4 thoughts on “The “Breaking News” About The FBI And Trump”

1. I agree with your tweet, Rand, but I also don’t believe the FBI when they make that claim. It simply doesn’t make sense. Trump, and any President, always has the authority to fire any member of the Executive Branch. So no law is broken, no crime committed, for the FBI to investigate when the President fires the FBI Director. The only reason to suggest a crime is if you believe the firing was to hide a criminal act rather than an exercise in good judgment, but if you believe it is to hide a criminal act; then you were already investigating that act. And we already know from FBI messages and the hub bub about Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian honeypot (who is now facing her indictment), that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign if not the President.

   I think this new claim is to an attempt to hide the fact that the FBI started investigating Trump, or the Trump campaign which I don’t recognize as different in this case, the moment he looked certain to win the Republican nomination. They want to hide that fact, because it is obvious that investigation was for political purposes and meant to serve the party in power, which, only as a thought, was sufficient grounds to impeach Nixon. As far as it goes, it is equally obvious an investigation opened due to firing Comey is political and in retribution, but that only looks poorly on the FBI and not President Obama.

2. We already knew the FBI did this but there are some new details that show the FBI plotting a coup more than just doing their jobs.

   It is important to remember that the media doesn’t just side with Democrats on PR but they were active participants in the plot. The media worked with Democrats and Obama officials to write articles that supported their illegal activities.

   These media figures haven’t gone anywhere. They are still there and are still working on the project. This is why it is important for people to be especially critical of what the media is trying to get you to think. They are very good at shaping perspective, especially if you are in an environment that is saturated. Even if you consume something and later determine you got suckered, they have created an impression in your mind that wont totally go away.

3. On twitter you ask “Would a Russian agent plunge oil prices? Would a Russian agent put missile defense back into Poland? Would a Russian agent send Ukraine weapons instead of MREs?

   My answer for your last two questions (I don’t use twitter so I hope you don’t mind if I answer here) is that it isn’t so implausible. Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes thrive on an external enemy. A missile defense is harmless to Russia strategically- Russia doesn’t intend to attack the West with missiles, and it is helpful in supporting Putin’s vision of Russia vs NATO. I think Putin wanting weapons to go to Ukraine is even more plausible. In Ukraine, along the front lines, Putin wants a state of low level conflict, as he does in the Caucuses. This keeps Ukraine out of NATO and again promotes an Us vs Them narrative. Of course, the weapons we are sending to Ukraine willl not endanger Russian security – they only potentially increase the casualties and damage the equipment of pro-Russian dissidents in Ukraine, stoking the conflict, but only just enough.

   I don’t know if any of this is what’s actually happening, but you asked the question as if there was only one answer, so I’m providing an alternative answer.

   As for oil prices, I don’t know, but here’s a discussion of that:
   https://www.factcheck.org/2018/11/is-trump-responsible-for-falling-gasoline-prices/

   1. It is true that Trump has frequently called on OPEC to keep the oil supply robust, and gasoline prices down, but

      “True, but” is not fact checking. It is opinion making.

Comments are closed.