Let's say candidate A, running for prez, has someone working for their campaign who is approached by a person offering "dirt" on candidate B, his opponent. "Dirt" in the possession of the Russian government. Let's say the person working for the candidate A relates his conversation to other members of the campaign, and an ambassador to a foreign country........in a bar............but not to the FBI. Let's say the ambassador is troubled when he becomes aware of the aforementioned dirt on candidate B is being disseminated by Wikileaks.......so he contacts counterparts in America and tells them about the conversation. This info makes it to the FBI. Let's say candidate A's campaign also includes Mike Flynn, a top adviser, who was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president............Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman, who had lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.........and Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser, who was well known to the F.B.I. He had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign. Let's say the FBI opens a covert investigation, one kept secret from the public, in to the possibility Russia is attempting to infiltrate the campaign of candidate A. Let's say Sen. Marco Rubio said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation. Let's say he said something like this.........“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job (the FBI) is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.” Now let's say candidate A was a Democrat. Under this scenario Trumpists would be saying......"the FBI did exactly what their mandate calls for based on the information they had, so what's the problem?" They'd be right. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/...e-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html
Whats your point? Are you defending the made up dossier that was illegally used to get the warrants for the investigation?
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/24/17048936/democrat-rebuttal-nunes-schiff-memo I suppose part of the point is Trumpists would not believe Don's, Nunes', and right wing media's lies about the dossier if they understood the justification for starting the Russia investigation in the first place.
Hypotheticals aside, Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie and tried to steal the election from Trump with a bought and paid for Russian garbage fake dossier and still got her ass handed to her even after they (Hillary's team) planted a spy inside Trump's campaign. Then the silent coup failed too. You guys can't even cheat and steal right.
Hypothetical speaking, let's say Candidate B sold uranium to Russia for a donation to the Candidate B Foundation of $145 million and a $500,000 speech by Candidate B's husband in Moscow to Russian banks with an interest in the uranium sale. Then Candidate B launders money through Perkins Coie to avoid accountability and the FEC campaign finance laws to pay Fusion GPS to hire a foreign agent who has connections to Kremlin oligarchs and Russian counterintelligence assets who feed him disinformation about Candidate A which is then used by the party in power to launch a counterintelligence & criminal investigation using 6 government agencies to spy on Candidate A. Under this scenario Trumpists would be saying......"the FBI did not launch a counterintelligence or criminal investigation into Crooked Hillary". Why not? There's more evidence for Russian interference and collusion here than in the Trump campaign!
Let's say the meetings were all set up by the intel agencies at the command of a sitting President. Let's say the unverified dossier, opposition research assembled by the candidate backed by the sitting President. Let's say details in the dossier were leaked to the NYT. Let's say the article resulting from the leak was presented to the FISA Court along with the dossier to give credence to the lies so the court would think it was independent evidence. All they had when the investigation began was the dossier. Obama's intel people set up the meetings with Papadopoulous to include the meeting with Downer. In fact, the person who arranged the meeting, Halper, tried to infiltrate the Trump campaign for the purpose of creating collusion with Russia. It will all come out. That's why the human waste in the House is trying desperately to smear Trump.
I got a question, why didn't you put this #RussianCollusionHoax thread in "Conspiracy Theories Forum"?
Hahaha! The real fake Russian Collusion investigation fell thru and now folks want to get all "hypothetical".....geez, get over it and move on.
[QUOTE="Lee Atwater, post: 1070454026, member: 76505"...... Now let's say candidate A was a Democrat. Under this scenario Trumpists would be saying......"the FBI did exactly what their mandate calls for based on the information they had, so what's the problem?"[/QUOTE]Trumpists would say no such thing. First off, there is nothing illegal or even untoward in any of your examples. Secondly, if the FBI suspected Russian attempts to infiltrate, possibly illegally, the Trump campaign they would have done what they did with the DNC and the RNC. They would have tipped them off and warned them of such attempts. Instead they saw an opportunity to set Trump up for a fall and executed a plan to do just that.
Let's say you run that by me again before I hazard a guess as to what the hell you are talking about.
