• 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

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

Bull****.

I'm going to guess...confidently...that you haven't actually read and absorbed the point of the article.
 
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.

At least you're honest about them breaking the law.
 
We all know. You do too. That's why we aren't playing your silly little game.

In other words, you are confusing your policy disagreements with the Trump Admin with a generic threat to USA security.

The FBI evidently thinks Trump is a Russian asset, whether by accident or by design. The FBI is an Executive Dept agency and thus is subject to Congressional oversite as well.
Asking the FBI "WHY" is eminently reasonable. A response of " everyone knows" is not -- by them and their cheerleaders in the public.
 
I'm going to guess...confidently...that you haven't actually read and absorbed the point of the article.

The article is nonsense.

For example, in the first paragraph...

As a former FBI agent who conducted investigations against foreign intelligence services, I know that the bureau would have had to possess strong evidence that Trump posed a national security threat to meet the threshold for opening such an investigation.

The FBI opened an investigation on Trump BEFORE this one that everyone is talking about based on...what?...a bogus dossier. Doesn't sound like THAT investigation worried all that much about meeting some threshold.
 
Last edited:
The article is nonsense.

For example, in the first paragraph...



The FBI opened an investigation on Trump BEFORE this one that everyone is talking about based on...what?...a bogus dossier. Doesn't sound like THAT investigation worried all that much about meeting some threshold.

Maybe you glanced over the article, maybe you didn't. One thing's for sure: you sure as hell didn't comprehend it. Rangappa's words just deflected away from you like raindrops on an umbrella.
 
Back
Top Bottom