Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I have zero problem with the IG doing it. In fact I think it's a good idea, I'm a supporter of IG's on the city, state and federal levels.
In the simplest of terms, Trump and his team were told the Russians were interfering in the election and let them know if they are contacted. They are watching the Russians and see them contact Trump’s team. They say nothing. Yada yada Trump’s campaign manager, who shared polling daya with the Russians, is currently in jail
- Mueller report.
Oh.
Ask yourself, why would the FBI, DOJ, whomever choose to spy on a candidate that most thought had such a small chance of winning? What was the endgame? Why did Comey release that statement about Hillary just days before the election if they were in the bag for her? Why not a whiff of a leak about investigating Trump?
You know they had to bring this to a judge to sign off on and everything, right?
- Let's keep in mind, as Republicans are happy to remind everyone, whether data off of Hillary's email server had been hacked was a very big question of fact, still is.
I do.
Well, I think it's possible to seek information on an opponent without being 'compromised' by the people offering the information. You don't have to like it, I don't, but I don't think it makes them traitors or something.
A foreign government with whom you're working a huge deal to open a hotel in their country? That will make you hundreds of millions of dollars? And you need their support, politically, to get this deal done?
I don't know- it just stinks to me. I think they were a lot more keen on the unlikelihood of a Russian collusion scheme than they've let on.
I think your obsession with this isn’t healthy and hope you all reach a point where you can move on at some point.
The bolded is correct. It’s always been a play on words. Trump does it all the time, just like when he said they broke in to his attorney’s office and stole files. Having a warrant and collecting evidence is hardly breaking in but it plays better to say it that way. Same thing with the “spying”
I know what happened. Was just unclear what you meant by "knowing what we know". What? that the CIA sent the operative? Sure, look into I guess. They were chasing leads that russia was attempting to meddle in the election. They were not "out to get Trump". That is total nonsense. First, no one thought he was going to win. Second, Comey pulled the rug out from Hillary days before the vote (not that I am saying that cost her the election, I have no idea if that is true. It is wholly inconsistent with trying to get Trump).
How is this different than what we already knew? I mean besides playing out a second verse of Valerie Plame.
So, do you think there needs to be further inquiry into this?
The Halper story is a year old. All they’ve added here is putting the name of an FBI agent who is completely ruined as a covert asset now. This is a good idea?
I make no presumption with regard to whether or not they were out to get Trump. My question is if people are interested in digging deeper as to why this took place.
Are you interested in why Hapler was involved?
so you are good with a campaign seeking out illegally obtained information on an opponent?
The Trump campaign was investigated for an illicit conspiracy with Russia. In other words, a nonexistent crime. The Trump campaign had nothing to do with the alleged hack.
Didn't say I was good with it. But I don't think it's surprising or automatically treasonous that political operatives would take the meeting.
Whether or not Trump was involved there was an underlying crime being investigated. As you’re aware, Russians were indicted for that crime. During the same investigation.
I agree. Treasonous is a bridge too far.Didn't say I was good with it. But I don't think it's surprising or automatically treasonous that political operatives would take the meeting.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Ren's point is that Trump should be allowed to obstruct investigations into his friends, as long as Trump himself didn't commit the initial crime.
No, I'm not. But I have so much contempt for this investigation's false pretenses, the way it shifted perception of Trump toward a conspiracy theory and away from reality, and the untold damage it exacted on this country, that I view Trump's response to it as pretty mild by comparison.
He committed obstruction of justice during a legitimate investigation that was carried on with professionalism. Whatever the bystanders said or wanted and whatever the source of the crime was, the investigation was professional and was not leaking damning information.
I think I love you. This is true of all sides, no matter what you believe politically.
Spun differently, perhaps, it could be that Trump/Cohen blackmailed Falwell for his endorsement. Would anyone be surprised if that turned out to be true?
I like the idea of the origin story coming out. I'd like to see the FISA warrants that started things off. I'd like to see the full story on why Carter Page was unfairly targeted. We've seen basically the entire upper echelon of the FBI get heaved from their seats due to their actions here - there is more here.
Ren. You do realize that Trump did 85% of this to himself. His incessant whining and complaining kept this in the new cycle day in and day out. Had he just kept his mouth shut and let the investigation run its course the fanfare and hype would have been orders of magnitude less. He’s the one that kept it in the news cycle feeding the hype day and night. He’s was the one that produced all the smoke suggesting there was a fire. Mueller’s team was as tight as a drum, not a peep.
"unfairly" targeted? bit of bias betrayed there, Sand. i'd be keen to hear what set the FBI off , what they got from the first three FISA taps , and what they got that allowed DOJ (Yates, Boente, and Rosenstein all) to renew them.
Trump had no choice but to address it- it was the first question from reporters all the time. Sure, there was a more subdued way to go about it, but the media and pundit sphere would have filled in the blanks regardless of what he actually said.
and "I know you are but what am I?"
