The country is going to pay for the divinely inpsired madness that was the FBI's decision to get involved with the Steele dossier for years to come.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/us/politics/trump-fbi-justice.html …
-
-
Right. And that's what I'm talking about. This will be decided in the political realm. And that one tweet I QT'd earlier shows how the dossier will be framed for it.
-
Once Mueller stopped being about "Did the Russians interfere in the 2016 election?" and became about "Should Trump be removed from office or not?" the legal aspects burned away and only the political aspects remained. Here we are.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Mueller's mandate was always broad. Basically, answer the Russia question, and prosecute crimes discovered along the way. Papadopoulos counter-intel. Flynn mostly counter-intel, but also some criminal. Manafort/Gates currently indicted for criminal, but probably counter-intel too
-
Any charges against Trump family members are arguably both criminal and counter-intel, but also political. And an obstruction case against a sitting president--which is where things seem to be heading--is primarily political. They're all intertwined and cannot be otherwise.
-
Yep. Which is why the dossier is such a ready-made cudgel for Trump. "They're using Hillary's dirt to try to get rid of me and undo the election!" That alone ensures no R will go along with it or, more importantly, be allowed to go along with it.
-
Yes, that's how they're playing it. And looking only at the strategic aspect, the move makes sense. But does that mean the FBI should have ignored the reasonable suspicion against Carter Page in 2016? If they did, they wouldn't be doing their job.
-
Nope. And as I've said, Trump did this to himself by associating with Page, Manafort, Flynn, et al. And there was dirt there on them already. Which is why I will never understand why it didn't just toss the dossier. Its provenance was a landmine for them and they stepped on it.
-
Interesting question, and impossible to fully answer without knowing everything the FBI knew. Potentially, Steele provided some info that matched other sources, and some that didn't. The former makes the latter worth investigating. But why not use only other sources? Don't know.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
People need to understand that there's a difference between unethical and illegal. It's a significant difference which is especially relevant here. Should the nation's premier law enforcement agency be playing politics? No. Was what they did illegal? More than likely, also no.
-
The problem is, conducting legal investigations against political figures is inherently political--especially in this heated, polarized environment--even if entirely justified and done by the book.
-
Flynn, Manafort, etc. are all distractions, sideshow acts, whatever. It's all about Trump. That's all anyone really cares about. And when it's the president, it'll always be more about politics than law.
-
The problem with the polarization is that it leads people to take fantasies for reality. Like the people who think Mueller will give info to state AGs to charge Trump if he doesn't. That is not happening in five lifetimes of the universe. Maybe not in ten lifetimes.
-
Both sides of the aisle don't understand either the law or how law enforcement itself works. These are the same people who think think Obama having EOs was fine but Trump's are illegal, or that Trump could unilaterally lock up Clinton, all of them bc 'reasons'.
-
It really just seems like professionalism in government is on sabbatical. I miss it already.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.