• 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!

What’s behind Trump’s FBI spy theory?

Cardinal said:
Real exchange between me and another poster earlier today:

Poster: "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."

Me: "So the FBI should have stood by and watched as Russians infiltrated a Presidential candidate's campaign?"

Poster: "From what has been brought forward so far? Yes."

And another exchange:

Me: "We're pretty much only a few weeks away from Republicans arguing that Mueller has a conflict of interest in that he couldn't possibly be expected to conduct a fair investigation of somebody he's investigating."

Poster: "He can't really."

The overt belief that trump is above the law is becoming increasingly mainstream among Republicans. At this rate, in a couple months the regular narrative coming out of Fox News will be that it is perfectly legal for the President to commit crimes and that investigating him is unAmerican.
Click to expand...

I read those exchanges, and you are editing them to fit your narrative.
 
Rogue Valley said:
What’s behind Trump’s FBI spy theory?

rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-rt-jt-180421_hpMain_4x3t_384.jpg




Short answers ... supposition, speculation, and plain old conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

I don't know what's driving his articulation of such a pattern of intentions, behaviors and events.

What I do know is that as POTUS, he unilaterally has the authority to put forth documentation that unequivocally supports his assertion, and I know he's not done so. Indeed, were there any legitimacy to his claims about having been spied upon, he'd have presented that documentary support at the same time he made the claim.

For instance, one'll recall that a few weeks back, Bibi Netanyahu asserted that Iran had violated the terms of the Iran Deal and he proceeded to deliver a presentation and made a host of documents available for others to view. Now it turns out that if one carefully scrutinized the content in Bibi's presentation, it became clear that all the activities to which Bibi referred predated the Iran Deal and nothing he presented showed that any of the noted activities/initiatives continued past the Deal's implementation.

Be that as it may, he made a claim and he presented documentation that he felt supported it; he didn't merely make a blad claim and expect "the world" to take his word for it. The case/evidence he presented didn't support his assertion/conclusion, thus making his argument unsound/incogent, but at least he presented a case, that is, he presented actual evidence, as opposed to pure conjecture, that is verifiable. (The problem with Bibi's argument isn't that the facts are untrue; it's that his conclusion doesn't soundly/cogently follow from the facts he presented. His conclusion was non sequitur.) That's particularly important because for whatever "the world" may think/know about Netanyahu, he's not known as a man who utters lies at a staccato rate.
 
KevinKohler said:
I read those exchanges, and you are editing them to fit your narrative.
Click to expand...

You're more than free to add the missing context that changes the meaning of my exchange.
 
Xelor said:
What I do know is that as POTUS, he unilaterally has the authority to put forth documentation that unequivocally supports his assertion, and I know he's not done so. Indeed, were there any legitimacy to his claims about having been spied upon, he'd have presented that documentary support at the same time he made the claim.
Click to expand...

Two reasons he won't do this...one of which is the same reason the DOJ/FBI are reluctant to give information to Congress:

1. The release of certain information will jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations into Obama administration people. (this is the reason for not giving certain information to our leaky bucket known as Congress)

2. If Trump released this information the anti-Trump echo chamber would resound with cries of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!
 
Rogue Valley said:
What’s behind Trump’s FBI spy theory?

rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-rt-jt-180421_hpMain_4x3t_384.jpg



Short answers ... supposition, speculation, and plain old conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Helix said:
Deflection. They nailed his attorney.
Click to expand...

All the reasons above are true and they all stem from the root cause, guilt.

Lets see, what was it? Ten days before the election our voters are told by the FBI they're reopening their investigation into Hillary's emails. I bet Republicans loved our FBI then. But did the electorate hear about Trump being investigated for his many connections with our enemy? NO.

Cheating on his wives, abusing women and racism might be ok with many Trump voters, but many others would find collaborating with Russia unacceptable. In reality our Quisling in-Chief and his comrades should be eternally grateful that our FBI "spies" kept the investigation under wraps...
 
Cardinal said:
You're more than free to add the missing context that changes the meaning of my exchange.
Click to expand...

I don't care that much, just calling you out on dishonesty. Probably why you didn't do direct quotes with links.
 
KevinKohler said:
I don't care that much, just calling you out on dishonesty. Probably why you didn't do direct quotes with links.
Click to expand...

I'm no stranger to calling people on their dishonesty, but when I do so it's my standard practice to provide evidence for it.
 
tres borrachos said:
Wow, the FBI uses informants. That's a revelation?
Click to expand...

Lol. Try to be objective here, in spite of your hatred for Trump.

1. The use of an FBI government informant (spy) sent to monitor or entrap members of a political campaign is the kind of draconian crap that J Edgar Hoover's FBI engaged in. It's deeply embarrassing for the Bureau to have their informants outed anyway.

2. If the FBI had sent agents to infiltrate Gary Johnson's campaign, would you be this apathetic? No, of course not.
 
Fletch said:
Sorry, but there can be spies without collusion. Funny how you believe every conspiracy theory out there when it comes to Trump, but the idea that people in positions of government power would do something bad? You dismiss them out of hand.
Click to expand...

Hardly a conspiracy 'theory' when you have 17 indictments and 5 guilty pleas with still more to come.
 
truthatallcost said:
Lol. Try to be objective here, in spite of your hatred for Trump.

1. The use of an FBI government informant (spy) sent to monitor or entrap members of a political campaign is the kind of draconian crap that J Edgar Hoover's FBI engaged in. It's deeply embarrassing for the Bureau to have their informants outed anyway.

2. If the FBI had sent agents to infiltrate Gary Johnson's campaign, would you be this apathetic? No, of course not.
Click to expand...

The FBI has and as likely, continues as we type, used informants and what's really called undercover agents to entrap anybody they can get to go along with the FBI's conspiracy.

One defendant was hit with 250 counts after the FBI clearly entrapped a young man and was convicted on 1 count of conspiracy. Of course not a single
one of his 'associate conspirators' were even charged...they were FBI.
 
Rogue Valley said:
What’s behind Trump’s FBI spy theory?

rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-rt-jt-180421_hpMain_4x3t_384.jpg


Short answers ... supposition, speculation, and plain old conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

No, actually Glenn Simpson, co-owner of Fushion GPS, testified to Congress under oath that there was an FBI informant embedded into the Trump campaign. He then continued to stand by his testimony more recently. Simpson claims to have been told this information by Christopher Steele, the one who wrote the dossier. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-campaign-fbi-spy-glenn-simpson-stands-by-testimony/
 
Pedestrian said:
The FBI has and as likely, continues as we type, used informants and what's really called undercover agents to entrap anybody they can get to go along with the FBI's conspiracy.

One defendant was hit with 250 counts after the FBI clearly entrapped a young man and was convicted on 1 count of conspiracy. Of course not a single
one of his 'associate conspirators' were even charged...they were FBI.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you have a link to the story?
 
Interesting that Trump and his minions always whine about leakers and spy's exposing their dirty laundry but but they tend to ignore what is being disclosed, maybe if there was not so much dirty laundry to air others would not be able to. Killing the messenger(s), is the actions of someone with a lot to hide and all the more reason to dig deep to get to the truth.
 
truthatallcost said:
Lol. Try to be objective here, in spite of your hatred for Trump.

1. The use of an FBI government informant (spy) sent to monitor or entrap members of a political campaign is the kind of draconian crap that J Edgar Hoover's FBI engaged in. It's deeply embarrassing for the Bureau to have their informants outed anyway.

2. If the FBI had sent agents to infiltrate Gary Johnson's campaign, would you be this apathetic? No, of course not.
Click to expand...

1. The use of the FBI informants to monitor suspicious activity has been around since the FBI has been around.

2. Sure, if Gary Johnson's campaign was telling Australian ambassadors that the Russians had "dirt" on the former Secretary of State. or anyone else's campaign for that matter. Mitt Rmney's. John McCain's. Jon Huntsman's. Ronald Reagan's. George W. Bush's. George HW Bush's. Are you saying you wouldn't want them to do that? How unAmerican of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom