Because the Russians having damaging information about Hillary and Papadapoulos knowing about it doesn't indicate probable cause of a crime being committed. There's a big question as to why they opted to investigate the Trump administration over that, if that's the impetus.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 7:47 pmOK, explain why receiving credible information from an ally's intelligence service and investigating it is 'a big problem.'
If someone had bragged about the Russians having damaging information on Donald Trump, would that have been cause for an FBI investigation of those people? If so, there were a lot of people engaged in that braggadocio, and yet the FBI investigated Trump, and not the braggarts. We have a dossier of partly Russian sourced negative information about Trump, and other negative information about Trump from other foreign sources, and the FBI investigated Trump based on that information. Why wouldn't they investigate the people who got the information from foreign sources, if that's "credible information from which to launch an investigation and put a secret informant in their midst?"
That's the same lickspittle you cited! You mean you can cite the lickspittle when it serves your purposes, but if it says what you don't like, it's not allowed to be cited? You can cite the parts you like, but the rest is political garbage?L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 7:47 pmWTF do you think quoting those two sentences accomplishes? It's hilarious that you would reference the abject lickspittle Nunes's claim regarding 'hidden orgins.'Forty Two wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 6:03 pmThe memo asserts that the FBI hid details about the origins of the dossier from the surveillance court [when the FBI applied for warrants]. The memo also states that there is “not evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between [Carter] Page and Papadopoulos.”
Then why did you cite it? Read your link from the Hill. THat's where I got the quotes from.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 7:47 pmPerhaps you've forgotten that it's been acknowledged even by Nunes himself to be false. Carter Page and Papadopoulos could very well have discussed Russia, by Page's own admission. Nunes's memo was a steaming pile of bullshit.
Their bias does have relevance. Read their texts to each other.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 7:47 pmStrzok and Page's interpersonal peccadillo has relevance to this issue in what way, exactly?
Oh, now we have to prove the allegations before we investigate? The text messages themselves are evidence of bias on the part of Strzok and Page. Let's have a DOJ investigation of them and the way the investigation was begun.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 7:47 pmYou imply that there was a political motive for beginning the investigation, but that certainly has not been shown.
Maybe nothing illegal was done, although they were fired from their jobs for doing it. I'd say that suggests that something "against the rules" was done, don't you? Why were they booted from the Mueller investigation team?L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 7:47 pmEven if you buy the Trump sycophant narrative and believe that Strzok was motivated by politics (why wouldn't you, after all), I suggest you try repeating your tried and true mantra to yourself and see whether you find it satisfactory: 'Not illegal!™'
Not sure why you wouldn't want investigation, though.
Neither do I. But I don't give credibility to your sources, unless the evidence follows.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 7:47 pmThe previously given explanation for this appears reasonable. I'm fine with the DOJ investigating, but I don't for a minute believe Trump and his pet Congresscritters' blustering and yapping has any credibility.
So far, zero. There is, literally, not a single Russia-2016 related crime, and nothing regarding collusion, much less collusion that would be improper or illegal. The indictments were all about other nonsense picked up along the way.
I mean - have you seen anything approaching evidence of the allegation that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with the Russians? What? It's not a meeting with the lady lawyer. That's not even improper. Even if the express purpose of the meeting was to see if they had damaging information on Clinton: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, much less illegal.