[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[pamak]

Bah! They received it laundered through an American firm.

Nobody, not even the current FBI with the directors appointed by the republicans claim that the Obama administration had any knowledge that the information it received was offered by the Russian government.

 

[pamak]

It's not clear why you are trusting Putin .

I am trusting the fact that an adversary is a rational player, and I explained why it made sense for him to prefer Trump as POTUS. Plus, it is not just me who arrived at this conclusion. Every intelligence agency said the same thing ! It is YOU and TRUMP who trust Putin when he claims that he was not trying to help Trump!

 

[j-mac]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

With the DOJ and the FBI being for a couple of years under the republican control, I am not sure why you think that your people are waiting for so long to answer your question. My bet is that this is just spreading rumors to make TRump's behavior look normal when he openly invites foreign (and even adversarial) powers to intervene. Comes testified under oath that during his first meeting with Trump after the election, he told the then president elect that he was NOT the target of investigation, and I doubt that Comey could lie and successfully hide such investigation for all these years. The idea that republican could discover the text messages with comments against Trump but missed a secret investigation against him does not sound convincing.

Here is a very interesting interview...Worth listening to...

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes again, you dismiss my comment that the Obama administration did not get any information from an adversarial government and you dismiss the fact that the FISA was approved by a judge and not Obama. As I said, one cannot equate learning something from a Russian citizen and learning something from a Russian operative working for the Russian government.

Also, you dismiss the point that Obama did not invite other countries to intervene. Trump did it then (with the Russian, if you are listening...) and does it now too.

The other thing here is that yes, information from Canada or Germany should be weighed differently than that received from Russia and China.
But at the same time, Canada and Germany have interests that dont necessarily line up with the USA's. When Trunp was campaigning and making disparaging comments toward NATO, would it be in those country's best interest for a Trump presidency?
The point being that information from friendly countries may not always be motivated by altruism.

 

[Athanasius68]

I am trusting the fact that an adversary is a rational player, and I explained why it made sense for him to prefer Trump as POTUS. Plus, it is not just me who arrived at this conclusion. Every intelligence agency said the same thing ! It is YOU and TRUMP who trust Putin when he claims that he was not trying to help Trump!

The intelligence agencies who thought Trump was conspiring with Russia in those efforts.
Putin denies any involvement in interference.

 

[pamak]

The other thing here is that yes, information from Canada or Germany should be weighed differently than that received from Russia and China.
But at the same time, Canada and Germany have interests that dont necessarily line up with the USA's. When Trunp was campaigning and making disparaging comments toward NATO, would it be in those country's best interest for a Trump presidency?
The point being that information from friendly countries may not always be motivated by altruism.

I have no problem with the principle that even though allies are more credible, nobody should be trusted and that even allies have their own agenda.

 

[Athanasius68]

Nobody, not even the current FBI with the directors appointed by the republicans claim that the Obama administration had any knowledge that the information it received was offered by the Russian government.

It was received from anonymous Russian sources. At a time when they knew Russia was screwing with the ejection.
This whole thread is about how terrible a theoretical action of Trump would be. Yet his predecessor did exactly the same thing that Trump is being villified over for even suggesting.

 

[pamak]

The intelligence agencies who thought Trump was conspiring with Russia in those efforts.
Putin denies any involvement in interference.

They did not think that during Obama's term. They started thinking about it later when they saw that Trump was doing everything he could as president to derail the investigation. So, it was during TRump's watch when they took seriously the idea that Trump could be compromised.

 

[Athanasius68]

I have no problem with the principle that even though allies are more credible, nobody should be trusted and that even allies have their own agenda.

Ok-- so look at what's happening;
Essentially, it's being said that its ok for a DEMOCRAT to receive and information from foreign sources against a REPUBLICAN. But it's wrong for a REPUBLICAN to receive and use foreign information against a DEMOCRAT.

 

[pamak]

It was received from anonymous Russian sources. At a time when they knew Russia was screwing with the ejection.
This whole thread is about how terrible a theoretical action of Trump would be. Yet his predecessor did exactly the same thing that Trump is being villified over for even suggesting.

I repeat that there is not a single assessment or knowledge that Steele received information by the Russian government. Even if you try to argue that the anonymous sources were Russian agents (which does not make sense for the reasons that I have already explained), no FBI agent or Steele had knowledge of that fact, By contrast, Trump says in public that even if he has knowledge of the identity of the source, he would not have a problem knowing that a foreign adversarial government offers information about TRump's political opponents.

 

[pamak]

Ok-- so look at what's happening;
Essentially, it's being said that its ok for a DEMOCRAT to receive and information from foreign sources against a REPUBLICAN. But it's wrong for a REPUBLICAN to receive and use foreign information against a DEMOCRAT.

You run in circles since you continue to equate information coming from an adversarial foreign government (which does not seem to be a problem for Trump) with information coming from a foreign private investigator who interviewed Russian citizens who were not known to act on behalf of the Russian government.

 

[Athanasius68]

They did not think that during Obama's term. They started thinking about it later when they saw that Trump was doing everything he could as president to derail the investigation. So, it was during TRump's watch when they took seriously the idea that Trump could be compromised.

The investigation began when Trump was a candidate.
That is to say, the Obama Admin used information from foreign sources to investigate whether Trump was conspiring with Russia.

 

[pamak]

The investigation began when Trump was a candidate.
That is to say, the Obama Admin used information from foreign sources to investigate whether Trump was conspiring with Russia.

Do not conflate that investigation of members of the Trump Campaign, such as Papadopoulos with the claim that there was an investigation of Trump himself at that time.

 

[Athanasius68]

You run in circles since you continue to equate information coming from an adversarial foreign government (which does not seem to be a problem for Trump) with information coming from a foreign private investigator who interviewed Russian citizens who were not known to act on behalf of the Russian government.

Why assume that's true? Why assume the 'legitimacy' of Steele's anonymous sources?

And again, the Trump campaign never received information from Russian sources. But the Clinton campaign did. And the Obama Admin used it. Is Russia an adversarial country only when they supposedly help Republicans?

 

[ludin]

Do not conflate that investigation of members of the Trump Campaign, such as Papadopoulos with the claim that there was an investigation of Trump himself at that time.

Yet trump was never named in the investigation himself and as we know now it all turned out to be bunk.

 

[Athanasius68]

Do not conflate that investigation of members of the Trump Campaign, such as Papadopoulos with the claim that there was an investigation of Trump himself at that time.

That's fair enough-- but then there goes the obstruction claims.
What is that information in 2020 from Norway was about a campaign official of that nominee?

 

[pamak]

Why assume that's true? Why assume the 'legitimacy' of Steele's anonymous sources?

And again, the Trump campaign never received information from Russian sources. But the Clinton campaign did. And the Obama Admin used it. Is Russia an adversarial country only when they supposedly help Republicans?

It is not about the legitimacy of the Russian sources. it is about the fact that Steele and the FBI had no knowledge that the Russian government was feeding them false information.And by the way, neither Steele nor the FBI assumed that all the information that they got was accurate. The point is that their attitude at the time was completely different compared to TRump's claim when he openly and deliberately invites foreign, adversarial governments to bring the dirty laundry of his opponents. He invited them then openly in public with the "Russia if you are listening", and he does the same thing now.

 

[Athanasius68]

I repeat that there is not a single assessment or knowledge that Steele received information by the Russian government. Even if you try to argue that the anonymous sources were Russian agents (which does not make sense for the reasons that I have already explained), no FBI agent or Steele had knowledge of that fact, By contrast, Trump says in public that even if he has knowledge of the identity of the source, he would not have a problem knowing that a foreign adversarial government offers information about TRump's political opponents.

Which goes back to the weighing of information from different countries. It probably wouldn't be reasonable to suspect that information about the 2020 nominee from Canada was part of an operation run by the Mounties.
But information from Russia...? An 'adversarial' country?

 

[jmotivator]

That's a pathetic and old lie.

Steele was not an agent. He had been. But was not. So, not an agent. Nothing illegal.

Steele was an agent for the Clinton Campaign by way of FusionGPS who was hired to gather dirt from Russian intel sources, and some of them had active Kremlin ties.

And yes, there is nothing illegal with that, and there is nothing illegal with what Trump said he'd do, and there is nothing illegal with the Trump tower meeting...

The RNC commissioned the dossier. The company the RNC paid hired Steele.

Absolutely false. The RNC had nothing to do with the dossier. First off, the Washington Free Beacon, not the RNC, hired Fusion GPS, and their business was concluded in May 2016. Steele was hired to compile the dossier in June 2016. The Steele dossier was 100% a Clinton project.

 

[jmotivator]

Link

He is a vast, moral wasteland.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

TRUMP: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, I don’t, there’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, I think I’d want to hear it.

So no, your lying source is just editing the response to fabricate a scandal. By why should that shock anyone?

 

[Athanasius68]

It is not about the legitimacy of the Russian sources. it is about the fact that Steele and the FBI had no knowledge that the Russian government was feeding them false information.And by the way, neither Steele nor the FBI assumed that all the information that they got was accurate. The point is that their attitude at the time was completely different compared to TRump's claim when he openly and deliberately invites foreign, adversarial governments to bring the dirty laundry of his opponents. He invited them then openly in public with the "Russia if you are listening", and he does the same thing now.

The FBI ATTESTED to its accuracy when they went to FISA court.
Did the Obama Admin PROTEST to foreign governments of the information they received from them about Trump? No. They used it to investigate Trump.
Yet that apparently only works one way (see post 1109)

 

[pamak]

That's fair enough-- but then there goes the obstruction claims.
What is that information in 2020 from Norway was about a campaign official of that nominee?

I do not know what you try to say...

I am talking about the FBI investigation when Obama was president.
The obstruction of justice issues are at a different period - when Trump was president.

If you want to construct a hypothetical scenario for 2020 to justify an investigation in the way that happened in 2016 then I can provide you such scneario.
If there is a leak of TRump's financial deals and the intelligence agencies suspect that the Chinese government is behind it in an attempt tp protect its interests and help a more pro-trade candidate, and if there is information from Norway about suspect conducts and claims by democrats working in the election campaign about Chinese offers to help them against Trump (this resembles Papadopulos' case) , then I will not hav e a problem if the FBI starts an investigation against such people.

Fair enough?

 

[pamak]

The FBI ATTESTED to its accuracy when they went to FISA court.
Did the Obama Admin PROTEST to foreign governments of the information they received from them about Trump? No. They used it to investigate Trump.
Yet that apparently only works one way (see post 1109)

Do you understand that "probable cause" does not mean the information is accurate and that part of surveillance is to verify received information?

 

[Athanasius68]

Do you understand that "probable cause" does not mean the information is accurate and that part of surveillance is to verify received information?

In a FISA warrant, it is a requirement that the information presented to the judge is verified. Under penalty of perjury, it is so attested.

 

[Athanasius68]

I do not know what you try to say...

I am talking about the FBI investigation when Obama was president.
The obstruction of justice issues are at a different period - when Trump was president.

If you want to construct a hypothetical scenario for 2020 to justify an investigation in the way that happened in 2016 then I can provide you such scneario.
If there is a leak of TRump's financial deals and the intelligence agencies suspect that the Chinese government is behind it in an attempt tp protect its interests and help a more pro-trade candidate, and if there is information from Norway about suspect conducts and claims by democrats working in the election campaign about Chinese offers to help them against Trump (this resembles Papadopulos' case) , then I will not hav e a problem if the FBI starts an investigation against such people.

Fair enough?

Except that the FBI is not an independent agency. It is under the supervision of the attorney general who in turn is under the supervision of the president.
So an FBI investigation of a candidate is thus a political issue.

However, the hypothetical isn't quite accurate. It's not simply investigating certain people within the campaign, but the campaign itself and the candidate itself.