If a liberal was unable to articulate a coherent response to your question, this would be good. Some re-education, and that footsoldier would see the light of day soon enough.

But if they responded in this fashion?:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/18/if-the-fbi-used-an-informant-it-wasnt-to-go-after-trump-it-was-to-protect-him/

A bullet to the head on the spot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36093206)

You have nowhere near enough information to make some retarded conspiratorial claim that a white-bread and fairly conservative organization like the FBI went on some ideological mission to frame Trump.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36095887)

Your first sentence is fake news

It's not up to someone to disprove shit. The FBI has to prove the dossier was true.

I can say you're a child molester in writing. Who is to say that statement is false? You're now going to let the government do whatever they want to you because you can't prove it's false?

I'd say you're usually better than this but you aren't

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36095944)

It's dishonest to say that there is "evidence of collusion" because of meetings, when we now know that the majority of these meetings were setup by the FBI via informants to create the appearance of impropriety. That's what a counter-intelligence operation does.

The truth will set you free, LathamTouchedMe. And the truth is, when you pull back the curtain on any particular piece of "evidence" of collusion, it always leads back to the same group of shady FBI/DOJ characters.

These shady characters have been leaking like faucets for two years with the hope that the appearance of impropriety was enough to politically kill off their opponents. These sort of tactics likely worked very well for them in the past. But there are two major roadblocks that they (and everyone else including you) are finally having to come to grips with: 1) Trump won; and 2) the "collusion" conspiracy never happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36096278)

The FBI found him credible because they had independent information corroborating his account. The dossier was a small part of the evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant and its source was noted in a footnote in that application. The Trump Tower meeting with a russian agent did occur and there was discussion of russian sanctions at that meeting. Papodop's meetings with russian agents and his conversation with an australian diplomat regarding possible coordination re the emails and their release did occur. Roger Stone's communications with wikileaks re the timing of the release of emails is also now public. Perhaps nothing is there but you'd have to be a partisan moron to say that meetings with russian agents regarding US sanctions and possible assistance/coordination with the campaign is nothing worth investigating further. No one with any semblance of objectivity is going to argue that, especially given the history of guys like Flynn (attempt to kidnap Turkish cleric, improper contacts with Russia), Manafort, Stone, and Page.

"And the truth is, when you pull back the curtain on any particular piece of "evidence" of collusion, it always leads back to the same group of shady FBI/DOJ characters."

2 years ago no one on the right would say that about these "characters". This is all very recent invention produced directly in response to revelations that made Trump look bad. You have an independent prosecutor now anyway. But of course you'll argue that he's also part of the "deep-state" conspiracy. Anyone who fails to toe the Trumpian line is in on the conspiracy. You think Mueller and the experienced prosecutors on his team would be a part of an investigation if they thought it was all a sham based on illegal surveillance? Do really believe that they would lie about the results of their investigation in some pathetic attempt to assist the DNC? Have you ever met anyone at the DOJ?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36096741)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bannon-tells-congress-called-trump-tower-meeting-unpatriotic/story?id=52448537

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36096805)

Yes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36096900)

Let us know when you're ready to sit at the grownups table

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36096943)

So now counter-intelligence is literally just a bad faith entrapment operation? Is that what you have gleaned from watching The Americans Season 2 with the commentary on?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36096821)

Guilty or not, don't lie in bed with Russian mobsters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36097316)

And what was the goal of the FBI deep state conspiracy? Was it to launch an investigation but downplay it, minimize the significance of the purported collusion and deny the purpose of the investigation until after the election? They were out to get Trump but were fine rolling the dice that he would lose based on Hillary's stellar performance in the debates and commanding lead in the polls?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36097303)

"defend"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3982407&forum_id=2#36095917)