(05-21-2018, 10:48 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(05-21-2018, 08:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: The government does not need probable cause before hiring an informant.
That said, Trump's "Russia if you're listening" speech would have been probable cause to investigate regarding possible illegal collusion.
So long as the informant did not share information back to the DNC or the Hillary campaign, there is nothing improper about it.  The only improper thing is asking a foreign, hostile, government to hack the communications of a rival campaign on national television.

You are so clueless.

Trump asked Russia to release the deleted E-mails if they already had them. He wasn't asking them to hack anything. They couldn't possibly hack Hillary's server and all of the incriminating evidence it had, since it was already destroyed. Technically he was asking Russia to return stolen property.

And yes, the government DOES need probable cause linked to a specific crime in order to spy on an American citizen.

Recruiting and placing an informant does not require a warrant.  
Wire taps require a warrant.
Intercepting private communications requires a warrant.
Once placed, an informant is only supposed to listen in and read things that were addressed to him or said with knowledge that he might be listening in.
Also, I find the mental gymnastics you are displaying regarding what Trump meant by saying "Russia if you're listening" hilarious.  He could have meant many things.  And it was an unacceptable thing for him to say.
Imagine if Hillary had said, "Russia if you're listening you could do us a favor by releasing Trump's tax returns, or his businesses' tax returns, whether to your government or to ours," how would that make you feel, and why would that be any different?

---