Russian interference with the 2016 election

[rogue06]

When the prosecutor is dirty, and the falsely accused have a legitimate reason to call him out for his corruption.

One would think that would be a no-brainer.

[Mountain Man]

One would think that would be a no-brainer.

I think "no-brainer" is a good description of most liberals.

[Sparko]

Sending a spy into Trump's campaign to gather dirt hardly constitutes "monitoring what Russian agents were doing"

exactly. if they were just worried about the Russians why didn't they spy on Hillary too?

[Mountain Man]

Suppose in 2020, the Trump administration conspires against and plants spies inside his opponent's campaign, and then when caught, he dismisses it with the wave of a hand and says, "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, we weren't spying on him per se -- in fact, I don't even like to use the word 'spying'. We simply had 'informants' looking for any attempts by foreign governments to influence his campaign. It was all very benign. He should be happy about it."

How do you think liberals would respond?

[Sparko]

Suppose in 2020, the Trump administration conspires against and plants spies inside his opponent's campaign, and then when caught, he dismisses it with the wave of a hand and says, "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, we weren't spying on him per se -- in fact, I don't even like to use the word 'spying'. We simply had 'informants' looking for any attempts by foreign governments to influence his campaign. It was all very benign. He should be happy about it."

How do you think liberals would respond?

[Juvenal]

... or watching you guys happily swallow every bite.

Not in this thread, please.

I think even you can understand ...

You're not helping.

[Juvenal]

If the FBI had been working to sabotage Trump, they would have leaked the existence of the Russia investigation.

Serious discussion only, please.

[Mountain Man]

If the FBI had been working to sabotage Trump, they would have leaked the existence of the Russia investigation.

They did. Remember the reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that Hillary randomly dropped in the second debate? That was the opening shot from the Deep State, and it started the "Trump is colluding with Russia" lie. And now we have Brennan on record admitting that the Obama administration planted spies inside the Trump campaign, and we know for certain that those moles attempted to entrap low-level staffers. You want serious discussion? Then start dealing with the facts!

[Starlight]

Sending a spy into Trump's campaign to gather dirt hardly constitutes "monitoring what Russian agents were doing"

I think even you can understand there is a profound difference between a campaign sending someone to spy on their opponent's campaign is a whole lot different than the government sending someone to spy on a campaign

For these reasons you should understand the depths of the lie required to turn the government sending a spy to monitor what Russian agents are doing into the incredible...

"Hillary, via, Obama, via the intelligence agencies, was spying on the Trump campaign."

So if you and MM could stick to the facts rather than peddling incredible and false conspiracy theories, that would be preferred.

[Starlight]

They did. Remember the reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that Hillary randomly dropped in the second debate? That was the opening shot from the Deep State, and it started the "Trump is colluding with Russia" lie. And now we have Brennan on record admitting that the Obama administration planted spies inside the Trump campaign, and we know for certain that those moles attempted to entrap low-level staffers. You want serious discussion? Then start dealing with the facts!

I know it's a lot to ask, given it's you, but could you please stop making such absurdly false statements continually?

[Mountain Man]

Follow the links I've posted throughout this thread. Read the facts for yourself, and stop playing dumb.

Although it occurs to me that it may not be an act.

[Juvenal]

They did. Remember the reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that Hillary randomly dropped in the second debate? That was the opening shot from the Deep State, and it started the "Trump is colluding with Russia" lie. And now we have Brennan on record admitting that the Obama administration planted spies inside the Trump campaign, and we know for certain that those moles attempted to entrap low-level staffers. You want serious discussion? Then start dealing with the facts!

I have to this point allowed conspiracy theories in the thread because they've often led to deeper understanding of the issues. The difference between the presentation of these conspiracy theories and the present instance was the inclusion of sources. With no sources to check, there are no "facts" under discussion, with the regrettable consequence displayed in the most recent posts.

Again, personal attacks are not allowed in this thread.


Certainly there were references to Russian interference during the campaign, and to the fact that the Russians had hacked numerous political organizations. The scope of this information, as laid out after the election, but before the inauguration, differed widely from the scope of the information made available before the election.

In particular, the following synopsis, known well prior to the election, which would almost certainly have prejudiced the outcome, was not released.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

 We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

I'd be willing to read whatever sources you care to present on Clapper's admission, but to date no sources available to me confirm the characterization, either to the roles or to the number of actors. I do not object to mischaracterizations, per se, but they must be attached to sources that can serve to buffer against personal attacks.

[Juvenal]

So if you and MM could stick to the facts rather than peddling incredible and false conspiracy theories, that would be preferred.

As a one-off, I'd be willing to overlook this.

I know it's a lot to ask, given it's you, but could you please stop making such absurdly false statements continually?

But in combination with the above, MM's response can only be seen as goaded.

Read the facts for yourself, and stop playing dumb.

Although it occurs to me that it may not be an act.

In the interest in civil disagreement as part of a serious discussion, the above exchange cannot be allowed in this thread.

Thank you both for your cooperation.

[Juvenal]

There is no evidence for ‘Spygate’ — but there is a reason Trump invented it

“Spygate” made its debut on Wednesday morning during Trump’s “executive time,” the period during which he watches “Fox and Friends” before starting his official day. The term is a shorthand meant to refer to a scandal that Trump has insisted is potentially the worst in American history, easily eclipsing Watergate.

Not to damp his enthusiasm or anything, it’s also a scandal for which there’s no public evidence.

Trump’s claim is that the FBI put a “spy” in his campaign at the behest of Barack Obama’s White House as part of an effort to undercut his candidacy by alleging collusion with the Russians. It’s hard to square that claim with 1) Trump’s repeated insistence that the Russia investigation began only after he won as an excuse for the Democrats’ loss, and 2) the fact that America only learned about the investigation into Russian collusion after voting had already occurred. If Obama and the Democrats put a spy in his campaign to undercut his chances, they made a small strategic error by not mentioning anything publicly before votes were cast. But that’s the claim, because internal consistency is not a requirement for any conspiracy theory, much less this one.

If Trump's long line of baseless conspiracies, from birtherism, to millions of fraudulent voters denying him the popular vote, to tapping the phones in Trump tower, means anything, it's that when Trump announces a new conspiracy theory, it's not enough for his supporters to attempt to muster evidence after the fact.

Because the evidence is clear. Trump makes it up as he goes along, helped along by intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends.

[Mountain Man]

There is no evidence for ‘Spygate’ — but there is a reason Trump invented it

“Spygate” made its debut on Wednesday morning during Trump’s “executive time,” the period during which he watches “Fox and Friends” before starting his official day. The term is a shorthand meant to refer to a scandal that Trump has insisted is potentially the worst in American history, easily eclipsing Watergate.

Not to damp his enthusiasm or anything, it’s also a scandal for which there’s no public evidence.

Trump’s claim is that the FBI put a “spy” in his campaign at the behest of Barack Obama’s White House as part of an effort to undercut his candidacy by alleging collusion with the Russians. It’s hard to square that claim with 1) Trump’s repeated insistence that the Russia investigation began only after he won as an excuse for the Democrats’ loss, and 2) the fact that America only learned about the investigation into Russian collusion after voting had already occurred. If Obama and the Democrats put a spy in his campaign to undercut his chances, they made a small strategic error by not mentioning anything publicly before votes were cast. But that’s the claim, because internal consistency is not a requirement for any conspiracy theory, much less this one.

If Trump's long line of baseless conspiracies, from birtherism, to millions of fraudulent voters denying him the popular vote, to tapping the phones in Trump tower, means anything, it's that when Trump announces a new conspiracy theory, it's not enough for his supporters to attempt to muster evidence after the fact.

Because the evidence is clear. Trump makes it up as he goes along, helped along by intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends.

This is nothing but lies and spin. Liberals keep trying to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that James Clapper himself straight up admitted they were spying on the Trump campaign, that there were multiple spies on the inside, and we know from other sources that the spying began before the official investigation!

You guys really are unbelievable. Here you have Obama's Director of National Intelligence bluntly admitting to potentially criminal acts, and you call it a conspiracy theory!

What's the point of even trying to have a rational conversation with you?

As I asked previously, suppose we found out in 2020 that Trump had planted spies inside the campaign of his Democrat challenger, and when caught, he dismisses it with the wave of a hand and says, "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, we weren't spying on him per se -- in fact, I don't even like to use the word 'spying'. We simply had 'informants' looking for any attempts by foreign governments to influence his campaign. It was all very benign. He should be happy about it."

Would you really yawn and pretend it was nothing? I doubt it.