• 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

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/trump-fbi-informant-russia-investigation.html

President Trump accused the F.B.I., without evidence, of planting a mole inside his campaign to undermine his presidential run. But the F.B.I. in fact dispatched a confidential informant to meet with Trump campaign advisers as it began its investigation into possible links between his campaign and Russia
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

1. What was the original suspicious information on the basis of believing there was a need to go to this extent and, if it was so bad why has nobody been yet arrested?

2. We know that, among other potential criminal and treasonous actions, Hillbillary and their foundation received in the neighborhood of $150 million in donations and speaking fees from the Russians. Was there a corresponding operation embedding similar moles/spies/informants into the team Hillary?

We know she was given a bye on her criminal email "matter"/investigation... does this even have ANY appearence of equal justice under our laws...or was lady ( department of )justice peeking from nder her blindfold and putting her thumb on the scale in favoring one side over another?
 
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...

facepalm.jpg

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.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. What was the original suspicious information on the basis of believing there was a need to go to this extent and, if it was so bad why has nobody been yet arrested?
Click to expand...
The FBI pulled back the reins of the investigation during the campaign as they didn't want to tip anyone off and let it be known there was an investigation, the held back until after the election. That investigation is now full steam ahead, and arrests, indictments and guilty pleas have been made.
2. We know that, among other potential criminal and treasonous actions, Hillbillary and their foundation received in the neighborhood of $150 million in donations and speaking fees from the Russians. Was there a corresponding operation embedding similar moles/spies/informants into the team Hillary?
Click to expand...
Your use of weasel words aside. There is no evidenced of crimes or "treasonous" activities by Hllary. There is no evidence of quid pro quos for the foundation's donations. Without that, you have nothing. The foundation routinely receives donations from all over the world, noting that not one dime of it goes to Clintons.

Speaking fees are not illegal, all politicians get paid to speak when they leave office.
We know she was given a bye on her criminal email "matter"/investigation... does this even have ANY appearence of equal justice under our laws...or was lady ( department of )justice peeking from nder her blindfold and putting her thumb on the scale in favoring one side over another?
Click to expand...

None of the emails on the server were marked as confidential or top secret or anything like that. Well, a couple were, but they were later determined to be wrongfully labeled. That Comey asserted there were over 100 classified emails, but, given that no emails were so marked, his assertion constitutes an opinion in hindsight, and, as such, does not rise to a level that prosecutor would be willing to affix his or her John Hancock to any charge.
 
Oborosen said:
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...

Well, the Trump sure loved the NYT article about "government informant", and extrapolated that to mean "embedded spy".

But, now, the NYT rebutted that claim in this latest article, and now it's not trustable?

I get it, stuff you don't like is fake, but stuff you like is not.

Right.
 
OscarLevant said:
Well, the Trump sure loved the NYT article about "government informant", and extrapolated that to mean "embedded spy".

But, now, the NYT rebutted that claim in this latest article, and now it's not trustable?

I get it, stuff you don't like is fake, but stuff you like is not.

Right.
Click to expand...

Nope, but its cute that you think that.

If its provable then I am more then willing to back the issue. The problem here is that no one is believable at this point. Not even the FBI because we have seen the way they were used in the past and that is more suspect then the medias own drive at this point. Which is saying something when you compare the two to one another.

No one has yet to prove that this informant wasn't actually put there for this purpose and seeing the speculation surrounding the story. Its probably going to be a long time before we actually start to get the truth on this topic.
 
Oborosen said:
Nope, but its cute that you think that.

If its provable then I am more then willing to back the issue. The problem here is that no one is believable at this point. Not even the FBI because we have seen the way they were used in the past and that is more suspect then the medias own drive at this point. Which is saying something when you compare the two to one another.

No one has yet to prove that this informant wasn't actually put there for this purpose and seeing the speculation surrounding the story. Its probably going to be a long time before we actually start to get the truth on this topic.
Click to expand...


We'll just have to disagree about NYT and the FBI. I don't see them anywhere near as bad as you are claiming to be.
 
OscarLevant said:
We'll just have to disagree about NYT and the FBI. I don't see them anywhere near as bad as you are claiming to be.
Click to expand...

Given the information we have. There is no reason to truth either of these two groups, even when compared to surrounding company.
 
"Your honor, my friends and I had a plan to rob this bank. We had a bunch of meetings to work out the details, and just as we were about to rob it we found out one of our members was a spy from the police department. He's the one who should have been arrested, the dirty snoop, not us. I just have two more words to say - Hillary Clinton."
 
OscarLevant said:
The FBI pulled back the reins of the investigation during the campaign as they didn't want to tip anyone off and let it be known there was an investigation, the held back until after the election. That investigation is now full steam ahead, and arrests, indictments and guilty pleas have been made.

Your use of weasel words aside. There is no evidenced of crimes or "treasonous" activities by Hllary. There is no evidence of quid pro quos for the foundation's donations. Without that, you have nothing. The foundation routinely receives donations from all over the world, noting that not one dime of it goes to Clintons.

Speaking fees are not illegal, all politicians get paid to speak when they leave office.


None of the emails on the server were marked as confidential or top secret or anything like that. Well, a couple were, but they were later determined to be wrongfully labeled. That Comey asserted there were over 100 classified emails, but, given that no emails were so marked, his assertion constitutes an opinion in hindsight, and, as such, does not rise to a level that prosecutor would be willing to affix his or her John Hancock to any charge.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. What was the original suspicious information on the basis of believing there was a need to go to this extent and, if it was so bad why has nobody been yet arrested?
2. We know that, among other potential criminal and treasonous actions, Hillbillary and their foundation received in the neighborhood of $150 million in donations and speaking fees from the Russians. Was there a corresponding operation embedding similar moles/spies/informants into the team Hillary?
We know she was given a bye on her criminal email "matter"/investigation... does this even have ANY appearence of equal justice under our laws...or was lady ( department of )justice peeking from nder her blindfold and putting her thumb on the scale in favoring one side over another?
Click to expand...

If you add up the ~300k/piece speaking fees of Hillary over the 3 or so years she was giving speeches, it comes nowhere near 150 million, and it was primarily from Americans. If you have evidence that she took 150 million from the Russians specifically, present it. I don't like politicians getting paid large sums of money for "speeches", especially Hillary, but pulling out a random, astronomical number out of your ass with no supporting facts is silly.

Oborosen said:
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 wsn't a spy... he was a confidential ..informant/asset liquidator/death merchant/ gigolo... yeah the logic is sound.
Click to expand...
Oborosen said:
Nope, but its cute that you think that.
If its provable then I am more then willing to back the issue. The problem here is that no one is believable at this point. Not even the FBI because we have seen the way they were used in the past and that is more suspect then the medias own drive at this point. Which is saying something when you compare the two to one another.
No one has yet to prove that this informant wasn't actually put there for this purpose and seeing the speculation surrounding the story. Its probably going to be a long time before we actually start to get the truth on this topic.
Click to expand...

It's the FBI... They regularly use informants to investigate potential crimes, it's kind of their job and standard SOP. Are you opposed to ALL informant use by the FBI or just when your political heroes are the target?

Let me guess, if the informant were in the Clinton Foundation exposing crimes you'd be celebrating our brave FBI agents for shining the light on corruption.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. What was the original suspicious information on the basis of believing there was a need to go to this extent and, if it was so bad why has nobody been yet arrested?

2. We know that, among other potential criminal and treasonous actions, Hillbillary and their foundation received in the neighborhood of $150 million in donations and speaking fees from the Russians. Was there a corresponding operation embedding similar moles/spies/informants into the team Hillary?

We know she was given a bye on her criminal email "matter"/investigation... does this even have ANY appearence of equal justice under our laws...or was lady ( department of )justice peeking from nder her blindfold and putting her thumb on the scale in favoring one side over another?
Click to expand...

View attachment 67233275
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you add up the ~300k/piece speaking fees of Hillary over the 3 or so years she was giving speeches, it comes nowhere near 150 million, and it was primarily from Americans. If you have evidence that she took 150 million from the Russians specifically, present it. I don't like politicians getting paid large sums of money for "speeches", especially Hillary, but pulling out a random, astronomical number out of your ass with no supporting facts is silly.




It's the FBI... They regularly use informants to investigate potential crimes, it's kind of their job and standard SOP. Are you opposed to ALL informant use by the FBI or just when your political heroes are the target?
Click to expand...

You're attempting to poison the well already Rabid. I advise you to just not try to talk if that is all you are capable of.

I trust the FBI as an office , but not the people within it. Because as with every instance of the government, we know that their are instances of corruption to be found. This combined with that current administrations propensity to abuse its own power. You can bet your ass that I am not going to put it passed them to completely lie to our damn faces about something like this.

This coupled with them basically owning up to putting a body in the Trump camp that was beholden unto them is more then suspect enough. Had this been Obama's current seat and it was Trumps administration that was running during this "informants" placement.

I would bet that all of you would be singing a different tune right now.
Trump is not unfounded in his statement, nor his suspicions. With the way things have been since the election, I really can't blame him at this moment.

But the willingness for all of you to just bend over and present to these people. Just for the slightest chance of sticking it to Trump is a highly troubling prospect.

That is my medical opinion by the way.
 
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...

If any administration had cause to believe a serious presidential candidate was in cahoots with our main foreign adversary and they did NOT take this type of action, they would be derelict in their duty to protect the American people.
 
Oborosen said:
You're attempting to poison the well already Rabid. I advise you to just not try to talk if that is all you are capable of.

I trust the FBI as an office , but not the people within it. Because as with every instance of the government, we know that their are instances of corruption to be found. This combined with that current administrations propensity to abuse its own power. You can bet your ass that I am not going to put it passed them to completely lie to our damn faces about something like this.

This coupled with them basically owning up to putting a body in the Trump camp that was beholden unto them is more then suspect enough. Had this been Obama's current seat and it was Trumps administration that was running during this "informants" placement.

I would bet that all of you would be singing a different tune right now.
Trump is not unfounded in his statement, nor his suspicions. With the way things have been since the election, I really can't blame him at this moment.

But the willingness for all of you to just bend over and present to these people. Just for the slightest chance of sticking it to Trump is a highly troubling prospect.

That is my medical opinion by the way.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should see a doctor.
 
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...

Imagine a world where liberals believe the FBI is totally innocent and would NEVER do anything politically motivated.
 
Oborosen said:
You're attempting to poison the well already Rabid. I advise you to just not try to talk if that is all you are capable of.

I trust the FBI as an office , but not the people within it. Because as with every instance of the government, we know that their are instances of corruption to be found. This combined with that current administrations propensity to abuse its own power. You can bet your ass that I am not going to put it passed them to completely lie to our damn faces about something like this.

This coupled with them basically owning up to putting a body in the Trump camp that was beholden unto them is more then suspect enough. Had this been Obama's current seat and it was Trumps administration that was running during this "informants" placement.

I would bet that all of you would be singing a different tune right now.
Trump is not unfounded in his statement, nor his suspicions. With the way things have been since the election, I really can't blame him at this moment.

But the willingness for all of you to just bend over and present to these people. Just for the slightest chance of sticking it to Trump is a highly troubling prospect.

That is my medical opinion by the way.
Click to expand...

Bend over to whom? The FBI places informants in suspected criminal organizations all the time. You're not against their use of informants, you're only against it for your "team". I think ALL politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle should be held accountable to the law and investigated when appropriate. You want special rules that only apply to your favorite politicians, I want the same rules to apply to everyone. You know good and well if the informant were in the Clinton Foundation exposing crimes you'd be celebrating our brave FBI agents for shining the light on corruption. Try consistency.

On a side note, I find it how strange you guys turned so viciously on the FBI after they handed you the election. A little appreciation, eh?
 
If Trumpians won't acknowledge the massive hyperbole of trying to frame an informant as a "spy" and the incredible stupidity of trying to out whomever this is assuming he/she exists, they simply have NO...nada...zippo credibility in this or any other discussion on the topic of the investigation or the character of their hero directly.
 
haymarket said:
If any administration had cause to believe a serious presidential candidate was in cahoots with our main foreign adversary and they did NOT take this type of action, they would be derelict in their duty to protect the American people.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile the same administration was running to FISA for warrants based upon information from annonymous sources within said main foreign adversary country.
 
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...

More Hyperbole. That has already been proven wrong. What was used from the Dossier was corroborated independently. You can keep spewing your filth all you want and I will keep contradicting it every time I see it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you add up the ~300k/piece speaking fees of Hillary over the 3 or so years she was giving speeches, it comes nowhere near 150 million, and it was primarily from Americans. If you have evidence that she took 150 million from the Russians specifically, present it. I don't like politicians getting paid large sums of money for "speeches", especially Hillary, but pulling out a random, astronomical number out of your ass with no supporting facts is silly.




It's the FBI... They regularly use informants to investigate potential crimes, it's kind of their job and standard SOP. Are you opposed to ALL informant use by the FBI or just when your political heroes are the target?

Let me guess, if the informant were in the Clinton Foundation exposing crimes you'd be celebrating our brave FBI agents for shining the light on corruption.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Trump and Hillary are peanuts compared to getting Obama’s real birth certificate though I think you’ll agree...
 
Oborosen said:
This coupled with them basically owning up to putting a body in the Trump camp that was beholden unto them is more then suspect enough.
Click to expand...

But did they "put a body in the Trump camp"? Was the informant part of the Trump campaign?
 
OscarLevant said:
The FBI pulled back the reins of the investigation during the campaign as they didn't want to tip anyone off and let it be known there was an investigation, the held back until after the election. That investigation is now full steam ahead, and arrests, indictments and guilty pleas have been made.

Your use of weasel words aside. There is no evidenced of crimes or "treasonous" activities by Hllary. There is no evidence of quid pro quos for the foundation's donations. Without that, you have nothing. The foundation routinely receives donations from all over the world, noting that not one dime of it goes to Clintons.

Speaking fees are not illegal, all politicians get paid to speak when they leave office.


None of the emails on the server were marked as confidential or top secret or anything like that. Well, a couple were, but they were later determined to be wrongfully labeled. That Comey asserted there were over 100 classified emails, but, given that no emails were so marked, his assertion constitutes an opinion in hindsight, and, as such, does not rise to a level that prosecutor would be willing to affix his or her John Hancock to any charge.
Click to expand...

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!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom