Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="childeye 2" data-source="post: 77269142" data-attributes="member: 412375"><p>Thank you for qualifying what you mean by "that would be a crime". Papadopoulos said the same thing when talked to. Inclusive to that, it's a crime for a foreign adversary to interfere in our election process period, yet Papadopoulos didn't inform the FBI when he was told by Mifsud that Russia had thousands of Clinton emails.</p><p></p><p>Reminds me of the fake elector's scheme on January 6.</p><p></p><p>In principle you're correct. But you can't just believe everything you hear or read in social media either. One reason stated by the FBI for opening a full investigation was to bring in oversight by the DOJ.</p><p></p><p>This is about national security and it truly is unprecedented in the history of our nation. I believe that in counterintelligence one has to approach that "possibility" with the mindset that calculates strategy based on first contemplating the worst-case scenario, and then seek to defend against that possibility. Preparing for the worst, is not the same as a forgone conclusion.</p><p></p><p>The events show the Trump campaign was being compromised the moment they were offered dirt on Hillary and secretly met with Russian operatives. Trump was publicly claiming no ties with Russia. He was in a compromised position because Putin at any time could reveal the truth and evidence that they had the secret meeting, and Putin could claim anything he wanted to claim about what transpired at that meeting.</p><p></p><p>This above is not the circumstance nor the activity described by the FBI, nor did the Australians imply "Russians want Trump to win".</p><p></p><p>The circumstances were that the Russians were actively engaged in the crime of interfering to help Trump and hurt Hillary when the FBI received word from a friendly foreign government that a Trump campaign official suggested two months earlier that, "Russia wants to help Trump win".</p><p></p><p>This was the circumstance and activity that was an articulable factual basis indicating a federal crime and a threat to National security:</p><p></p><p></p><p>We not only found out that Russians wanted Trump to win, we also found out how they actively interfered to help Trump and hurt Hillary. We also ended up with exposing the Russian tactics for the American people to understand how easily we were manipulated. We ended up indicting many Russian actors and even convicting Nixon's old man Roger stone for not revealing his contact with WikiLeaks, woohoo. It was an adventure, hopefully we learned something.</p><p></p><p>I don't think internal polling data is shared on the evening news. It's expensive and highly valued by a campaign. I don't think a campaign would want their counterparts to learn of the intricacies of the people they intend to target. Why release it and allow the other campaign to strategize around it?</p><p></p><p>Go ahead, knock yourself out all you want, but it's still evidence of coordinating with Russia. We should ask why would Manafort send internal polling data to Russia? It's useful for targeting certain voters with specific messaging.</p><p></p><p>That's right, let it all out, it's going to be okay. We all die eventually anyway but the good news is Love lives on. Time for a hug.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="childeye 2, post: 77269142, member: 412375"] Thank you for qualifying what you mean by "that would be a crime". Papadopoulos said the same thing when talked to. Inclusive to that, it's a crime for a foreign adversary to interfere in our election process period, yet Papadopoulos didn't inform the FBI when he was told by Mifsud that Russia had thousands of Clinton emails. Reminds me of the fake elector's scheme on January 6. In principle you're correct. But you can't just believe everything you hear or read in social media either. One reason stated by the FBI for opening a full investigation was to bring in oversight by the DOJ. This is about national security and it truly is unprecedented in the history of our nation. I believe that in counterintelligence one has to approach that "possibility" with the mindset that calculates strategy based on first contemplating the worst-case scenario, and then seek to defend against that possibility. Preparing for the worst, is not the same as a forgone conclusion. The events show the Trump campaign was being compromised the moment they were offered dirt on Hillary and secretly met with Russian operatives. Trump was publicly claiming no ties with Russia. He was in a compromised position because Putin at any time could reveal the truth and evidence that they had the secret meeting, and Putin could claim anything he wanted to claim about what transpired at that meeting. This above is not the circumstance nor the activity described by the FBI, nor did the Australians imply "Russians want Trump to win". The circumstances were that the Russians were actively engaged in the crime of interfering to help Trump and hurt Hillary when the FBI received word from a friendly foreign government that a Trump campaign official suggested two months earlier that, "Russia wants to help Trump win". This was the circumstance and activity that was an articulable factual basis indicating a federal crime and a threat to National security: We not only found out that Russians wanted Trump to win, we also found out how they actively interfered to help Trump and hurt Hillary. We also ended up with exposing the Russian tactics for the American people to understand how easily we were manipulated. We ended up indicting many Russian actors and even convicting Nixon's old man Roger stone for not revealing his contact with WikiLeaks, woohoo. It was an adventure, hopefully we learned something. I don't think internal polling data is shared on the evening news. It's expensive and highly valued by a campaign. I don't think a campaign would want their counterparts to learn of the intricacies of the people they intend to target. Why release it and allow the other campaign to strategize around it? Go ahead, knock yourself out all you want, but it's still evidence of coordinating with Russia. We should ask why would Manafort send internal polling data to Russia? It's useful for targeting certain voters with specific messaging. That's right, let it all out, it's going to be okay. We all die eventually anyway but the good news is Love lives on. Time for a hug. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump
Top
Bottom