Honestly you do not understand how investigations work.

It is because "we don't know what was said" they MUST investigate.

You have a report from UK intelligence to US intelligence that someone within the Trump Campaign is saying the Russians have dirt on Hillary and are using it to benefit Trump and interfere in the election... it is NOT an option for US intelligence to not investigate to understand if there is something there or nothing there.

They NEED to ask George what he said and meant. They need to validate or dismiss.

What is NOT an option is to take that intel from the UK and for US Intelligence to just say 'we are going to guess it is nothing and not look into it'.

I don't care who the POTUS candidate is, if any report comes in that a foreign adversarial gov't has info on a candidate and is trying to influence the investigation the US intelligence MUST investigate that. Even if to open a file one day, look and immediately determine it is BS and meritless and thus closed.

They would all be fired if they did not and it turned out it was a serious influence campaign and when asked what they did with the UK Intel they said 'we did nothing. Did not look. Did not try to verify. So we had no opinion as to how real it was or not.'

I said I haven't read this thread.

And lol you're a clownface who no one respects here, obviously.

But on this topic of russiagate I'd venture to guess I know a fair bit more than you.

Just because I haven't read this thread does not mean that I am uninformed about the issues here.

And just to be clear as this statement shows just how clueless you are on this, it is literally impossible for anything like this to "fizzle from the beginning" if there is no investigation.

If all you have is George's claim that is forwarded by UK intel to US intel and US intel does nothing, then nothing fizzled. It just went unchecked. It may be true and accurate or it may be specious and garbage, but no one investigated and thus no one knows. It just then sits as an unverified proclamation.

No fizzle, no verification. Nothing.

Thus why an investigation is warranted even if it is opened and closed 5 minutes later (fizzle) because they instantly see it is a nothing claim.

Again more comments by you proving you are who you are. A complete laughable joke of a poster.

You do not think you need to read the thread to offer your opinion that one poster is likely right and others wrong because you assume WRONGLY the debate is about something it is NOT about.

That won't stop you spamming Russiagate nonsense.

What is being discussed here is a specious comparison by Deuces that all the Election Riggie stuff (investigations by Ninja's, etc) are equally valid to investigations by US intel (the Mueller Investigation) for the Russia stuff.

This is not about making the case for any Russiagate stuff specifically (that can be done) but whether both investigations are meritorious.


The riggie election Ninja audit stuff is complete garbage that has no merit to ever have been launched and in a better system would not be allowed to happen.

The Mueller investigation HAD to happen, even if you argue to completely prove everything claimed was false, BS and never happened.

BTW I do love that you actually think you hold some high perch of esteem here where you can use that insult when generally speaking you are mocked by a litany of posters across so many topics. I think I am pretty self aware of my image, but it appears you are completely clueless about yours or perhaps believe some CT that in fact you are lauded generally.

FLOL. You make me laugh with your delusions. Well done.

No the Mueller investigation did not "have to happen".

Part of your problem is that you literally just make up ideas and roll with them like they're handed down from the heavens.

There is zero justification you can give, for a campaign official coming in thru foreign intelligence (UK) to US intelligence that WOULD NOT prompt an investigation as to whether it was meritorious or not.

Zero, None.

Some investigation of that claim by George HAD to happen and that is fact unless the US intel was completely derelict in their duty.

You will lose this debate 100 of 100 times.

LOL. Do you know how closely intelligence agencies work together and why do you take any of that for granted anyways?

I disagree with the bolded. Cuepee and I disagree often, but I think he is overall one of the better posters in this Forum.

I think Cuepee can make fine posts on some topics. But his approach to argumentation is typically completely wrong. It doesn't mean that he is always taking the wrong sides of issues, but his ability to communicate is severely limited.

And there was no certainty no reason for him to presume that I know nothing about this issue-- I just jumped into this thread but I feel like I know a decent amount about the Russia stuff and followed it fairly closely when it was happening (as did a lot of people).

This is a riggie containment thread. As far as I can tell, no one here is claiming the 2016 election was rigged, all the motte-and-bailey nonsense notwithstanding. Can we please get back to secret military takeovers and lizard people?

I think they decided to cut out the silly **** and just opted for connecting directly to the true freedom gang's bank accounts

WTF does this reply even mean as a reply to what I said? FLOL at such a garbage reply.

Again, if the UK intelligence tells the US intelligence that they just got intel that someone in one Presidential campaign has said that a foreign adversarial gov't has dirt on one party in the campaign and is using it to try and influence the election, do you, or do you not agree the US intel cannot just say 'nobody cares' and not look into it.

They MUST look into it, even if to just prove it a meritless claim.

You admitted you do not know about the argument that is the topic of the engagement and yet you took sides with one party in it (one making stupid statements).


It is entirely possible someone who is the world leading expert on Topic X could be entirely wrong about SPECIFIC exchange between individuals if he does not read the discussion and just assumes what is it being debated.

Do you agree with that or do you think the world leading expert is already right, simply because he knows the topic matter even if he has no clue what the specific discussion is about?

Deuces and luckbox, silly question: what experience do you have in determining the scope and purpose of an investigation?

I know neither of you trust any agency with acronym letters, but they are professional investigators and intelligence gathers, who spend countless man hours conducting investigations.

What are your credentials that give your opinions about the appropriateness of their work any credibility?

You're asking me what right we have to question what the CIA and FBI do?

No, I am asking you about your experience or skill in conducting investigations to gauge the credibility of your criticism.

For example, your reading comprehension seems lacking if you interpreted my post to mean that I don't think you have a right to question.

But it is what this discussion is about. I'm talking about lying, the lying of those who have similar beliefs to you and the lying of the Riggies being equivalents in the degradation of our politics. If anything the lies you claim are worse because those lies were said first.

Looking over Taibbi's list it seems like the better characterization of the investigations into collusion an Russian interference was nothing but a pretext from which to run salacious, negative ads against Trump while dominating the political agenda and ramping up tensions with Russia.

You keep trying to narrow the discussion down to whether or not any investigation was ever warranted, as if the prosecution of the investigation means nothing, as if because there was reason to look into something that excuses every abuse under the Sun. What world are you living in?

You're trying to make me look like I'm opposed to something everyone agrees with by making crappy arguments in favor of it.

I'm not saying no investigation was warranted. It might or might not have been. I suspect it wasn't because in an investigation which was leakier than Sonny at the toll booth why redact the motivating cable which kicked the whole thing off? We've never seen the actual report. All we know is that there is no evidence supporting any of the numerous, outrageous claims throughout.

If it turned out the investigation was motivated by nothing that would fit in with the patterns of the investigation itself. But we will never know because they will never release those cables.

Do you have the same issues with Starr's investigation into Clinton that morphed into proving he has sex w Monica Lewinsky?

I would say that can pretty easily be interpreted the way I interpreted it, but that was also why I asked.

But it's a weird question. You know I studied linguistics and not the scope of special investigations.

No you are trying to spin yours and now Lucky's fallacious position.

You DO NOT KNOW if lies are even a part of this without some sort of investigation of the facts.

That is the ENTIRE point.

Both you and Lucky want to jump to whether it is 'accurate', 'truthful', 'B.S' or "lies' as if that RESULT of any investigation then determines whether the investigation was warranted or not.

That is not how things work and if you guys are poker players you should know Results based Thinking does not work like that.

The question of whether not the investigation was warranted has NOTHING to do with all the arguments you and Lucky want to argue. That can be a fine secondary debate but what prompted this discussion that Lucky is trying to ignore is your claim, and now his, that this investigation was NOT warranted or justified.


It 100% was warranted and justified even if to prove that there was NOTHING to the allegations. You DO NOT get that answer without some investigations of the allegations.

Well good for you for finally changing your very quotable position across many posts where you absolutely and undeniable said it was not warranted and compared it the Riggie unwarranted Investigations as if equivalent.

That is a big step to now admit that even if you will pretend it is no admission.

Lucky is now alone in his ridiculous contention that the investigation was not warranted if even to show there was nothing to the George P comments.

That's what you are trying to coerce the discussion into but that doesn't contain my contention. The object of my comparison is Russiagate in total, the Mueller investigation, the investigation it subsumed, the investigations growing out of it, but also, critically, the media campaign of lies and insinuations. The media campaign and the bogus af official investigations of Russiagate are linked by leaks. Russiagate was a tag team effort to invalidate a valid election. Riggie conspiracy is a less formal, but still guided by authority figures, bogus effort to invalidate a valid election.

An investigation isn't de facto valid because it is conducted by known liars and known manipulators of public opinion just because they are also Washington bureaucrats. The evidence and execution of the investigation matters. You act like the altering of evidence, withholding of information, salacious leaks to the media, and over ambitious inferences made by the investigation are ok because the people doing it are paid with your tax dollars. That thinking belongs to another era where people thought their political leaders were God's representatives on earth. Or is there a cult of people like you who worship the DC swine as if they are angels?

There may be many paths to what you refer to as RussiaGate, but the primary two that lead to FINDINGS are the Mueller investigation and the Senate Investigation.

Both found enough concrete info and facts to show the whole thing was not some crazy conspiracy akin to the Riggie stuff as you assert.

You are just wrong on that.

What you are trying to say is there are some arms of accusation you think were specious and not substantiated and that is fine for you to think.

You are now backing away from any claim that the Mueller and Senate report were not well founded and seem to admit they were or at least you will register any contention against that. Good for you.


So if have no issue with the foundation of the Mueller and Senate Investigations you cannot then say the whole thing was a CT just because you would argue some of the arms of the accusations were BS.

It's almost as if the master manipulators in DC and the MSM are able to package and sell a better story than Deuce's arguments that just appear to be unbelievable click-bait social media created at a Russian bot farm.