Was the Trump-Russia investigation politically motivated from the start?

T

Tranquillus in Exile

New member
Please spend a few moments perusing this report in The Guardian (April 2017):

British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Or if you prefer it second hand, the Daily Mail:

British were first to pass on details of links between Donald Trump's campaign team and Russian agents
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4409712/British-spies-notice-Trump-Russia-links.html

Now, it's possible that The Guardian made the whole thing up, although they have never been known to do anything like that before.

Slightly more likely is that high-ups in British intelligence made it up and planted it in the press, presumably to oblige the "cousins".

Most likely, however, is that there are substantial elements of truth in the report, i.e. British and other allied intel agencies warned the US in early 2016 of "suspicious interactions" between members of the Trump team and Russian agents. This is not to say that there was collusion to swing the election, merely that there could have been - and whatever people say, this is not normal in US presidential elections.

Suppose you are CIA Director Brennan and you receive repeated warnings such as these from friendly sources, including the esteemed GCHQ. What do you do - ignore them?
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Please spend a few moments perusing this report in The Guardian (April 2017):

British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Or if you prefer it second hand, the Daily Mail:

British were first to pass on details of links between Donald Trump's campaign team and Russian agents
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4409712/British-spies-notice-Trump-Russia-links.html

Now, it's possible that The Guardian made the whole thing up, although they have never been known to do anything like that before.

Slightly more likely is that high-ups in British intelligence made it up and planted it in the press, presumably to oblige the "cousins".

Most likely, however, is that there are substantial elements of truth in the report, i.e. British and other allied intel agencies warned the US in early 2016 of "suspicious interactions" between members of the Trump team and Russian agents. This is not to say that there was collusion to swing the election, merely that there could have been - and whatever people say, this is not normal in US presidential elections.

Suppose you are CIA Director Brennan and you receive repeated warnings such as these from friendly sources, including the esteemed GCHQ. What do you do - ignore them?
Click to expand...


YES ... remember The Russian Involvement in The Election? :rolleyes:
 
not again.. so what was the EC for the FBI investigation? what date? what informing went on before then?

Ryan laid down the law to the weasel last fri..produce or be subject to Floor actions.
maybe that will light a fire under his ass
 
noise said:
not again.. so what was the EC for the FBI investigation? what date? what informing went on before then?
Click to expand...

If you want me to shup up about this, noise, please address the OP. Which do you go for:

- The Guardian made it up
- British intel made it up
- There is some truth in it.

Is there another option?
 
If there was any doubt about whether the Russian investigation was politically motivated, it was answered by the IG report.

Horowitz’s job doesn’t entail discerning motives because he’s not a prosecutor—only to determine whether certain decisions were reasonable, when looked at in isolation. But any prosecutor worth his salt would be itching to get after this one.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
If you want me to shup up about this, noise, please address the OP. Which do you go for:

- The Guardian made it up
- British intel made it up
- There is some truth in it.

Is there another option?
Click to expand...
we need to see the EC. we get notified of all kinds of risks -we don't start formal investigations over a 5 eyes report
and we don't use informants against Americans unless its a specific FISA. Based on non-Steele 50-50 stuff
 
Bourbon said:
[h=2]Was the Clinton-Email investigation politically motivated from the start? :cool:[/h]
Click to expand...

you tell us, so in nut-bag world the Clinton Email investigation WAS politically motivated , but the Trump Russian nothing burger was NOT?

I just want to try and understand nut-bag world, I really do but it's hard to follow the thinking of a brain that's basically mush, did you Mom have any children that survived, could you summon one of them to explain nut-bag world for us
 
Getin the ring said:
you tell us, so in nut-bag world the Clinton Email investigation WAS politically motivated , but the Trump Russian nothing burger was NOT?

I just want to try and understand nut-bag world, I really do but it's hard to follow the thinking of a brain that's basically mush, did you Mom have any children that survived, could you summon one of them to explain nut-bag world for us
Click to expand...


You're right, no emails for Trump, he just invited the Russians to The WH and delivered the information directly from his Shit-Hole.
 
Getin the ring said:
you tell us, so in nut-bag world the Clinton Email investigation WAS politically motivated , but the Trump Russian nothing burger was NOT?

I just want to try and understand nut-bag world, I really do but it's hard to follow the thinking of a brain that's basically mush, did you Mom have any children that survived, could you summon one of them to explain nut-bag world for us
Click to expand...

Clearly, they were dragged kicking and screaming into the Hillary investigation—which has to go down in history as the most half-assed and lackadaisical investigation of its kind.

In constrast to Mullet’s gestapo tactics in the Trump investigation—which actually began with spying on a presidential campaign.

Both investigations are historic for different reasons.
 
Putin wants Trump to be indicted because Putin knows that Trump is a coward who would never expect to stand trial for any crimes, and Trump will inevitably flee to Russia where he can serve as a President-in-Exile that Putin's FSB can manufacture idiot support for on the internet, thereby creating a permanent and lasting question to the legitimacy of our political system. Putin will treat Trump like a deposed ruler, much how we treated the Shah of Iran after the Islamic Revolution there resulted in his exile. Putin will do the same thing with Trump; using Trump's self-imposed exile as an excuse to question the legitimacy of our system. And he will have 20% of Americans supporting that.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Really? What did the IG report say about the Trump-Russia investigation?

Please note: I am asking what it said, not what you want it to have said.
Click to expand...

Horowitz said little or nothing.

But Strzok assured his mistress that ‘we’ll stop him’. Strzok gets an A for effort. Then he handed the ball off to Mullet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top