Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

thethe said:
The now fired (re-assigned to HR) FBI agent referenced an insurance policy in the event Trump got elected. This was after a meeting with 'Andy' (clearly a reference to McCabe).

The cynic would say the insurance policy could include the following:

1) Creating the Dossier
2) Spying on Trump campaign associates
3) Assassinating Trump

I'd love to know what the less cynical people have to say about this.
Click to expand...

For BB's benefit, this is the text:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office [Andrew McCabe is the FBI deputy director and married to a Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate] for that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …
Click to expand...

So that's it. You can read scary intent into if you want to, or if you need to believe that kind of thing. Without more context, it's meaning is opaque. The big picture of the texts isn't flattering, but you really have to be filling in a lot of blanks for this to mean what you're suggesting.

So, at your request. One reading:
We can't take the chance that Trump is elected so we must have an insurance policy in case it happens, so let's get cracking creating a way to undermine him.

Another:
I'd like to believe that there's no way Trump can be elected but it's not worth gambling on even a slim chance of it happening.
 
Julio3000 said:
For BB's benefit, this is the text:

So that's it. You can read scary intent into if you want to, or if you need to believe that kind of thing. Without more context, it's meaning is opaque. The big picture of the texts isn't flattering, but you really have to be filling in a lot of blanks for this to mean what you're suggesting.

So, at your request. One reading:

We can't take the chance that Trump is elected so we must have an insurance policy in case it happens, so let's get cracking creating a way to undermine him.

Another:

I'd like to believe that there's no way Trump can be elected but it's not worth gambling on even a slim chance of it happening.
Click to expand...

Again - What is that 'insurance policy'.

That is what has to be defined here and just because there is a lack of context doesn't mean we can't infer what it means. There is a clear trajectory of everything that happening the last 18 months. Leak/Fake News/FBI&DOJ working with Fusion GPS/etc...) These are all events meant to undermine a democratically elected president.
 
thethe said:
Again - What is that 'insurance policy'.

That is what has to be defined here and just because there is a lack of context doesn't mean we can't infer what it means. There is a clear trajectory of everything that happening the last 18 months. Leak/Fake News/FBI&DOJ working with Fusion GPS/etc...) These are all events meant to undermine a democratically elected president.
Click to expand...

plus the rumor he was born in Tijuana as donaldo...dirty pool if you ask me
 
nsacpi said:
plus the rumor he was born in Tijuana as donaldo
Click to expand...

It's nice that you have basically conceded this 'conspiracy' the right has been clamoring about is almost proven to be true.

Or of course you could just scream MUSLIM next time a fake news article is released.
 
Julio3000 said:
For BB's benefit, this is the text:

So that's it. You can read scary intent into if you want to, or if you need to believe that kind of thing. Without more context, it's meaning is opaque. The big picture of the texts isn't flattering, but you really have to be filling in a lot of blanks for this to mean what you're suggesting.

So, at your request. One reading:

We can't take the chance that Trump is elected so we must have an insurance policy in case it happens, so let's get cracking creating a way to undermine him.

Another:

I'd like to believe that there's no way Trump can be elected but it's not worth gambling on even a slim chance of it happening.
Click to expand...

So what is the "it" in your opinion? And what position did this guy hold in the Mueller investigation?
 
thethe said:
It's nice that you have basically conceded this 'conspiracy' the right has been clamoring about is almost proven to be true.

Or of course you could just scream MUSLIM next time a fake news article is released.
Click to expand...

I connect dots
 
BedellBrave said:
So what is the "it" in your opinion? And what position did this guy hold in the Mueller investigation?
Click to expand...

To answer that you have to begin by assuming that there is an "it." If he had said "Like an insurance policy" instead of "It's like.." then we aren't even having this conversation.

To continue with the non-nefarious reading of it: Not assuming that Trump will lose is like purchasing an insurance policy. Maybe it was in reference to career plans or life plans . . . the point is, we don't know, and it seems pointless to speculate without any context. If you or I had said to a friend "We can't afford to risk a Trump presidency," nobody blinks, unless we were considered to be dangerous or unstable or something. If the #2 Counterintelligence guy at the FBI says it, ears perk up, but it's certainly possible he meant it in exactly the same way that you or I would. If you're going to speculate about this, you can speculate with a pro- or anti-Trump spin. I'd prefer not to because I think this is a game. It may be damaging to the rep of the FBI and possibly to the investigation, but having seen the way this whole thing has panned out so far, I know which way I'd bet.
 
nsacpi said:
Congress could subpoena his testimony I believe...but that would spoil the fun
Click to expand...

Just like Trump could have easily done away with the unmasking hoo-ha and could still clear up any questions about the FISA warrants. Turns out that the scary, conspiratorial tone of the coverage was way more useful to his cause than the truth would have been. Unless and until there's more to go on, that's my assumption about that, too. That concept certainly can cut both ways in this process, so why not acknowledge it?

More transparency, across the board, is the best path forward.
 
Julio3000 said:
To answer that you have to begin by assuming that there is an "it." If he had said "Like an insurance policy" instead of "It's like.." then we aren't even having this conversation.

To continue with the non-nefarious reading of it: Not assuming that Trump will lose is like purchasing an insurance policy. Maybe it was in reference to career plans or life plans . . . the point is, we don't know, and it seems pointless to speculate without any context. If you or I had said to a friend "We can't afford to risk a Trump presidency," nobody blinks, unless we were considered to be dangerous or unstable or something. If the #2 Counterintelligence guy at the FBI says it, ears perk up, but it's certainly possible he meant it in exactly the same way that you or I would. If you're going to speculate about this, you can speculate with a pro- or anti-Trump spin. I'd prefer not to because I think this is a game. It may be damaging to the rep of the FBI and possibly to the investigation, but having seen the way this whole thing has panned out so far, I know which way I'd bet.
Click to expand...

If he said 'like an insurance policy' it makes no sense at all in any context.

Its obvious in PS eyes that Trump being president is a bad thing. You wouldn't take an insurance policy against a good thing. Therefore, he has this 'policy' in the event something bad happens. There is no way to dispute that there is something. You also have to marry this text with the other messages which said that he can do many things to protect the country. Those two are not necessarily out of line with each other.

You want to say that you prefer not to spin it as pro-trump / anti - trump but you clearly have no issue spinning the 'dots' as anti-trump. I just wish you would drop the facade of being objective on this FBI mess. Just come out and say you want to believe the FBI against Trump.
 
It's not really a matter of what I want to believe. Even with my doubts and reservations about the FBI as an institution, if given the choice between ascribing credibility to the FBI (given its structure, oversight, and internal checks and balances) and to Donald Trump, "want" has nothing to do with it. I'll take the FBI.

I'm certainly not impartial, and I definitely have my ideas about what may have happened in 2016. But those ideas also include a number of scenarios that are ultimately exculpatory, though IMO embarrassing, for Trump. I think your take on these texts is hysterical and premature, and I'm trying to explain why, rather than just accusing you of making **** up.

If you're alleging a massive, multi-agency, multi-branch criminal conspiracy to sink Trump, the burden of proof falls rather on you to do more than wave around a couple of text messages and Fusion GPS. Given Manafort and Flynn and Kushner and Papadopoulos and the RNC platform and Junior and Cambridge Analytica and some well-documented lies about all of the above, I'd say the circumstantial case is far stronger for Trump campaign hinkiness, but that remains to be seen.
 
Julio3000 said:
It's not really a matter of what I want to believe. Even with my doubts and reservations about the FBI as an institution, if given the choice between ascribing credibility to the FBI (given its structure, oversight, and internal checks and balances) and to Donald Trump, "want" has nothing to do with it. I'll take the FBI.

I'm certainly not impartial, and I definitely have my ideas about what may have happened in 2016. But those ideas also include a number of scenarios that are ultimately exculpatory, though IMO embarrassing, for Trump. I think your take on these texts is hysterical and premature, and I'm trying to explain why, rather than just accusing you of making **** up.

If you're alleging a massive, multi-agency, multi-branch criminal conspiracy to sink Trump, the burden of proof falls rather on you to do more than wave around a couple of text messages and Fusion GPS. Given Manafort and Flynn and Kushner and Papadopoulos and the RNC platform and Junior and Cambridge Analytica and some well-documented lies about all of the above, I'd say the circumstantial case is far stronger for Trump campaign hinkiness, but that remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Of course there is more evidence of yrump collusion. That has been researched ad openly leaked to create the narrative (insurance).

Just now are we starting to get counter intelligence information out into the public. So why don't we catch up on the time frame and look what is more damaging.

Again, there is more evidence for the Obama justice department colluding with russia (since we now know every Russian is part of putin as per the dots ) than trump colluding.

All there is for trump is business relationships and a meeting with a lawyer that for all reports led to nothing. Howveer, we have the DOJ/FBI fed information directly from the Russians.

Which is more damning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top