(08-15-2018 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not denying that the dossier wasn't be compiled by Steele and funded by the DNC as opposition research. I'm saying that there is no logic behind a conspiracy that suggests the FBI was in on the game as a way to keep Trump out of the White House.
We know the FBI had information before the election, so if there had been a conspiracy involving the FBI to keep Trump out of the WH, the FBI would have used all of their resources to try and do that. Instead they kept mum about the investigation that was ongoing during the election. An act that directly counters the conspiracy claim.
Your response is full of a number of salient points about the election, but none touch on the original post, which was about the FBI trying to unseat Trump and prevent him from being in the WH, except maybe that they felt Clinton would win. But then why go through the trouble of being part of a conspiracy, only to not use the material you conspired to create?

Let's assume that the FBI is in the game for one reason--to look out for the FBI. They want Hillary, but that's already almost a lock. What they really want is Strzok's "insurance policy"--a way to protect themselves if Trump somehow defies logic and wins.

There is always a problem with intel. You can't act on the information without risking disclosing sources. Winston Churchill faced this problem after Bletchley Park decoded Enigma. Several times he received notice of German plans to ambush British troops. But to put the troops on alert would risk disclosing that the Brits had broken Enigma, because there was no other way for them to know. So he chose to allow troops to be ambushed in pursuit of the larger goal of winning the war.

Say the FBI discloses this. There is a significant risk of backlash if the idea that the FBI is interfering politically gets legs. And in that case, the FBI would be significantly weakened in its attempts to stave off retaliation by a Trump administration. So it makes more sense to use it as an "insurance policy." Why risk a "sure" thing? Isn't it better to have an "insurance policy" that allows you to throw things into turmoil if the impossible happens? And something to keep in your hip pocket in case it doesn't?

And isn't trowing things into turmoil pretty much what has happened?

You make the point that releasing it could have helped Hillary win an election she lost. With 20/20 hindsight, maybe they would release it. But maybe, even with 20/20 hindsight, they figure out that it would not have won them the election anyway. And in that context, wouldn't it be more useful to sew turmoil afterwards than to play that card and still lose?

You're acting as if something was a slam dunk decision when, based on what was down at the time, it really wasn't. One rule of preserving bureaucratic power--never play any card too quickly. Once you play it, you can't play it again. So if in any doubt, hold it for use later. This is entirely consistent with that mindset.