So highly prejudiced and out to get Trump that they went out of their way to conceal knowledge about investigations into his campaign while repeatedly commenting on the Clinton e-mail situation.
You think the Trump campaign needed to be told who was close to the Russians?
Are you daft? They knew exactly who was close to the Russians. We all knew. The Trump campaign hired them anyway, sometimes specifically because they had connections to Russians.
The only incompetence here is the Trump campaign in hiring these jokers.
They didn’t need to release the dossier before the election. That would have backfired, just as it is doing now. It could have been used as a last desperate attempt to save Hillary, but they didn’t need it. Hillary was going to win. They knew it. Everybody knew it.
We all knew? Please. No one except a handful even knew who Carter Page was. Don’t read back what you have heard now to a previous time.
Manafort, yes. But we weren’t told back then that we were supposed to hate all things Russian. Ask Tony Podesta, unregistered lobbyist.
Just checking in to see if anyone has dropped a Venezuela on this thread yet…
It is a horrible cancer on the country to suggest that, if the FBI suspected people of being Russian spies and that it was dangerious to have them in a campaign, that they should have warned people in that campaign of the dnager? Actually, thats just how far out you have become.
Yes, it is absolutely part of the horrible cancer on this nation, to attack our Law Enforcement institutions for NOT revealing the details of an ongoing investigation to people who may end up being part of said investigation. It is beyond insane that you would admonish them for actually doing what is right and proper and standard protocol in an investigation, by NOT revealing the details of what they know to people who may end up being part of the very investigation they are undertaking.
They did EXACTLY what they should have done in an active investigation. Warn the campaign of the potential that Russia was seeking to infiltrate the campaign, putting them on notice to be on the lookout, without compromising the investigation, or its details and existence.
1 Like
So if you disagree with the methods the FBI used and believe they should have aided the campaigns in their vetting, since they expressed a concern…you must be a cancer on the nation and are attacking our Law Enforcement institutions. It is beyond insane to express a contrary opinion.
I’m sorry fella. You have lost it.
And I am not creating a straw man. Those are your words.
If no one knew Page, then how did he get a position in Trump’s campaign?
He was hired specifically because he had ties to Russia. You can’t possibly claim that the Trump campaign was ignorant of Page’s ties to Russia when that was the only reason he was hired in the first place.
When Page was heading to Moscow to give his speech, everyone knew it was a bad idea. The Trump campaign knew it was a bad idea. They let him go anyway.
How badly does the Trump campaign need this spelled out?
1 Like
It’s way beyond holding a contrary position though Doug. You are attacking these institutions for doing the right thing. The proper thing. The same thing they should always do when it comes to active investigations. Especially ones with potential national security implications. And all to run defense for Donald Trump of all people.
Yes, that is a cancer on our nation. Suggesting an absurd and damaging position be taken by the DOJ in revealing the details of an active investigation to the people who very well may end up being part of the investigation.
You want the precedent to be established in all active investigations that the investigators reveal the details of their investigation, while it is ongoing, to people who may end up being part of the investigation, because…Donald Trump? No Doug, I’m not the one who has lost it here.
This entire argument is based on the fallacious notion that Trump and his people were acting in good faith and were just making honest mistakes when it comes to their associations. The repeated lies by pretty much everyone when it comes to meetings with Russians shows something else entirely.
This is creating out of whole cloth a new way to handle this type of investigative work. I cannot for the life of me imagine why, after “credible allegations of wrongdoing,” the FBI would call up the participants in a potential conspiracy to inform them of what the FBI already knows. We wouldn’t expect them to do that with a labor boss or the head of a corporation or a mob boss or members of a street gang or even Bernie ■■■■■■■ Madoff?
What is it about Donald Trump that he merits this special consideration?
I believe it because of the average Trumpist’s emotional attachment to him. To his success. To his likely failure. Because they are enormously invested in him, individually. He is the manifestation of their great angst and insecurity.
It is now into a dangerous sphere of a cult of personality.
Time will tell. I think we face a struggle with our national identity. Our identity as a republic. Institutions that have been long venerated are under attack because they threaten an individual. I think our most difficult days in this regard are ahead. I know Trump and his ilk will not be seen favorably in the light of history, but the road to that illumination may be very dark indeed.
2 Likes
Excellent post. Much more eloquent than I have been trying to state it.
Yes the situation is serious, and it is a national security issue. We have investigations started by members of the outgoing administration on the incoming administration. I know they hate him, but if they can do this the current administration can do it on the next administration.
Before you use agencies that are part of the defense of this country on your political opponents campaign, you need a darn good reason. Someone talking to someone about emails, unless they were scheming together to hack them, doesn’t do it. An unverified political opposition research doesn’t do it.
At the least, if you feel compel to run such an operation, you must assuredly provide all of the support for having to run such an operation.
Currently, we have an ongoing investigation of the current administration without adequate basis for doing so. So yes, it is serious.
If the reason they did not provide details of what they thought were spies in the campaign, then they did it for the wrong reasons. After two years, no such evidence has been found. They certainly didn’t have it back then.
Right now, he represents the current elected head of the executive branch of government. He is the one elected leader of all the country. That requires some consideration before hamstringing the leader of the country in doing his job.
I know, Moron, idiot, orange, etc. etc. You don’t get to throw out the election just because you disagree, no matter how strongly you disagree.
If you are going to try to overturn the last election, at the least you are responsible for showing why.
Back then, the time we are talking about, he was a candidate. Why did candidate Trump merit special consideration?
Nobody is trying to overturn the last election. The election results will stand, regardless of the outcome of this investigation. If, for any reason, Trump cannot stand up to the scrutiny, his VP nominee will assume the Presidency.
I go back to my point about the “average Trumpist’s emotional attachment to him. To his success. To his likely failure. Because they are enormously invested in him, individually. He is the manifestation of their great angst and insecurity.”
I believe your post reinforces this notion.
1 Like
Thanks for the analysis. Actually, he is not someone with whom I would willingly associated. However, I do agree with his position on many issues. I do not want to see those thrown away in an illegitimate manner. Nor is it for the good of the country to see unelected bureaucrats wield this power in defiance of the elected branches.
Congress has oversight over the FBI.
The FBI does not have oversight of Congress or the President.
As far as angst and insecurity, I am seeing a lot of that in those who are invested in having the investigative agencies overthrow this administration…especially as they must now see this slipping away.
Supporters of the President seem to be willing to delegitimize the FBI on far less evidence than we already know about potential wrongdoings in the President’s campaign and the people the President associates professionally with.
You who talk so cavalierly about overthrow and the like are taking hostage a stabilizing institution in our Republic to prevent an investigation.
The FBI is responsible for investigating crimes or potential crimes. Do you have issue with the bureau performing that function regardless of who the suspected perpetrator is?
Are you suggesting that the seven criminals in Congress that the FBI successfully investigated leading to convictions in the ABSCAM scandal should not have been convicted because of the branch of government they served? Are the members of Congress subject to investigation but not the executive, including the President?
This is an interesting position you take. I doubt many who take it would take the same position for President Obama.
1 Like
Why is it when libs represent my position it never is? All I have been saying is that the FBI is not above oversight. It is not an elected branch of government. And to the extent that it is take over for political purposes (i.e. Strzok and Page) that needs to be investigated and stopped…and for the very reason of keeping it from losing its purpose.
We are talking about investigating, not condemning the entire agency. Most likely this would be limited to a review of a few people at the top.
You people are loosing it over the same type of review that you want to do of the elected branch of government, the executive branch. You do everything you can to de-legitimize the executive but have a fit if anyone wants an oversight of a non elected bureaucracy.
No, why not just tell them about Page and Papodopolus?
