AAG Rod Rosenstein Threatened Members of Congress in January and again Today.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

New ATS profanity rules are under consideration.

Source?

Can't say. We'll be given ample advance notice.

a reply to: carewemust

Unnamed sources = fake news

Right?

a reply to: Phage

Thank you for proving my point.

Every single example you gave starts with a law violation.

If you have no dead body, no known spies planted by a foreign government and no attacks on an embassy you cant investigate anyone.

See the difference yet?

Law Enforcement can't just wake up one morning and randomly pick a person out of the phone book and launch an investigation into that person in hopes of finding a crime.

a reply to: Xcathdra


FBI ACTION and MEANING in this investigation.

Tell candidate Trump? We're talking "Informant".

Don't tell candidate Trump = A Spy.

a reply to: Xcathdra

to investigate a person a law violation must be present. If there is then they can investigate the crime to determine if a law was in fact violated

Um......

What?

Look up probable cause. They only need reasonable grounds.
Then they investigate to determine if a crime really did occur.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I heard an FBI guy say the other day that a COUNTER-Intelligence investigation is one where they look for a violation. It's a fishing expedition. Is that right?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra


FBI ACTION and MEANING in this investigation.

Tell candidate Trump? We're talking "Informant".

Don't tell candidate Trump = A Spy.

The reason they are using informant is because it is a law enforcement term, lending the optics of credibility to their illegal investigation (or so they think).

The problem is if the FBI asked any person to spy/inform on the Trump administration for the purposes of finding an illegal act then a search warrant is required since the spy/informant is acting under color of law as an extension of the FBI.

When they tried to justify their use they shot themselves in the foot legally.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So, Russia did nothing to interfere with the 2016 election. Nothing worth looking into. No crimes committed, clearly. There are many who would disagree with that claim, methinks. Including the hero of the Benghazi investigation, Mr. Gowdy.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

to investigate a person a law violation must be present. If there is then they can investigate the crime to determine if a law was in fact violated

Um......

What?

Look up probable cause. They only need reasonable grounds.
Then they investigate to determine if a crime really did occur.

I see we have another contestant of the not understanding the point club.

I know what probable cause and reasonable suspicion are. A potential violation of the law must be present in order to investigate. As I said law enforcement cant just wake up one morning and randomly pick a person and then launch an investigation into them in hopes of finding a crime.

The potential law violation must exist and come before everything else.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The problem is if the FBI asked any person to spy/inform on the Trump administration f

Your problem is demonstrating that it was the Trump administration (campaign, actually) that was being spied upon.

Mr. Gowdy, and others, know better.

a reply to: carewemust

Uh huh...

a reply to: carewemust

OMG...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

So, Russia did nothing to interfere with the 2016 election. Nothing worth looking into. No crimes committed, clearly. There are many who would disagree with that claim, methinks. Including the hero of the Benghazi investigation, Mr. Gowdy.

Feel free to point out where I said anything about Russia or Benghazi.

Also, once again, your example has the required element - a potential violation of US law. Without that potential violation nothing can be investigated.

Potential law violation first (requires articulable facts) = legal criteria met to investigate the crime and any person who may be linked to that crime.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The potential law violation must exist and come before everything else.

Yup.
Potential that emails were stolen.
Potential that campaign officials were involved.
Potential of money laundering.

All kinds of potential.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Feel free to point out where I said anything about Russia or Benghazi.

Which embassy attack were you referring to here? Which known spies?

If you have no dead body, no known spies planted by a foreign government and no attacks on an embassy you cant investigate anyone.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The problem is if the FBI asked any person to spy/inform on the Trump administration f

Your problem is demonstrating that it was the Trump administration (campaign, actually) that was being spied upon.

Mr. Gowdy, and others, know better.

Hmm you should reread my post and put it into proper context instead of cutting it mid sentence and making a comparison that was never brought up.

The SC, in order to investigate Trump or his campaign, requires a specific law violation be present. None were ever identified, violating the SC statute and FBI/DOJ policies.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The SC, in order to investigate Trump or his campaign, requires a specific law violation be present.

Nonsense. Tell me, have you seen the directive to the Special Counsel?

a reply to: carewemust

On line at the grocery store?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The potential law violation must exist and come before everything else.

Yup.
Potential that emails were stolen.
Potential that campaign officials were involved.
Potential of money laundering.

All kinds of potential.

Show me where Trump did any of that.

Secondly it doesnt take away from my original point. They cant investigate in hopes of finding a crime.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Thank-you again, Xcathdra! You need to have your own "legal experts" forum, and answer questions for $$$.