• 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!

F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims

Mycroft said:
Well. There you go.

When you fail to find anything relevant to say...you post some nonsense.

Okay. You win.

Moving on...
Click to expand...

It wasn't nonsense. You just proved it wasn't by going to the right thread. Do we actually let you people vote in this country? That is a crime if true.

You have created you own one man circular argument and crossed two threads to do it. You expect me to take you seriously?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
How do you know no crime was committed, did you investigate the issue?

I don't know if a crime was committed. I think Trump's campaign had many suspicious interactions with Russian agents. I know that Trump's campaign lied about many of their interactions. I just want the matter investigated.

Mueller is just the investigator. He was chosen by both sides. He will present his findings to Congress. Whatever crimes he's charged anyone with having to go before a judge and jury. They will decide. Mueller doesn't decide or judge, he just investigate.

I don't understand why you're so against a thorough investigation?
Click to expand...

First of all there is no statute regarding collusion, so how could there be a crime? Pretty easy to be confident when you know the answer to that question, right?

Secondly, with 2 years of legal and illegal counterintel and intel ops going on, FBM and special counsel investigations going on, leaks, unmaskings, etc... and not even the first real piece of real proof against team Trump nor any nefarious Russian dealings during the campaign...and none of the leaks nor reporting are ever, ever, positive to Trump

The Muel was not chosen by both sides, he was chosen by a heavily conflicted Rosensteinks. Muel is himself overly conflicted, then he chose a team of partisan hacks, has already broken the law and is simply not out to seek truth... so its a heavily tainted investigation no matter its final report.

A thorough investigation would be investigating all 2016 election irregularities, not just the one side where there appears to be none of consequence and ignoring the blatant ones staring us all in the face.

Yano?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
First of all there is no statute regarding collusion, so how could there be a crime? Pretty easy to be confident when you know the answer to that question, right?

Secondly, with 2 years of legal and illegal counterintel and intel ops going on, FBM and special counsel investigations going on, leaks, unmaskings, etc... and not even the first real piece of real proof against team Trump nor any nefarious Russian dealings during the campaign...and none of the leaks nor reporting are ever, ever, positive to Trump

The Muel was not chosen by both sides, he was chosen by a heavily conflicted Rosensteinks. Muel is himself overly conflicted, then he chose a team of partisan hacks, has already broken the law and is simply not out to seek truth... so its a heavily tainted investigation no matter its final report.

A thorough investigation would be investigating all 2016 election irregularities, not just the one side where there appears to be none of consequence and ignoring the blatant ones staring us all in the face.

Yano?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy is a crime.

And don’t you recall what rosenstein directed Mueller’ to investigate.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Meanwhile the same administration was running to FISA for warrants based upon information from annonymous sources within said main foreign adversary country.
Click to expand...

The offense I pointed out is a federal crime if one engages in it.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
1. Your claim that there wasn't a shred of evidence is false. You can argue that the evidence was sufficient but that's your own subjective somewhat biased opinion. But your claim that there was not a shred of evidence if objectively false.

2. Obama doesn't run the FBI. Obama had nothing to do with the investigation. Do you have a shred of evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

IF the FBI had actual evidence, they would have opened up a criminal investigation instead of a counter intelligence probe

Allegations taken from a Democrat funded and unsubstantiated oppo-research hit piece ( dossier ) is not evidence, and neither was the Intel they received from the Australian diplomat on Papadopoulos

That Intel wasn't generated through the 5 eyes protocol. For some reason the FBI went out of their way to make sure it could never be vetted.

And just stop with the " Obama didn't know " rhetoric. Its been the go to for the Left for the 8 years he was in office and no one's buying it.

Thoughout 2016, the people closest to him, Susan Rice and Samantha Powers were unmasking people on a daily basis
 
Fenton said:
IF the FBI had actual evidence, they would have opened up a criminal investigation instead of a counter intelligence probe

Allegations taken from a Democrat funded and unsubstantiated oppo-research hit piece ( dossier ) is not evidence, and neither was the Intel they received from the Australian diplomat on Papadopoulos

That Intel wasn't generated through the 5 eyes protocol. For some reason the FBI went out of their way to make sure it could never be vetted.

And just stop with the " Obama didn't know " rhetoric. Its been the go to for the Left for the 8 years he was in office and no one's buying it.

Thoughout 2016, the people closest to him, Susan Rice and Samantha Powers were unmasking people on a daily basis
Click to expand...

OK, So Obama knew that the Russian's were interfering in our elections but the FBI didn't know??? Obama should have done something but the FBI did not have enough material to try to try to make use of an informant???? Will you just listen to yourself for one second! I completely believe Obama knew before Oct 2016. But you can't make two contrary arguments in the same post. Either you don't recognize that they are contrary or you just don't care!
 
Oborosen said:
When watchdog foundations consider the foundation to be nothing more then a political slush fund. Its pretty obvious what the hell the money is being used for. Not to mention after losing the election, its donation support dropped sharply and from some of the more far eastern groups I might add.

Its operation is as unethical in operation as the Clinton's themselves.
Click to expand...


It all depends on who The Operators of this so-called watchdog website you were referring to.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I think it's sad that you think in terms of my side vs your side instead of seeking truth. I don't think it's even possible to have a conversation with you because your mind is closed and made up.

I'll take the first step. I'll say, maybe Trump is innocent... Maybe I'm wrong. Can you say the same?

I just want the matter thoroughly investigated. Do you?
Click to expand...

No. He wants to deflect and talk about Hillary. :lamo

I still don't think the lengthy investigation is all about Trump. I think he got played and his ego blinded him from his surroundings. I am excited to learn what has been discovered. And, honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if Clinton Corp. gets dragged in to it as well. So, if you HAVE to deflect to Clinton, go right ahead.

But until I hear the what what from Mueller himself, I will refrain from the Hannity and Maddow narratives.
 
Last edited:
Gaugingcatenate said:
Have you NO clue about Uranium One? The speaking fees, double the usual to BJ, are large but not even close to the donations by the board members of this Russian enterprise to the Hillbillary foundation.

Come on man, keep up, vary your sources, open your eyes.
Click to expand...

Uranium one has been debunked Every Witch Way Give It Up
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Conspiracy is a crime.

And don’t you recall what rosenstein directed Mueller’ to investigate.
Click to expand...
Name the statute and then we can look it over and see if you've got a case or if this is a continuation of the leftist wet dream we have put up with far too long already.
 
OscarLevant said:
Uranium one has been debunked Every Witch Way Give It Up
Click to expand...

Love the freudian slip, the "Witch" being Hillary without doubt.

You are free falling, lost in your bias... I cannot solve your deficit, time and the inexorable pull of real justice will do the work for me.
 
jnug said:
OK, So Obama knew that the Russian's were interfering in our elections but the FBI didn't know??? Obama should have done something but the FBI did not have enough material to try to try to make use of an informant???? Will you just listen to yourself for one second! I completely believe Obama knew before Oct 2016. But you can't make two contrary arguments in the same post. Either you don't recognize that they are contrary or you just don't care!
Click to expand...

You people can drop the act, cats out of the bag. For the past 18 months, the rest of us have had to endure this manufactured outrage coming from the Left over alleged Russian / Trump collusion and meddling in our elections, so give it a rest

The Obama administration opened up a Counter intelligence investigation against the opposition campaign during the height of the 2016 election that included widespread covert surveillance and the unmasking of Trumps campaign staff.
Soon after the election, the Obama's IC coordinated with media outlets to not only leak the existence of the investigation but to leak allegations taken from a Hillary funded and unsubstantiated partisan hit piece.
 
Oborosen said:
When watchdog foundations consider the foundation to be nothing more then a political slush fund. Its pretty obvious what the hell the money is being used for. Not to mention after losing the election, its donation support dropped sharply and from some of the more far eastern groups I might add.

Its operation is as unethical in operation as the Clinton's themselves.
Click to expand...


The Clinton foundation employees 2000 people world wide, the Trump foundation is a piece of paper.

The Clinton foundation is involved with all sorts of charity operations, The Trump foundation donations were used to pay Trump's legal bills, and thinks benefitting Trump. You can't compare the two. But, since Trump foundation is a scam, the right wants to drag the Clinton foundation to Trump's foundation's level because they can't stand the fact that Trump foundation is a scam and the Clinton Foundation is legit.

You're talking nonsense.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. Yeah, right. You got nothing, just hopes and wet dreams. NOTHING being prosecuted against team Trump except manufactured process crimes and old old old, far previous to team Trump and the campaign "matters". Come on, how long can y'all hold your breath? Your blue states are turning purple already. :lamo:lamo:lamo

2. We will have to wait for the IG Report for the true treason to spill out in a tidal wave, but we already know of crimes done by Hillary, Comey, McCabe, et al. That Hill was "exonerated" by the "in the tank" Comey and FBM gang is already known, her server and emails were not judiciously investigated and anybody that is keeping up and has a clear sense of the law already knows this.

Whats your excuse then?

Its tough being in the unenviable position in which your side finds itself, but your side shat itself, now my side is pulling the flush lever. Sploosh!!!
Click to expand...


Nobody is saying Mueller has anything, but there was probable cause sufficient for Rosenstein to call a special counsel, according to Rosenstein, and I'll trust his judgment over yours, thank you.

Noting that Mueller has gotten a lot of guilty pleas and indictments on people surrounding Trump. If your neighbors live in a swamp, what do you live in, hmmmm?

McCabe is challenging the IG report. Personally, I think he got a raw deal. IG isn't God.
 
Fenton said:
:lamo Hillarious !

The media, Obama officials and Democrats and their supporters have spent the last year denying any of this took place. Now the NYTs and WaPo are being forced to not only acknowledge the existence of surveillance but to disclose that it was widespread. Thats karma for you and its damned entertaining.

Keep it up Wa Po and NYTs, in trying to justify this your'e only digging yourself a deeper hole. Here's a list of the senior Obama era officials who have either been demoted, fired, reassigned or forced to resign over this huge scandal, you know because it was all on the up and up..
Click to expand...


All so one-sided, tsk tsk. The list of Trump's admin and staff fired, demoted, jumped ship, far exceeds that one.


And this was of March, it's grown since:

Let's go to the video wall: Maddow's running out of room for Trump departures - NewscastStudio
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
of course you don't because you are anti-trump.
Click to expand...


Well, if Trump were not a blistering, blathering, blustering, blundering. bloviating blowhard, I might not be.


LOL!
 
Oborosen said:
When watchdog foundations consider the foundation to be nothing more then a political slush fund. Its pretty obvious what the hell the money is being used for. Not to mention after losing the election, its donation support dropped sharply and from some of the more far eastern groups I might add.

Its operation is as unethical in operation as the Clinton's themselves.
Click to expand...

Cite for that claim please....
 
From earlier:

"I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/998256454590193665

I'll be curious to see if he actually follows through on this and what Sessions does in response. Sessions is a gigantic asshole, but he's proven largely (though not entirely) resistant to trump's efforts to run the DOJ like it was a tool for persecuting his political rivals.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Love the freudian slip, the "Witch" being Hillary without doubt.

You are free falling, lost in your bias... I cannot solve your deficit, time and the inexorable pull of real justice will do the work for me.
Click to expand...


The Uranium One story is all about "Hillary selling uranium to Russia". That story has been debunked.


Your projecting does not equal "freudian slip".
 
OscarLevant said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/trump-fbi-informant-russia-investigation.html



Sorry to disappoint the Trumpies on this forum, but there it is.

In other words, the FBI sent an informant to investigate a potential crime, in other words, they were just doing their job. There was no mole/spy embedded in the campaign.

It's not about facts, Trump & Co are about deception to undermine the Mueller investigation and to get the base to vote in November based on scare tactics.
Click to expand...
Many Trumpkins on this forum and elsewhere are grossly naive to to the genesis of criminal investigations. The FBI doesn't initiate investigations until someone performs an action that comes to the FBI's attention and the behavior has characteristics or adjuncts that militate for thinking something criminal transpired.
  1. Person A performs action T.
  2. Action T comes to law enforcer's attention.
  3. Law enforcers review the law to determine what traits make T criminal and what be their burden of proof in court to show T is culpably criminal with regard to whomever commits T.
  4. If T has enough prima facie traits that suggest it may be criminal, law enforcers open an investigation.
  5. In the course of the investigating the matter, law enforcement personnel either do or do not collect evidence that will show (1) A performed T and (2) that A is criminally culpable for having done so.
    • If insufficient evidence is found, the investigation is closed.
    • If sufficient evidence is found, and other criteria (jurisdiction, standing, etc.) are met, charges are brought.

Some Trumpkins have articulated an entrapment line. That line is utter BS. When one is inclined to perform an illegal act, law enforcement's offering one the opportunity to perform that act is not entrapment. Entrapment occurs when law enforcement personnel employ behavior such as the use of threats, harassment, fraud, or even flattery to induce defendants to commit crimes. In other words, entrapment requires that law enforcement officers invoke one or more overt forms of coercion to induce a suspect to behave in a way(s) s/he otherwise does not deign to behave; the suspect must be independently willing to commit the unlawful act (how willing isn't pertinent; the person need only be willing -- as always, character matters). After all, absent coercion, nobody does a damn thing they have no will to do.


The moment that one definitely commits one’s self, the Providence moves too.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe​
 
Fenton said:
Lol ! How is that relevant in anyway to the Obama administration spying on the opposition campaign ?
Click to expand...


"spying" is a loaded word. Please provide evidence and context. Thank you.
 
Oborosen said:
View attachment 67233274

A confidential... informant.

Is the anti-Trump camp seriously this deluded?

Given their previous performance. I wouldn't trust the NYTs to run a op-ed paper on my college lunch menu. Much less anything concerning the presidency and expect them to be honest.

007 wasn't a spy... he was a confidential ..informant/asset liquidator/death merchant/ gigolo... yeah the logic is sound.
Click to expand...

Yup, a confidential informant. Is that a problem?

Because confidential informants are not totally uncommon.

And the FBI is not the anti-Trump camp, it is the FBI, someone supposedly neutral. One could even state that the FBI was anti-Clinton which would also not be accurate. All the FBI really is is anti-crime. And if someone does not commit crimes the confidential informant will have nothing to report.

And 007 was a spy, he was also fictional, just like the fiction that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt.
 
OscarLevant said:
Well, if Trump were not a blistering, blathering, blustering, blundering. bloviating blowhard, I might not be.


LOL!
Click to expand...

yet again you prove you can't actually address the argument congrats.
typical.
 
I seriously hope that the internet guesses as to who the supposed Informant is falls flat on its miserable butt end because that is where it belongs. But assuming for a moment that the guess league is right, this guy was an informant looking for material on dems in one instance and looking for material on republicans in this instance. Sort of blows holes in the endless claims of the entire world of the defense dept, the FBI and Justice generally being politically motivated, always v. republicans though blanketed with republicans and politically astute enough to do anything about it.

In the second place, if they could choose an informant it would be one that does not act as a spy would because every single case they had would be blown out of the water in court if they did that. So while I could well imagine idiot Donald and laughable Rudy concluding that framing this guy up as a spy suits their political intentions, this prosecution team has not shown itself to be anywhere near stupid enough to risk every case it could ever build by sending a guy in to function as a spy would function.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom