• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016

You're wrong:

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The FBI lied to the judge.

See highlighted. All you need is probable cause. As stated earlier, Steele had been known to be a very reliable source, so his information was deemed as reliable.
 
See highlighted. All you need is probable cause. As stated earlier, Steele had been known to be a very reliable source, so his information was deemed as reliable.

Verified probable cause, because in court, the defense attorney will ask for proof.
 
Verified probable cause, because in court, the defense attorney will ask for proof.
You can't verify probable cause. If you could, it would no longer be "probable cause" but "provable evidence". And what the defense attorney asks for doesn't matter, because the defense attorney only comes in at the latter stages of the process. Probable cause, itself, is not enough for indictment. Probable cause leads to investigation, where evidence is then collected and determined whether it is enough to establish responsibility for a crime. And that's when the defense attorney comes in.

You're wrong on this one.
 
Verified probable cause, because in court, the defense attorney will ask for proof.

It didn't come to court. It probably would never have been used as evidence in a case either. It was raw HUMINT.
 
Are talking about the one that has been proven 80% accurate and nothing has been disproven, that one???

Don't forget: the one that was ALWAYS a collection or raw intelligence like rumors, which Steele always said likely had some things that weren't accurate, that was leads for further opposition research by trump's Republican and Democratic opponents, AND which has been found to be remarkably accurate far before the info in it was found by others?
 
You can't verify probable cause. If you could, it would no longer be "probable cause" but "provable evidence". And what the defense attorney asks for doesn't matter, because the defense attorney only comes in at the latter stages of the process.

Well said.

Probable cause, itself, is not enough for indictment.

Except probable cause is MORE than trump has for his lies about the Central Park 5 being guilty who he wants executed after DNA proved them innocent, for his 'lock her up' lies about Hillary, for his birther lies about Obama, for his lies that he saw 'thousands of Muslims in New Jersey dancing in joy on 9/11'. That's the guy whining about our criminal justice system and lying that he's not getting enough legal protection from accusations.
 
It didn't come to court. It probably would never have been used as evidence in a case either. It was raw HUMINT.

If it was used as probable cause, it would have been used in court. If it wouldn't stand up to cross examination in court, then it was illegal probable cause.
 
You can't verify probable cause. If you could, it would no longer be "probable cause" but "provable evidence". And what the defense attorney asks for doesn't matter, because the defense attorney only comes in at the latter stages of the process. Probable cause, itself, is not enough for indictment. Probable cause leads to investigation, where evidence is then collected and determined whether it is enough to establish responsibility for a crime. And that's when the defense attorney comes in.

You're wrong on this one.

LOL...yes you can. In court the LEO who presented the probable cause will be forced to testify to the veracity of the probable cause.

We're talking warrants and surveillance, not indictments.

Can't verify probable cause...:lamo

And you're supposed to be smarter than everybody else?
 
If it was used as probable cause, it would have been used in court. If it wouldn't stand up to cross examination in court, then it was illegal probable cause.

Nope, sorry, simply does not work that way. Are you making this up as you post?
 
Nope, sorry, simply does not work that way. Are you making this up as you post?

Probable cause has to be verifiable, or the case will get kicked out. That's why I wish Flynn and Popadopolous would have gone to trial. I bet both those cases would have been thrown out before lunch.
 
The one that I'm now sporting in my signature line.

That isn't a lie. That's a fact. The FBI is a law enforcement apparatus that is bound by The Constitution. The CIA is an intelligence apparatus that isn't bound by The Constitution, hence the reason it can't operate domestically.
 
Probable cause has to be verifiable, or the case will get kicked out. That's why I wish Flynn and Popadopolous would have gone to trial. I bet both those cases would have been thrown out before lunch.

Again, probable cause does not have to be verifiable, it has to be probable cause. As someone already stated, once verified, probable cause becomes proven cause. But that is not what is required for various warrants, including FISA warrants. Probable cause, not proven cause.

That said, the Steele information was not used in isolation. It was just one component of the establishment of probable cause.
 
That isn't a lie. That's a fact. The FBI is a law enforcement apparatus that is bound by The Constitution. The CIA is an intelligence apparatus that isn't bound by The Constitution, hence the reason it can't operate domestically.

The FBI is an intelligence agency, as I proved to you when you posted that lie.
 
LOL...yes you can.
No, you cannot. Probably cause can lead to inculpatory evidence, but you cannot verify probable cause. You can even verify the evidence used to suggest probable cause, but you don't verify probable cause itself.

In court the LEO who presented the probable cause will be forced to testify to the veracity of the probable cause.
That's a completely separate issue. You're not talking about verifying probable cause, you are talking about whether probable cause was valid based on the evidence at hand. The LEO may be able to verify the evidence used to claim probable cause, but you don't verify probable cause itself because the only way to verify probable cause would be the later discovery of inculpatory evidence, which is irrelevant to probable cause in the first place.

Two different issues.

We're talking warrants and surveillance, not indictments.
Exactly, so there's no reason for you to be talking about defense attorneys.

Can't verify probable cause...:lamo

And you're supposed to be smarter than everybody else?
Considering I'm exposing what you don't know...yes.

And I never said I'm smarter than everybody else. I just think and act that way. ;)
 
No, you cannot. Probably cause can lead to inculpatory evidence, but you cannot verify probable cause. You can even verify the evidence used to suggest probable cause, but you don't verify probable cause itself.

That's a completely separate issue. You're not talking about verifying probable cause, you are talking about whether probable cause was valid based on the evidence at hand. The LEO may be able to verify the evidence used to claim probable cause, but you don't verify probable cause itself because the only way to verify probable cause would be the later discovery of inculpatory evidence, which is irrelevant to probable cause in the first place.

Two different issues.

Exactly, so there's no reason for you to be talking about defense attorneys.

Considering I'm exposing what you don't know...yes.

And I never said I'm smarter than everybody else. I just think and act that way. ;)

You're a helluva actor!...lol
 
Post your link again.

Why, because you ignored the post from yesterday?

Here's something right from the FBI site. It doesn't even contain a lot of words to confuse you.

The CIA and FBI are both members of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The CIA, however, has no law enforcement function. Rather, it collects and analyzes information that is vital to the formation of U.S. policy, particularly in areas that impact the security of the nation. The CIA collects information only regarding foreign countries and their citizens. Unlike the FBI, it is prohibited from collecting information regarding “U.S. Persons,” a term that includes U.S. citizens, resident aliens, legal immigrants, and U.S. corporations, regardless of where they are located.

How does the FBI differ from the Central Intelligence Agency? — FBI
 
Why, because you ignored the post from yesterday?

Here's something right from the FBI site. It doesn't even contain a lot of words to confuse you.

The CIA and FBI are both members of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The CIA, however, has no law enforcement function. Rather, it collects and analyzes information that is vital to the formation of U.S. policy, particularly in areas that impact the security of the nation. The CIA collects information only regarding foreign countries and their citizens. Unlike the FBI, it is prohibited from collecting information regarding “U.S. Persons,” a term that includes U.S. citizens, resident aliens, legal immigrants, and U.S. corporations, regardless of where they are located.

How does the FBI differ from the Central Intelligence Agency? — FBI

So, the FBI IS a law enforcement apparatus. Your link says so. Case closed
 
So, the FBI IS a law enforcement apparatus. Your link says so. Case closed

The FBI is an intelligence agency. My link says so. Case closed.

By the way, here is a government link with more words. I'm sure you'll be confused. This is the official site from Dan Coats' department. He's the Director of National Intelligence. The site talks about the 17 intelligence agencies. Guess what? The FBI is on that list. Are you saying that Dan Coats is a liar?

Members of the IC
 
That's definitely spying. Straight up.

Not exactly a big deal. Domestic law enforcement often uses misleading and outright lies to catch fish. This was minor league compared to some of the tactics pulled under the Old Queen J. Edgar. He had agents photographing indiscrete politicians in flagrante delicto at every opportunity, ala black socks steamroller Elliot Spitzer, and then used the photos to extort and blackmail them to enhance his own political powers. At one point, he had FBI agents running a brothel in the heart of Chevy Chase, a DC bedroom community, during WWII. Papadopoulos played to this agent hoping he was going to get some.

It was the woman in red who took down John Dillinger. :)

In this case Papadopoulos was a jerk suckered by a hot babe with a direct question. So what if she wasn't what she claimed to be? He still acted like a jerk.
 
Not exactly a big deal. Domestic law enforcement often uses misleading and outright lies to catch fish. This was minor league compared to some of the tactics pulled under the Old Queen J. Edgar. He had agents photographing indiscrete politicians in flagrante delicto at every opportunity, ala black socks steamroller Elliot Spitzer, and then used the photos to extort and blackmail them to enhance his own political powers. At one point, he had FBI agents running a brothel in the heart of Chevy Chase, a DC bedroom community, during WWII. Papadopoulos played to this agent hoping he was going to get some.

It was the woman in red who took down John Dillinger. :)

In this case Papadopoulos was a jerk suckered by a hot babe with a direct question. So what if she wasn't what she claimed to be? He still acted like a jerk.

It's a big deal when 1) there are no legal grounds for the spying and 2) the spying's intent is to undermine a presidential campaign.

Remember what happened the last time the government conducted warrantless surveillance on a presidential campaign?
 
It's a big deal when 1) there are no legal grounds for the spying and 2) the spying's intent is to undermine a presidential campaign.

Remember what happened the last time the government conducted warrantless surveillance on a presidential campaign?

The FBI is not the government. It is a police agency, often acting under its own purview, regardless of justice department oversight. There is no need for lawful evidence of wrong doing, only suspicion. Surveillance of possible criminal activities does not require proof of the same, only suspicion, and proof is to be discovered or not by that surveillance. No surveillance requires warrants, unless there is an invasion of a specific premises not open to the public. Logistics alone demand that surveillance remains warrant free within confines of the law, whereby surveillance invades private domain. i.e. wiretapping warrants

Every political campaign is under police surveillance, and at times for the protection of those running for office. Any participant of a political campaign, knowing that all political campaigns are under police surveillance, would be a fool to operate outside the laws of the land. And doing such exhibits the typical "I'm too smart to get caught" attitude which guys like Papadopoulos possessed. He was an elitist who got caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

Every police agency has its own interests at heart, the FBI no different from others. Human nature, whether you like it or not. Had they caught a democrat with his pants down, you would be cheering.
 
A) That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are talking about PapaD blabbing to a diplomat about getting information about illegally obtained materials and we are talking about how he worked to arrange a meeting between Putin and Trump, which I proved with direct quotes from Mueller's Report. Why do you continue to post lies?

Perhaps you need a reminder...

american woman said this:

Papadopoulos was indicted. It's not unreasonable to conclude the FBI had reasonable grounds at that time for surveillane. Yes or no?

I responded with this:

LOL!!

Do you know what he was indicted for?

(hint: it wasn't for anything to do with Russia)

You jumped in with this:

He was indicted for lying about his contacts with Russians (both receiving information that Russia hacked the DNC and trying to set up a meeting between Putin and Trump, with his supervisor encouraging him) as part of the Trump campaign.

How do you figure that has nothing to do with Russia?

This is incorrect, so I responded with this:

sigh...

You should really read the indictment before you spout off with spun half-truths. Here, this will help: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

As you can see...and must admit...we were talking about what Papadoupolus was indicted for. And guess what...the Mueller report said nothing about his indictment or that he plead guilty to anything.

That link I provided is the actual indictment and lists the specific charges.

So...get back on track, please...or be dismissed.
 
Back
Top Bottom