(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 may be right about the informant, but you're wrong about the statements regarding probable cause. In no court in America would that reach the level of probable cause. It doesn't even reach reasonable suspicion even if you assume what he said was a request to hack a rival campaign. It was, instead, a joke about asking them to release the evidence she destroyed. 

If you take it seriously, asking a foreign government to release evidence that was destroyed during a criminal investigation isn't illegal. Asking them to hack a foreign campaign isn't even illegal.

(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.

I'm not sure but I believe I remember reading that counterintelligence doesn't require probable cause to initiate. 

I believe it's a gross abuse of power to surveil the Trump campaign but I don't think it was illegal. At least not from the information I know now. It could easily change. 

(05-21-2018, 05:42 PM)TJBender Wrote: A sitting President just ordered the Justice Department via Twitter to launch an investigation into a political opponent, ostensibly to divert focus away from the investigation being conducted on him.

My, what a slippery slope we slide down.

It wasn't an order via Twitter but a notification that he will officially order the investigation.

---