this corruption happened.
 
Oh yea...lets out the guy or gal whoever they are assuming they exist at all. Hope you folks will be happy when we can no longer secure informants in terror cases.

Lets maintain the fiction that Trump is innocent and simply doing all of this, including making all this noise about outing an informant because this investigation takes up too much of his time. That is just horse dung. It has gotten so bad that we can't wthl any confidence even believe any part of this story purely because it is Rudy and Trump pushing the story, two bastions of factual reporting (sarcasm alert).

Even if this is another of their completely fabricated stories the thought of outing informants in an active investigation will send shivers up the spins of any potential informants in any cases. People whine and moan about folks "that just hate Trump. They are all Trump haters." Do you clowns actually think we won't wear that after the utter bull this guy and his gang has pulled? I will wear it happily. Bring it on!
 
Mycroft said:
Well, I don't share your sloppy consideration, but never mind.

In any case, we did see how certain individuals from both the DOJ and the FBI...working together...influenced the election. I agree this is a very bad thing. "Very worrisome" doesn't come close to describing it. The fact that they failed in their attempt is a testament to Trump's abilities and the power of the American people.

I think, because of all the attention to this corruption, we won't have to worry about this happening in future elections...at least, not any time soon. However, if Hillary had won I don't think I could make that same statement. In fact, if Hillary had won we wouldn't even know this corruption happened.
Click to expand...

I think it's very naive to say we don't have to worry about this in future elections. The DOJ got away with having their hands in both political campaigns without much of a repercussion, so that means they will probably do it again at some point. And next time, they may actually try to get one side to win over the other, and that effectively ruins our Republic. You may not be worried about this, but I am.
 
FreeWits said:
I think it's very naive to say we don't have to worry about this in future elections. The DOJ got away with having their hands in both political campaigns without much of a repercussion, so that means they will probably do it again at some point. And next time, they may actually try to get one side to win over the other, and that effectively ruins our Republic. You may not be worried about this, but I am.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed my qualifier..."at least, not any time soon".

What I mean by that is I don't think the Trump administration would even be tempted to do what the Obama administration tried to do.

That also is not to say I don't worry about it happening in the future. I think we SHOULD be worried and we should take additional steps to prevent this kind of thing from happening. At the least, increased vigilance is a no-brainer. The Obama people got away with this because nobody was watching them.
 
FreeWits said:
There are serious concerns that the Department of Justice influenced the US elections. We know that the Clinton campaign was investigated. Nobody would dispute that. New information is coming to light that not only was the Trump campaign being investigated, a DOJ spy actually infiltrated the Trump campaign. This is very, very concerning that the DOJ would use tools that often require help from other countries to spy on a major Presidential Political Campaign, and it's even more concerning when you realize they were investigating both of the major party's campaigns. This is exactly what people mean when they talk about a corrupt Deep State. This doesn't mean the DOJ tried to pick a winner, but it's easy to see how they were in the situation to pick a winner. I'm very concerned by what the DOJ has gotten away with up to this point, and it has nothing to do with the last election, but everything to do with future elections.

Nunes: DOJ Never Should Have Opened Counterintelligence Investigation Into a Political Party | Fox News Insider
Click to expand...

So the FBI should have stood by and watched as Russians infiltrated a Presidential candidate's campaign?
 
Mycroft said:
Perhaps you missed my qualifier..."at least, not any time soon".

What I mean by that is I don't think the Trump administration would even be tempted to do what the Obama administration tried to do.

That also is not to say I don't worry about it happening in the future. I think we SHOULD be worried and we should take additional steps to prevent this kind of thing from happening. At the least, increased vigilance is a no-brainer. The Obama people got away with this because nobody was watching them.
Click to expand...

You claim to care about the precision of language, and yet nothing in this post was precise. Ironic.
 
Cardinal said:
So the FBI should have stood by and watched as Russians infiltrated a Presidential candidate's campaign?
Click to expand...

From what has been brought forward so far? Yes. Given the evidence so far, Russia/ns had no major impact on the election. The DOJ likely had a bigger impact on the elections than Russia/ns.
 
FreeWits said:
You claim to care about the precision of language, and yet nothing in this post was precise. Ironic.
Click to expand...

shrug...

It's easy to say "nothing in this post was precise."

Harder to actually say what wasn't precise. Are you up to it?
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

It's easy to say "nothing in this post was precise."

Harder to actually say what wasn't precise. Are you up to it?
Click to expand...

Sure.

1) Perhaps you missed my qualifier..."at least, not any time soon". -- Not precise, which is why it required further explanation.

2) that -- Not precise

3) What I mean by that is I don't think the Trump administration would even be tempted to do what the Obama administration tried to do. -- Not precise.

4) That -- Not precise

5) not to say I don't -- Not precise

6) it -- Not precise

7) we should take additional steps -- Not precise

8) this -- Not precise

9) thing -- Not precise

10) from happening. -- Not precise

11) increased vigilance is a no-brainer. -- Not precise

12) Obama people -- Not precise

13) got away with this -- Not precise

14) because nobody -- Not precise

15) was watching them. -- Not precise

So by my count, there are 15 statements of vagueness. I'm surprised I had to point these out to someone who claims to care so much about precision of language as you. Interpreting what you were intending to say was actually quite difficult because you were so vague, which is kind of ironic, given that when you called me imprecise, it was pretty obvious what I was talking about. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
 
FreeWits said:
Sure.

1) Perhaps you missed my qualifier..."at least, not any time soon". -- Not precise, which is why it required further explanation.

2) that -- Not precise

3) What I mean by that is I don't think the Trump administration would even be tempted to do what the Obama administration tried to do. -- Not precise.

4) That -- Not precise

5) not to say I don't -- Not precise

6) it -- Not precise

7) we should take additional steps -- Not precise

8) this -- Not precise

9) thing -- Not precise

10) from happening. -- Not precise

11) increased vigilance is a no-brainer. -- Not precise

12) Obama people -- Not precise

13) got away with this -- Not precise

14) because nobody -- Not precise

15) was watching them. -- Not precise

So by my count, there are 15 statements of vagueness. I'm surprised I had to point these out to someone who claims to care so much about precision of language as you. Interpreting what you were intending to say was actually quite difficult because you were so vague, which is kind of ironic, given that when you called me imprecise, it was pretty obvious what I was talking about. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I offend you, but this is the most original...but stupidest...debate stunt I've ever seen.

You are dismissed.
 
Mycroft said:
Sorry if I offend you, but this is the most original...but stupidest...debate stunt I've ever seen.

You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

Complaining about precision of language is quite the stupid debate stunt, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom