SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (73153)5/24/2018 2:25:54 PM
From: Katelew  Read Replies (1) of 358573
 
Think of it in terms of planting evidence.

The interfaces became either (1) supporting evidence for the main premise of the dossier which was that the Russian government had groomed Trump for at least five years to become POTUS and a Russian advocate, or (2) suspicious activities on which a FISA warrant could be based.

In order to build a case of Russian collusion, the FBI would be better served by having members of the campaign engage in actions that could be spun as suspicious. Actions that could be used as supporting evidence.

<< there would be no reason for the FBI to engage someone to make contact so as to find out about them. The FBI would already have known.>>

My argument is that this assumption is a false one. The FBI (or possible another entity) engaged people like Halpert not to uncover evidence but to initiate activites by certain campaign workers that could be used as evidence.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News