• 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!

The FBI can’t neutralize a security threat if the president is the threat

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
97,054
Reaction score
81,482
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A sobering assessment of what law enforcement can be expected to accomplish once a threat to national security is the President. The disappointing conclusion is that it is ultimately up to Congress to remove the threat, which is unsettling when you consider that Republicans are continuing to back Trump over the security and well being of the country even in light of the revelations from the past several days. Lindsey Graham has come out against the FBI in opening its counterintelligence investigation, and has stated that the interpreter for the private meeting between trump and Putin absolutely should not testify regarding that conversation.

It's a long and detailed read, but worth it.

The goal of a counterintelligence investigation is to identify and stop threats to national security. Such cases are fundamentally different from criminal investigations, which seek to collect evidence of a crime and are eventually resolved by pursuing or declining to pursue charges in court. By contrast, once a counterintelligence investigation is opened, it is ultimately closed by determining no threat to national security exists or it has ceased to exist, or by taking actions to render ineffective — in intelligence lingo, to “neutralize” — the threat.

This leaves only one option for neutralization: exposure.

Exposing the activities of a foreign intelligence service renders them ineffective, since it removes plausible deniability, which is the hallmark of covert intelligence operations. It also reveals the sources and methods that a foreign power is using, forcing them to abandon the operation. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has already utilized this avenue by bringing criminal charges against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for a disinformation campaign on social media and against 12 GRU officers for hacking the Democratic National Committee’s emails. This alternative has its downsides: It allows our adversaries to know what we know, enabling them to up their game the next time. (The current aggressive attempts by Russia’s Internet Research Agency to compel discovery of Mueller’s sources and methods in court is an example of this tension.) But where the national security threat is severe, the need to stop the activity immediately can outweigh the costs.

This is where Mueller’s report comes in. Until now, the American public has seen only snippets of Mueller’s investigation — those that he has chosen to make public through criminal charges. But since not all activities uncovered by a counterintelligence investigation, even those that pose a significant threat to national security, are necessarily criminal, they do not reveal the full breadth of what Mueller may have discovered. Only by laying out all of his counterintelligence findings — including what role, if any, Trump played in Russia’s intelligence operation against the United States — can the criminal charges be placed in context and the full scope of the threat be assessed.

If the counterintelligence case against the president was eventually closed because it found that Trump did not pose a threat to U.S. national security, Trump should welcome Mueller’s report reaching Congress. This conclusion would stop the speculation about Trump’s relationship with Russia and reassure the American public that his loyalties remain with the United States. But if it wasn’t, and the threat to national security is ongoing, then informing Congress of the nature of the threat is paramount. This would be the only way that Congress can determine whether it should take the ultimate step to neutralize the damage that the president could inflict on the nation — through impeachment and removal from office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-threat/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.be2b36a2a0e5
 

Common Sense 1

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
17,416
Reaction score
12,127
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
This is what happens when the FBI becomes political and tries to interfere where they should not!
Still so many pissed that Trump is our president until 2020.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A sobering assessment of what law enforcement can be expected to accomplish once a threat to national security is the President. The disappointing conclusion is that it is ultimately up to Congress to remove the threat, which is unsettling when you consider that Republicans are continuing to back Trump over the security and well being of the country even in light of the revelations from the past several days. Lindsey Graham has come out against the FBI in opening its counterintelligence investigation, and has stated that the interpreter for the private meeting between trump and Putin absolutely should not testify regarding that conversation.

It's a long and detailed read, but worth it.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-threat/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.be2b36a2a0e5

The FBI can present the damning evidence to Congress who can then impeach on it.

And if there IS such damning evidence, it's not only appropriate, but IMPERATIVE, for the FBI to do so immediately.

Can you think of any convincing reason why, if the FBI had such evidence toward the beginning of Trump's term, as has been recently suggested, that they wouldn't have presented it yet, and instead chose to permit a foreign asset to remain in office for a further two years at least?

In fact, if Mueller is in possession of such evidence, why would HE not present it as quickly as possible? It would be imperative for him to do so as well. He'd wait for two years or more because of some kind of minor protocol?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,211
Reaction score
38,930
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A sobering assessment of what law enforcement can be expected to accomplish once a threat to national security is the President. The disappointing conclusion is that it is ultimately up to Congress to remove the threat, which is unsettling when you consider that Republicans are continuing to back Trump over the security and well being of the country even in light of the revelations from the past several days. Lindsey Graham has come out against the FBI in opening its counterintelligence investigation, and has stated that the interpreter for the private meeting between trump and Putin absolutely should not testify regarding that conversation.

It's a long and detailed read, but worth it.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-threat/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.be2b36a2a0e5

Well, all y'all have to do is find out if anyone in the FBI thinks there is a threat...why they think there is a threat...and, of course, who in the FBI thinks there is a threat.

While you are at it, you can find out who is leaking information about FBI investigations to the media and why they are breaking the law.
 

Amelia

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
10,936
Reaction score
9,067
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
This is what happens when the FBI becomes political and tries to interfere where they should not!
Still so many pissed that Trump is our president until 2020.

If Obama had acted how Trump acts, you would have been more than pissed.

Obama never came close to the suspicious and dangerous behavior this president does on a regular basis, despite much fear mongering on the part of rightwing talk radio about Obama having been a clear and present danger. Now Trump does it blatantly, loudly, proudly, on every platform from Twitter to Helsinki to private phone calls with dictators where the president of Turkey helps determine U.S. military policy without advanced notice to the Pentagon, and the FBI is too political if they do their job in assessing potential threats to the country. Sure.
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, all y'all have to do is find out if anyone in the FBI thinks there is a threat...why they think there is a threat...and, of course, who in the FBI thinks there is a threat.

While you are at it, you can find out who is leaking information about FBI investigations to the media and why they are breaking the law.

They're "breaking the law" because there is no other recourse. The goobers elected a Russian asset president and, as the WaPo link will elucidate for you, exposure is the only option.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,798
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
A sobering assessment of what law enforcement can be expected to accomplish once a threat to national security is the President. The disappointing conclusion is that it is ultimately up to Congress to remove the threat, which is unsettling when you consider that Republicans are continuing to back Trump over the security and well being of the country even in light of the revelations from the past several days. Lindsey Graham has come out against the FBI in opening its counterintelligence investigation, and has stated that the interpreter for the private meeting between trump and Putin absolutely should not testify regarding that conversation.

It's a long and detailed read, but worth it.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-threat/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.be2b36a2a0e5

If a majority of the voters want to hang the US.... :shrug:
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,629
Reaction score
42,493
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A sobering assessment of what law enforcement can be expected to accomplish once a threat to national security is the President. The disappointing conclusion is that it is ultimately up to Congress to remove the threat, which is unsettling when you consider that Republicans are continuing to back Trump over the security and well being of the country even in light of the revelations from the past several days. Lindsey Graham has come out against the FBI in opening its counterintelligence investigation, and has stated that the interpreter for the private meeting between trump and Putin absolutely should not testify regarding that conversation.

It's a long and detailed read, but worth it.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-threat/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.be2b36a2a0e5

Congress ultimately holds the keys to dealing with that and it is clear we are already in a constitutional "crisis of fidelity" where the Constitution is clear on what remedies must be taken, but the majority of Congress is unwilling to swallow that bitter pill.
 
Last edited:

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,798
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Congress ultimately holds the keys to dealing that and it is clear we are already in a constitutional "crisis of fidelity" where the Constitution is clear on what remedies must be taken, but the majority of Congress is unwilling to swallow that bitter pill.

Which is why I stand by my assertion that oaths to the Constitution are nothing more than lip service.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
23,616
Reaction score
4,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If Obama had acted how Trump acts, you would have been more than pissed.

Obama never came close to the suspicious and dangerous behavior this president does on a regular basis, despite much fear mongering on the part of rightwing talk radio about Obama having been a clear and present danger. Now Trump does it blatantly, loudly, proudly, on every platform from Twitter to Helsinki to private phone calls with dictators where the president of Turkey helps determine U.S. military policy without advanced notice to the Pentagon, and the FBI is too political if they do their job in assessing potential threats to the country. Sure.

Turkey is an ally of the USA. Are you suggesting that Trump should NOT trust and work with our allies? How would that help USA national security.

Naturally, Obama conspired with Russia prior to the 2012 election.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
23,616
Reaction score
4,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What is missing in these concerns is an explanation and argument what actions the FBI thinks Trump did to warrant their concern. Firing their boss ain't it.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,798
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Turkey is an ally of the USA. Are you suggesting that Trump should NOT trust and work with our allies? How would that help USA national security.

Naturally, Obama conspired with Russia prior to the 2012 election.

Please link to a source showing that FBI counterintelligence was investigating Obama. I'll wait.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,798
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
What is missing in these concerns is an explanation and argument what actions the FBI thinks Trump did to warrant their concern. Firing their boss ain't it.

If you don't know the answer to that, then you have not been paying attention. Hint: it's not for firing their boss.
 

Amelia

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
10,936
Reaction score
9,067
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Turkey is an ally of the USA. Are you suggesting that Trump should NOT trust and work with our allies? How would that help USA national security.

Naturally, Obama conspired with Russia prior to the 2012 election.

The Kurds are our allies. Turkey is a threat to the Kurds.

To whatever degree we do work with Turkey, U.S. military policy shouldn't be decided during phone call with a dictator, leaving the Pentagon flatfooted by the announcement.

That kind of behavior from Trump sends up red flags. Red flags get investigated if you have intelligence agencies and a Congress who are committed to do their duties.
 

Rogue Valley

Putin = War Criminal
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
81,644
Reaction score
66,600
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Trump White House has just hired 17 new lawyers. Their job is to prevent the release of the Mueller Report. Either through court claims of Executive Privilege, or only releasing a severely redacted Mueller document.

Under DoJ rules that were composed for Special Counsels after the Clinton fiasco, a completed SC investigative report first goes to the US Attorney General (who by then would be William Barr). The Attorney General then sends a memorandum to Congress encapsulating the report's conclusions and explaining why the AG has decided to prosecute, or to not prosecute.

Unfortunately, the sitting AG can decide to not prosecute for political reasons even though the report may recommend prosecution and provide ample evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This is one of the weak legal pillars in our democracy. The US House would no doubt subpoena the original Mueller Report (sans redactions) and hold public hearings. One could surmise that after Richard Nixon, any expansion of presidential power would not be tolerated. Sadly the inverse has occurred and every president since Tricky Dick has increased presidential power without concomitant challenge from Congress.

So yes, it is extremely difficult to remove a criminal element from the Oval Office when impeachment is precluded by a sympathetic/complicit chamber of Congress.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,629
Reaction score
42,493
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which is why I stand by my assertion that oaths to the Constitution are nothing more than lip service.

But they're not supposed to be. The law specifically states that when an elected leader fails to perform their duties, the Constitution offers a remedy. But I agree that there should be more "teeth" in it.
Instead, we might suffer a very drastic set of consequences for Congress failing to perform ITS duties.
And that might ultimately lead to some changes, perhaps in the form of amendments, if there is even a country still standing afterward.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,699
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Kurds are our allies. Turkey is a threat to the Kurds.

To whatever degree we do work with Turkey, U.S. military policy shouldn't be decided during phone call with a dictator, leaving the Pentagon flatfooted by the announcement.

That kind of behavior from Trump sends up red flags. Red flags get investigated if you have intelligence agencies and a Congress who are committed to do their duties.

The Turks are our allies (NATO). We have generally had good relations with the Kurdish diaspora.
 

Eriech

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
7,002
Reaction score
1,995
Yes, Obama was a threat. Tough to stop if you are part of that threat. Biggest most consequential criminal organization in the history of this country.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
23,616
Reaction score
4,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Please link to a source showing that FBI counterintelligence was investigating Obama. I'll wait.

I never said they did. Perhaps based upon the standards applied to Mr. Trump they ought have.
 

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is what happens when the FBI becomes political and tries to interfere where they should not!
Still so many pissed that Trump is our president until 2020.

You do realize that they would not be able to take action on a matter of this significance on their own, but would have to get permission and cooorderate with the DOJ, due to checks and balances?
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
23,616
Reaction score
4,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you don't know the answer to that, then you have not been paying attention. Hint: it's not for firing their boss.

In other words, you don't know either.
Nice.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
23,616
Reaction score
4,393
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Kurds are our allies. Turkey is a threat to the Kurds.

To whatever degree we do work with Turkey, U.S. military policy shouldn't be decided during phone call with a dictator, leaving the Pentagon flatfooted by the announcement.

That kind of behavior from Trump sends up red flags. Red flags get investigated if you have intelligence agencies and a Congress who are committed to do their duties.

The Turks are our allies. The Kurds wish to dismember Turkey. Thus they are a danger to Turkey.
It's a difficult conundrum for the USA, to be sure.
 

Amelia

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
10,936
Reaction score
9,067
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The Turks are our allies. The Kurds wish to dismember Turkey. Thus they are a danger to Turkey.
It's a difficult conundrum for the USA, to be sure.

Whatever the answer, deciding major U.S. military policy changes in a phone call with a dictator, leaving the Pentagon out of the loop, is not the way to go.

It's suspicious. It's dangerous. It calls for vigilance from all of the rest of us, but in particular from those officially and constitutionally tasked with the duty of oversight.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,211
Reaction score
38,930
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They're "breaking the law" because there is no other recourse. The goobers elected a Russian asset president and, as the WaPo link will elucidate for you, exposure is the only option.

"No other recourse"?? For breaking the law?

Bull****.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,798
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Top Bottom