Voter fraud v. Russia

[Tulsaaggieson]

I guess you just don't get that the FBI does not announce what evidence it collects or has as it collects it. The idea that you googled it, didn't see it, so it doesn't exist, so no further investigation is warranted is frankly...dumb.

If you don't think Manafort, Page, Flynn, Stone and their dealings with Russia are due and full and complete investigation and following of the leads generated, I don't know what to tell you. We disagree.

You're position is that even if they did collude with the Russians, it didn't affect the election so no harm no foul? In an election as close as it was in key battleground swing states? There is no way you can say it definitelvely would not have done so. Besides, collusion with Russians to attempt to influence the election is a crime whether or not it ultimately works. Your disclaimer sounds a whole lot like Hillary during the Benghazi hearings....."WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE....WHAT DOES IT MATTER NOW."

I understand the FBI's procedure for release of information during an investigation. I was looking for the evidence that (I don't want to say left) your side is looking at that keeps you so adamant in your stance. Benghazi had evidence that people could point to and say Rice flat out lied. What is the public evidence that shows that?

I truly am not attacking you nor do I even plan on coming back to this thread after I get the answer. You have been arguing well enough that I want to find more about your side. I'm open to the investigation, but I need something to go off of.

So far all I have is Hill's sour grapes after the election seem to be the only basis. From what I understand it is Hill lost and cried Russia. Manafort, Page, Flynn, and Stone had some connection to Russia so they were targeted. Trump was stupid in firing Flynn, and now Comey. Non of that is anything I would call enough to go on.

Like I said I'm open to the investigation, but I'm looking for some thing more. If you want an independent investigation with an independent prosecutor I would definitely want more. None of Obama's scandals had an independent assigned so to me the precedent is set for the type of evidence you need, and in this case from what I know the evidence is not even close to reaching that precedent.

If you don't want to sum it up I understand and I can agree to disagree on the merits of the case. You've made arguments already that I would agree with for the investigation, and I think many on the side of no investigation are making poorly thought out arguments. Personally I think it is sour grapes from Obama's scandals getting a pass. Which is what I'm worried about with my own stance.

 

[CowboyJD]

Serious question.

When does the FBI decide the investigation is concluded if they are trying to find evidence that may not exist?

Clapper said there is no evidence of collusion to this point, so do they continue looking til the end of time?

I mean when there is a murder they collect evidence to discover what happened and by who, right?

So what crime are they investigating? They say there's no evidence of vote tampering, ballot stuffing, so what law was broken?

Possible money laundering, acceptance of payments from a foreign government, failure to register as foreign agent, there is a whole host of crimes that may exist.

The FBI concludes there investigation when the leads have been followed out and either refuted as having no evidence. The last person that should get to decide that is someone that had people that are being investigated in his administration and his election.

I love everyone throwing out Clapper's statements. These are largely the exact same people that ignored, discounted, or refuted his statements about Russian hacking and the DNC.

 

[CowboyJD]

I understand the FBI's procedure for release of information during an investigation. I was looking for the evidence that (I don't want to say left) your side is looking at that keeps you so adamant in your stance. Benghazi had evidence that people could point to and say Rice flat out lied. What is the public evidence that shows that?

I truly am not attacking you nor do I even plan on coming back to this thread after I get the answer. You have been arguing well enough that I want to find more about your side. I'm open to the investigation, but I need something to go off of.

So far all I have is Hill's sour grapes after the election seem to be the only basis. From what I understand it is Hill lost and cried Russia. Manafort, Page, Flynn, and Stone had some connection to Russia so they were targeted. Trump was stupid in firing Flynn, and now Comey. Non of that is anything I would call enough to go on.

Like I said I'm open to the investigation, but I'm looking for some thing more. If you want an independent investigation with an independent prosecutor I would definitely want more. None of Obama's scandals had an independent assigned so to me the precedent is set for the type of evidence you need, and in this case from what I know the evidence is not even close to reaching that precedent.

If you don't want to sum it up I understand and I can agree to disagree on the merits of the case. You've made arguments already that I would agree with for the investigation, and I think many on the side of no investigation are making poorly thought out arguments. Personally I think it is sour grapes from Obama's scandals getting a pass. Which is what I'm worried about with my own stance.

What do you think my stance is?

My stance is that the investigation should continue to completion and that the Presidential administration shouldn't attempt to influence the FBI's determination of when that is. If you're asking me what evidence there is that justifies the investigation even having been started, I'd say obvious financial dealings with the administration's National Security Advisor, campaign manager, and foreign policy advisor during the election and the Clapper and other intelligence agencies report that Russia hacked the DNC emails and made attempts to influence the election.

If you really think all of that is insufficient cause to start and pursue an investigation, we're just going to disagree.

As for an independent investigator, I don't feel that strongly about that. It appears to me that Trump himself is trying to influence the investigation and we know he continues to call for it to end. When that type of thing happens, it's certainly worth talking about IMO. Especially when the AG has already recuse himself.

I think it is largely sour grapes forwhat they perceive as Obama and Hillary getting a pass from the media and from prosecution. The weird thing is that I agree they got a pass from the media. I agree that in some of the things they got a pass from prosecution. I just don't think that justifies continuing to give government officials as pass in the future.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

What do you think my stance is?

My stance is that the investigation should continue to completion and that the Presidential administration shouldn't attempt to influence the FBI's determination of when that is. If you're asking me what evidence there is that justifies the investigation even having been started, I'd say obvious financial dealings with the administration's National Security Advisor, campaign manager, and foreign policy advisor during the election and the Clapper and other intelligence agencies report that Russia hacked the DNC emails and made attempts to influence the election.

If you really think all of that is insufficient cause to start and pursue an investigation, we're just going to disagree.

As for an independent investigator, I don't feel that strongly about that. It appears to me that Trump himself is trying to influence the investigation and we know he continues to call for it to end. When that type of thing happens, it's certainly worth talking about IMO. Especially when the AG has already recuse himself.

I think it is largely sour grapes forwhat they perceive as Obama and Hillary getting a pass from the media and from prosecution. The weird thing is that I agree they got a pass from the media. I agree that in some of the things they got a pass from prosecution. I just don't think that justifies continuing to give government officials as pass in the future.

Thanks for the response JD. That's what I needed. I will go look at those.

 

[MegaPoke]

I guess I really don't get where you are coming from when you say the "Russia thing" then. You have no problem with the broader FBI investigation. I am assuming that means Manafort, Page, Flynn, Stone but...

What is the "Russian collusion thing" you have such a problem with if you don't have a problem with the broader FBI investigation?

Is it just speculation about Trump specifically? Is it reporting about the FBI investigation? Is it speculation about whether Trump is trying to stop the investigation and why? It my opinion, every single time Trump tweets that "Russia is fake news" and given he mentioned the FBI investigation (which you said you have no problem with) in conjunction with firing Comey....speculation on why he might want to stop the broader FBI investigation is completely valid and appropriate. He's fanning the flames trying to kill the fire.

I fully support the FBI investigating Russian influence. However...

At this point, unless I am mistaken, Trump is not personally a focus of an FBI investigation, correct? And yet this is the constant talking point. Google "watergate Trump" and let me know if you get any hits.

You are right - Trump is making it worse.

 

[CowboyJD]

I fully support the FBI investigating Russian influence. However...

At this point, unless I am mistaken, Trump is not personally a focus of an FBI investigation, correct? And yet this is the constant talking point. Google "watergate Trump" and let me know if you get any hits.

You are right - Trump is making it worse.

Thanks for the clarification.

To my knowledge Trump is not personally the focus.

I don't necessarily agree that it is the constant talking point. It is a consistent talking point that is raised when talking about the investigation of Trump administration officials that is going on....from a "what did Trump know and when did he know it" or "where there is smoke, there is fire perspective".

I agree the media conflates the FBI investigation into Russian influence in the Trump administration into an indictment/assertion that Trump is under investigation. An unbiased, objective media wouldn't do that. Trump does the same thing in asserting the entire investigation should be ended and is "fake news". Additionally that feeds into the very narrative that Trump himself is under investigation.

Until you made this clarification, it appeared to me that you were also referring to the entirety of the FBI investigation (Manafort, Flynn, Stone, etc.) when you mentioned "the Russia thing" or "collusion".

I know there are people here that are asserting that the underlying FBI investigation (which you support...as do I) should never have started and should be stopped immediately.

It seems we aren't really that far apart....maybe even completely in agreement.

Re:Trump/Watergate, I'll merely point out that Nixon wasn't the initial focus of Watergate either. He became one when L. Patrick Gray testified in his FBI Director confirmation hearings that he complied with White House counsel John Dean's demand for daily briefings about the Watergate investigation. Which led to John Dean testifying he had briefed Nixon 35 times about progress of the FBI investigation. Which led to an independent investigator being appointed. Then Saturday Night Massacre to find someone in the AG's office to fire Archibald Cox.

I'm not saying the comparisons are dead on or exact. I am saying that the timelines are running a similar path. I would also say that Trump's actions at this point are pretty Nixonian. If he wants to be the subject of an investigation, he's following the path of how to become one established by Nixon pretty closely.