(12-11-2019 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, read the executive summary of the document. You seem to misunderstand some things regarding the opening of the investigation - it clearly says that the FBI has sufficient evidence to open the investigation into the Trump campaign, and into the four individuals - Papadopolous, Page, Flynn, and Manafort. Page iii is where a lot of that information is located.
The IG found significant issues into the FISA application submitted to further surveil one of those individuals (Page).
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document....ion-Report

Actually it doesn't say they had sufficient evidence. It says there is a very low threshold for any investigation.... sort of the 'indict a ham sandwhich' comment. All that is required (page 4 top right) is a first hand account from someone that they consider credible.
The allegation is that Papadopolous apparently said to a foreign government that there had been 'some kind of suggestion' made to the Trump campaign that Russia could release some damaging information. (Page 3)
That's all it takes to investigate anyone. That doesn't remotely mean there is ANY evidence whatsoever.
RiceLad told me that NPR had information damaging to Trump. If they find me credible, they can investigate you based solely on that comment.

That's kind of the whole point of this entire spectacle. Enough evidence to open an investigation can consist of nothing more than an unsupported and unsubstantiated allegation.

I'll give you a perfect example. Hunter Biden's absurdly unreasonable contract with Burisma is sufficient basis to launch an investigation as to whether there were any improprieties involved. Doing such a contract with a public company in the USA would probably trigger both SEC and IRS investigation. And that would be the case whether his father was VP of the USA or the village idiot. Come to think of it, Joe might have been both, but that's beside the point.

So what we have with respect to both "Russia" and "Biden" are unsupported hearsay and rumors that, even if true, don't prove a prima facie case against Donald Trump or the Trump campaign or administration. Supporters of the Mueller probe like to point to how many convictions and indictments they obtained, as proof that it was a justified investigation. But none of those indictments are for actions related to any Trump campaign cooperation with any Russians. They are for unrelated violations by Trump campaign staffers, and indictments of Russian entities over which they will likely never gain jurisdiction. And as far as what should have been the most useful output of that probe, lesson learned about specific steps to take to minimize Russian (and other foreign) intervention in future elections, seems conspicuously absent. Taken as a whole, the process looks more like a coup attempt than a valid investigation. And the Biden/Burisma "investigation" is that on steroids.