Speaking with Russians regarding crimes they were committing for the clear purpose of helping your organization is probable cause to investigate and determine if they were accessories to those crimes.
I answered your question, now answer mine.
Who in the Clinton campaign did anything similar, specifically, discussing crimes the Russians were committing to assist the Clinton campaign?
What evidence do you have that the FBI opened a counter-intelligence operation on the Trump campaign?
Evidence of the highlighted?
You realize that putting a lot of different things together in a list doesn’t make them all interrelated?
July 21 Trump eats spinach
July 24 Volcano goes off in Indonesia
Its called confirmation bias.
That’s not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is ignoring evidence that contradicts the conclusion you want to come to. For example, concluding there’s no rational reason for investigating members of Trump campaign by ignoring the evidence that provides probable cause.
You gave an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Show me a banana.
Shown a banana.
Nobody has shown me a banana!
I mean, whatever you gotta tell yourself to sleep at night.
I love it when people post Latin. I get all goose bumply
Carter page…and then it snowballed…you knew this already…then you had the dossier which was helped with what they already had…
There you been answered…now go away
LOL
I’m not on twitter, and never read his tweets. I’m one of those people who wishes he’d burn his stupid twitter account.
Trump is upset that the Obama FBI thought the Russians might try to infiltrate his campaign, and instead of informing him of it, the FBI sent agents to spy on the campaign. If you cannot understand how wrong that was, I do not know what to tell you.
Like everyone else, you’be got nothing
err, when did THAT happen???
M
Ill answer your question if you answer mine.
The Obama FBI acknowledges that they started the investigation in July of 2016. In fact, we now have evidence they were doing it as early as May of 2016. And between the FBI and the DOJ and the Mueller investigation it is EASILY thousands of investigators involved.
Hell, the IG used over 500 investigators and he was just investigating the FBI probe on Clinton!
M
The statements of the FBI and James Comey. Google is your friend.
M
Ok. But that’s exactly what that long list was doing.
con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun
noun: confirmation bias
** the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories.**
You need a better, more accurate definition than the dictionary provides.
Try this, it’s a little bit better.
Your question pre-supposes that the two campaign had to be treated the same way for the same reasons. It isn’t so.
The question isn’t whether BOTH campaigns colluded with Russians in a crime. It is whether or not the FBI had a REASON to believe that the Trump campaign HAD colluded with Russians in a crime and needed to open up an investigation into this.
WHY did the FBI believe the Trump campaign had done something illegal with the Russians? What was the smoking gun - THE EVENT - that happened to have them suspect that was thew case?
Something - ANYTHING - that had Trump’s fingerprints on it where there was a KNOWN crime committed by the Russians and with the aid or approval of the Trump campaign.
Where is it?
M
You’re question is dishonest. You’re asking for a “smoking gun” or “known crime committed” when all that’s needed is probable cause.
Get it?
