There Was Spying On The Trump Campaign

[rogue06]

I'm sorry Sparko - you clearly do not understand what security clearances and national security is about. Any potential threat has to be pursued.

It is the unheard of manner in which they chose the investigate it that is the problem.

Compare it with how they handled the actual spy in Diane Feinstein's staff for two decades (see post #14).

[oxmixmudd]

It is the unheard of manner in which they chose the investigate it that is the problem.

Compare it with how they handled the actual spy in Diane Feinstein's staff for two decades (see post #14).

I can't determine why someone was not investigated that should have been. It is a travesty anytime people or persons known to be a potential problem are ignored. That is why I can say the Trump campaign should have been investigated/spied upon. But that statement is completely independent of whether or not there are others that should have been investigated that were not.

Once again you are heading down the road that would say a murderer should be set free if there is any other murderer that was ever set free that should not have been.

That is not how the rule of law works. The proper response is to lock the other murderer up (assuming there is sufficient evidence to convict)

You would be absolutely right to complain about a known spy that was not investigated.

But independent of that, you would be/are absolutely wrong to complain about people throwing up massive numbers of red flags that were investigated just because someone else was not.

Jim

[seer]

Doesn't matter. The election had no good choices. Everyone had to vote for the lesser of two evils as they saw it, write in someone that could not win, or simply not vote.

I do not form any opinions about people based on who they voted for in the 2016 election.

The test is what do you do once the election is over. Regardless of who you voted for, do you support the winner when they are acting badly, or do you speak out against them because you stand for something more than political expediency. Can you acknowledge the winner if they are doing good, even if you don't like their overall approach? Those are the tests.


Jim

Jim, my test, as it has been, are the policies, most of which (though not all) I agree with. Especially when it comes to the courts. I don't defend Trump's stupid stuff, but over all he is far better than Hillary.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, my test, as it has been, are the policies, most of which (though not all) I agree with. Especially when it comes to the courts. I don't defend Trump's stupid stuff, but over all he is far better than Hillary.

This thread is complaining about our intelligence communities investigating a campaign that in the end had multiple compromised persons involved with it. What that fact and the statement above implies is that you support Donald Trump's policy of involving himself and his staff in private and undisclosed relationships with hostile foreign entities. And that is a very, very bad and dangerous position to take.


Jim

[Sparko]

I'm sorry Sparko - you clearly do not understand what security clearances and national security is about. Any potential threat has to be pursued. People hiding contacts with potential threats are themselves potential threats. It doesn't matter who those people are. It is a simple fact that people running for office that have characteristics that would otherwise disqualify them from access to critical information should be investigated and if necessary spied upon. And the sooner the better so that if there is a problem they can be exposed before they get into office.

Yes, IF the organizations managing national security are populated with people loyal to a party or an individual rather than the constitution it is a problem.

But that is why Trump is such a problem. He as much or more than any before him wants all our critical apolitical offices to be populated with people loyal to himself above all else. And so far, thankfully, he's had a hard time finding people that will compromise themselves that fully. That is why he has fired so many people.

The organizations that manage these issues are intended to be and should be apolitical. Their loyalty MUST be to the rule of law and the constitution itself.

But the blind support of so many to Trump, no matter what he does, has opened the door like never before to the actual compromise of these institutions that protect us by caring more about the constitution and the rule of law that who happens to currently be in power.


Jim

SPYING, Jim. Not investigating. SPYING. That is not kosher or probably legal, especially when it is at the behest of the opposition party: the Democrats, controlled by Obama and Hillary at the time.

[seer]

This thread is complaining about our intelligence communities investigating a campaign that in the end had multiple compromised persons involved with it. What that fact and the statement above implies is that you support Donald Trump's policy of involving himself and his staff in private and undisclosed relationships with hostile foreign entities. And that is a very, very bad position to take.


Jim

Jim, there is no evidence of collusion, period. But the Clinton people had just as many connections with these same hostile foreign entities yet you just fluff it off. So we have two campaigns with questionable connections, and the ONLY reason why you are so bothered with Trump is that you just don't like him. You are biased Jim.

[Cow Poke]

[Charles]

Jim, there is no evidence of collusion, period.

Quite many investigations show that the person is innocent or that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence. That does not imply that it was wrong to investigate in the first place. You don't know the result before you investigate.

[Cow Poke]

Quite many investigations show that the person is innocent or that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence. That does not imply that it was wrong to investigate in the first place. You don't know the result before you investigate.

If I base my investigation on false testimony, and conceal that fact, the investigation is bogus. The "fruit from the poison tree" principle should apply.

[Charles]

If I base my investigation on false testimony, and conceal that fact, the investigation is bogus. The "fruit from the poison tree" principle should apply.

And while there were false testimonies that does not imply that there were not good reasons not based on false testimonies.

[Cow Poke]

And while there were false testimonies that does not imply that there were not good reasons not based on false testimonies.

You'd make a great dirty cop!

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, there is no evidence of collusion, period. But the Clinton people had just as many connections with these same hostile foreign entities yet you just fluff it off. So we have two campaigns with questionable connections, and the ONLY reason why you are so bothered with Trump is that you just don't like him. You are biased Jim.

I did not 'fluff it off'. That is NOT the topic, thought it does seem you would love to steer the conversation that way.

So, did I or did I not say that persons with access to secure information must not have ANY secret or otherwise undisclosed relations with potentially compromising hostile elements?

The fact that they did (that those contacts might exist solely for playing bingo watching a good movie is irrelevant). Just having unreported contacts is enough to disqualify most people. And that fact is what justified an investigation and spying. We needed to know WHY they were keeping those contacts hidden.

Now, Flynn was a perfect example of WHY those rules exist. HE was compromised by the Russians. He WAS engaged in compromising activities with them. And that is a BIG problem, especially since Trump resisted cutting him off once they knew he was compromised.

I'll say it again: to the topic of this thread -> our intelligence people NEEDED to be investigating Trump and his campaign. Even if there was no actual collusion. Because there were too many red flags, too many secrets. As it was, there were significantly compromised individuals interacting with and influencing Donald Trump. That in and of itself - even if DT is completely free of any wrong doing - is a problem and needed to be flushed out.

The fact DT, you and so many others can't wrap their heads around that fact is ALSO a significant problem.



Jim

[seer]

I did not 'fluff it off'. That is NOT the topic, thought it does seem you would love to steer the conversation that way.

So, did I or did I not say that persons with access to secure information must not have ANY secret or otherwise undisclosed relations with potentially compromising hostile elements?

The fact that they did (that those contacts might exist solely for playing bingo watching a good movie is irrelevant). Just having unreported contacts is enough to disqualify most people. And that fact is what justified an investigation and spying. We needed to know WHY they were keeping those contacts hidden.

Now, Flynn was a perfect example of WHY those rules exist. HE was compromised by the Russians. He WAS engaged in compromising activities with them. And that is a BIG problem, especially since Trump resisted cutting him off once they knew he was compromised.

I'll say it again: to the topic of this thread -> our intelligence people NEEDED to be investigating Trump and his campaign. Even if there was no actual collusion. Because there were too many red flags, too many secrets. As it was, there were significantly compromised individuals interacting with and influencing Donald Trump. That in and of itself - even if DT is completely free of any wrong doing - is a problem and needed to be flushed out.

The fact DT, you and so many others can't wrap their heads around that fact is ALSO a significant problem.



Jim

Ok Jim, have it you way. But I think we all agree that if the intelligence agencies did anything illegal then heads should roll...

[Mountain Man]

Any potential threat has to be pursued. People hiding contacts with potential threats are themselves potential threats.

Except that it's looking more and more like the "evidence" of a threat was fabricated in order to illegally spy on the Trump campaign for purely political reasons.

Posted this in another thread:

Some interesting Tweets from the President:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36144[/ATTACH]

"How did it start?" indeed. Taking this back to the very beginning is a shrewd and perhaps necessary play. You see, Susan Rice's infamous "by the book" email that she sent to herself 15-minutes before the end of the Obama administration was more than just a "cover your behind" maneuver. We now know that despite claims by some to the contrary, Trump actually was a subject of the FBI's and later Mueller's investigation. So why the constant lies that he wasn't, told to the media and even Trump himself? Because lying about and to the subject of an investigation is in some cases mandated if an investigation is being conducted "by the book". This means that Rice's email to herself potentially gives cover to all the conspirators who can hide behind "the book" if they are ever forced to an give account for their actions.

But what if it can be shown that the conspirators knew the investigation was bogus before it even began? What if it can be shown that they deceived the courts in order to acquire surveillance warrants? What if it can be shown that they conspired with the Hillary campaign to manufacture a phony "dossier" which they then used to justify their counter intelligence operation? Well in that case, "the book" offers them no cover at all.



https://theconservativetreehouse.com...piracy-effort/

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36146[/ATTACH]

[Sparko]

I think people are confusing "investigate" with "spying" -- they are not the same thing. Spying indicates secretly watching and listening without a warrant. Or secretly placing spies into the campaign without knowledge of Trump. Investigating indicates checking openly, questioning, researching, all above board and legally.

We know Trump was investigated: Mueller led it. Spying is something else entirely.