...read up on: Appeal to authority.

It's obvious that you haven't read any of these reports yourself nor looked into any of the source docs; otherwise, you could easily cite at least a little bit of evidence or make an attempt to answer some of my questions.

So, instead, you appeal to the perceived authority of the authors to claim that these reports' conclusions hold water when you've neither examined the evidence nor read the reports (nor do you even recognize their obvious bias, which would necessarily cast doubt on any political conclusions they'd reach).

I can play that game, too. Bill Barr -- who is arguably as knowledgeable as anyone about these investigations -- has said (paraphrasing here) that they were bullshit, corrupt and fraudulent from the get-go. So, now we're even -- we both have our authorities -- but something tells me that Barr's authority won't hold quite as much sway with you for some reason. You just choose to believe whom you want (even though you don't actually know what they've said because you haven't read the reports), which is fine, but not probative of anything.

What you've said about the findings of these reports is provably false. The spying began early in 2016 based on literally no evidence whatsoever. The FBI pursued the FISA warrants over the summer once they realized that they had to have something in their files to justify their illegal activity. To get the FISA warrants, they used the fraudulent Steele dossier and a fraudelently constructed affidavit from Clinesmith because they had no other evidence to present to the court even after having spied on them already. Based on McCabe's own testimony under oath, the Steele dossier was the key to getting the warrants.

So, if the investigation was properly predicated, on what was it predicated? Even AFTER the investigation -- much less before -- no evidence has been cited that any crime was committed nor has there been any allegation made that Trump himself committed any crime. If there was no evidence that a crime had been committed, and, by extension, no evidence that Trump himself had committed any crime, then what was the investigation predicated on? Nothing. It's complete bullshit. You don't fucking spy on people in this country -- much less a political candidate -- with zero evidence.

Moving on, if the FBI/DOJ has been exonerated, then why were so many of their senior guys and gals reprimanded, fired, transferred or referred for prosecution due to their conduct during the investigation?

Finally, according to you, the "Trump Campaign" colluded with Russia "illegally or secretly" with the goal of "deceiving"? Despite your obvious dodge that the "Trump Campaign" is not Trump himself, who in the Trump campaign did the colluding? How? When? With whom? Whom did they deceive? What was illegal about it?

You have no answers. None.







[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 01/18/2021 6:14PM]