After repeated false statements on the FISA warrants, years of the Russia collusion hoax, and the murder-by-fire-extinguisher hoax, does anyone doubt that elements of the FBI would be willing to plant evidence to frame Trump?
No one has gone to prison as a result of the earlier hoaxes, although an FBI lawyer got a felony conviction related to a false statement used to obtain a FISA warrant. The attorney given probation and was not disbarred in spite of the conviction.
Given the pattern of hoaxes and false statements with little to no penalty, why would we expect the FBI to suddenly be 100% honest in its dealings with Trump?
Dick Cheney called Trump the greatest threat to the republic in American history. That is greater than Lee and the Confederate Army, greater than Hitler, greater than Stalin.
Would it amount to treason to fail to frame Trump to keep him out of the presidency?
Yes, the Huff Post is directing the campaign. They are basically claiming that any suggestion that the FBI would continue to operate the way it has for the last six years is a baseless conspiracy theory.
A dilemma for Democrats is their two basic talking points are contradictory.
Either
Trump is greatest danger to the republic in American history,
OR
the FBI planting evidence is an absurd conspiracy theory.
They cannot both be true.
If Trump is really a greater threat than the Confederate Army, Hitler, or Stalin, then of course someone is likely use whatever means are necessary to stop him, especially since previous experience shows that the risk of jail time is virtually zero.
If Trump is really an existential threat to the republic, it would arguably be a moral imperative to plant evidence to prevent him from taking office as President.
No, it’s blatantly obvious the FBI can’t be trusted, not believing any evidence they find with no observers. Just trust me is not a reasonable political position
To be fair, planted evidence was put out there is a talking point quite early. And now it may become very important, especially when Trump decides to contest the release of the warrant.
That’s what brings rise to the theories etc. By making the lawyers stay at the end of the driveway unable to observe and requesting the cameras be turned off isn’t the look of people being transparent in their operations.
That’s what leads people to ask the questions. I bet they would give a police officer the benefit of the doubt when the officer turned off all cameras in the vehicles and himself while confiscating all cell phones in the vicinity and having them shut down any cctv before he confronted a suspect that ultimately ended in a shooting situation etc.
I’m sure there would be no questions about what happened.
