No, only Republican FBI agents should be allowed to investigate Trump. And no fake Republicans like Mueller, either.
Also, any DAs who have previous contacts or associations with the police should not be allowed to prosecute criminals. It’s a clear conflict of interest.
Could you provide a direct link? My browser won’t play the embedded video, and I’m not sure I want to accept the word of someone who’s waiting for the Lord Jesus to tell him more.
I didn’t watch the video. I presumed that the Jesus bit was a joke (along with the “a little bird told me”).
I wouldn’t take the source with much weight.
Further: all convictions for cases in which even one investigator is of a political party that differs from that of the defendant, must be overturned.
Empty the prisons! There’s a new standard!
Everyone was out to get Trump before he was elected. Rick Perry said he was a cancer that needed to be excised. Should we get a warrant and find out who he was working with?
Ted Cruz said that he was totally amoral and worse than Hillary? Investigate? Did Ted try to bring him down?
Marco Rubio said he was a con man and unfit for office. Maybe he was up to something. We should find out.
Mitt Romney held an entire press conference dedicated to trying to bring him down. We should look into that, too.
Everyone knew he was nothing but a con artist and a self-promotion machine before he got elected.
And seriously, you believe there’s an innocent explanation for the “Hi, I’m with the Russian government, wanna collude” - “Love it!” email exchange but you think THIS is incriminating?
Unrelated to Russia, but further evidence that the NRA has been acting corruptly for the last few years:
Here’s a very interesting story in the New York Magazine.
It’s a long read, but certainly worthwhile. It looks at Trump’s Russian connections going back to 1987, gives a detailed summary of what we know so far, and makes a careful, reasoned argument.
Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart — Or His Handler?
A plausible theory of mind-boggling collusion.
By Jonathan Chait
In a similar vein:
They had only spent $13 million and $9 million in the previous election cycles.
Meanwhile, they’ve been investigated by the FBI, which is interested in finding out more about contributions from Russian benefactors.
Right-leaning commissioners on the FEC have also determined that advertising on “issues” during an election cycle allows organizations to avoid registration and reporting requirements, provided that they are advocating for “issues” and not for “candidates” themselves. Thus, even though foreign contributions are illegal, they have effectively created a backdoor. It’s easy to see how dark money can stay dark, and open up the political system to foreign influence.
Here’s an interesting article that lays out some interesting connections in light of the recent indictments. Basically, in October before the election, the Trump campaign suddenly, and inexplicably, shifted a huge chunk of ad buys into what they called “new battleground states”, advertising in Wisconsin for the first time and focusing on Ohio and Pennsylvania, based on “data”. Contemporaneous tweets from reporters at the time, cited in the article, question what the hell data they were using as there was nothing public that would have suggested this approach.
We now know that weeks earlier, the Russians hacked into the DNC analytics, effectively knowing the entire strategy of the Clinton campaign and all of the data on what they were doing. In fact, this “electoral strategy” is what Nate Silver discusses as the reason for Trump’s victory. So, the Russians stole the data, and the Trump campaign made decisions that could make no sense without that data. Could be an amazing coincidence, I guess. Or maybe the Trump campaign had the stolen data.
Can someone translate this right-wing speak to English?
(That’s from the press conference today, copied from this article)
It boils down to but…but…but…her emails!
“You’re a puppet.”
Are you sure? It sounds like a more specific allegation about how the FBI investigated the DNC hacks.
The server has to be called to testify!
I’m an eDiscovery specialist. It’s my job to control electronic data in litigation, so this kind of question falls directly into my purview.
It either demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on how things operate or he’s just throwing red meat to his base with baseless accusations.
The FBI wouldn’t remove their server. There is absolutely no point in their taking the server. They’d come, image everything, and leave. It would severely hamper the DCC’s ability to operate if the FBI came in and just took everything. Of course they wouldn’t do that unless it’s absolutely needed. And of course the DCC would object if the FBI suggested they wanted to take everything.
There has to be a line there somewhere about Trump not tipping servers …
OK. so they image the server, and somebody works on that image with DataShop!
I’m not questioning anything you’re saying on technical grounds (& FTR I think the whole Clinton email thing is overblown).
But ISTM that it’s SOP for the FBI to take away the physical computers when they raid someplace. They don’t seem to worry too much about how it impacts anyone. (I once started a thread about it here.) How does that jibe with what you say?
Gosh, who to believe? The self-described* security specialist or the self-described* non security specialist armed with the Googles who uses “it seems to me” arguments?
*Not to impugn, but our descriptions are pretty much all we have.
That seems to imply they raided the DNC. They didn’t, they came in at the DNC’s request.