The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[charwin95]

Collusion with a foreign adversary to interfere into an American election is TREASON. It doesn't matter who contacted who first. Any other campaign would have refused to talk with a Foreign adversary, much less accept information from them.

Please provide the specific statute that includes that please.

.

Treason is associated of happening during a time of war time--but the United States does consider cyber attacks to be the 21st century Act of War. So if there was collusion with anyone within the Trump campaign and Russia it would be considered Treason.
Calls Grow For Trump Campaign To Be Prosecuted For Treason If They Conspired With Russia

"Is associated of happening?" Is English your second language?

Russia is not America's enemy. If cyber attacks are an act of war, then why hasn't any country been bombed for doing it?

As always, you're totally full of shit.

Russia is, was and always be an enemy of America. Unless you are a traitor.

Horseshit. All you snowflakes loved the Soviet Union before it collapsed.

Think real hard Bri. Give us an example why do you think Russia is our friend?

Navy says Russian jet came within 20 feet of U.S. spy plane

 

[Care4all]

What if a member of the Obama administration used her political power to ensure that Russia would get a good deal in the sale of uranium mining claims? .

Hillary was one of SIX, domestic agencies that had to approve the deal, along with two foreign agencies and the canadian gobvernment that had to also approve the deal. Hillary could only give 1/10 of the approvals needed to get the deal done. Any of 9 other parties could have killed the deal. And Hillary had no influence over them.

on top of that not one itty bitty drop of uranium ever leaves the USA, they simply now own a USA company that is RESTRICTED from selling or transferring any Uranium they mine, to outside of the USA...

NO ONE in Russia gets the Uranium mined by this company, only US companies here, in our country.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, obviously the FBI, when they added the Trump campaign to their Russian investigation, did so, because of possible criminal or espionage activity, no? I said possible...something in their investigation lead them to add or include them...

AS I WAS TOLD BY ALL REPUBLICANS two years ago when the FBI opened their Clinton email server investigation, the FBI doesn't investigate unless there is a possible crime being committed...

ONLY the FBI Counter intelligence division and Comey, would know the laws that were POSSIBLY broken, since they are all on the hush, hush, and are not leaking.

We can guess...accessories to cyber theft, or accessories to the distribution and dissemination of stolen goods etc....

But more than likely, it's the possibility of something much deeper than those two things that brought the FBI in to pulling the Trump Campaign in to their investigation is my thought....may not be connected to the stolen email part of the investigation at all...they've testified in hearings the stolen emails was not even the tip of the iceberg on what they systematically did to interfere....

Plus, there are the Russian/Ukrainian money laundering connections to the campaign manager, Paul Manafort that may have nothing to do with the stolen emails and Flynn's troubling situation may not have anything to do with the stolen emails....but still be connected to the Russians or even possibly the Kremlin...

You're living in a fantasy world. The only crimes committed were unmasking the names of American citizens and leaking that information to the press. Those are genuine crimes that were irrefutably committed.

Also, the term "connected" is virtually meaningless. It has about the same significance as saying everyone is connected to Kevin Bacon by six degrees.

Unmasking requests is not leaking and it was ALREADY investigated by the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee and they found the unmasking was all legal and necessary and not unusual by Susan Rice.

LEAKING classified information to people not cleared to receive it is illegal, and should be investigated when it happens!

You are delusional. They haven't found the names of the people who unmasked, and they haven't found the source of the leaks. No one said unmasking is leaking, but both can be illegal, and it sure looks like the person who did the unmasking was also involved in the leaking.

No one has found that the unmasking was legal or necessary except a gang of delusional snowflakes.

 

[radical right]

Still doing some research on that one, I haven't forgotten.

.

Rule: Use the semicolon if you have two independent clauses connected without a conjunction.
Example: I have painted the house; I still need to sand the floors. Rule: Also use the semicolon when you already have commas within a sentence for smaller separations, and you need the semicolon to show bigger separations.

 

[bripat9643]

Please provide the specific statute that includes that please.

.

Treason is associated of happening during a time of war time--but the United States does consider cyber attacks to be the 21st century Act of War. So if there was collusion with anyone within the Trump campaign and Russia it would be considered Treason.
Calls Grow For Trump Campaign To Be Prosecuted For Treason If They Conspired With Russia

"Is associated of happening?" Is English your second language?

Russia is not America's enemy. If cyber attacks are an act of war, then why hasn't any country been bombed for doing it?

As always, you're totally full of shit.

Russia is, was and always be an enemy of America. Unless you are a traitor.

Horseshit. All you snowflakes loved the Soviet Union before it collapsed.

Think real hard Bri. Give us an example why do you think Russia is our friend?

Navy says Russian jet came within 20 feet of U.S. spy plane

I didn't say it was our friend. Venezuela isn't our friend either, but we aren't at war with it, yet.

 

[Care4all]

That is what the investigations are all about. You asked what laws may have been broken. Change your hypothetical scenario to include other meetings where the Russians may have mentioned some kind of cooperation with a trump administration with sanctions. If the trump administration or campaign official showed a willingness to cooperate and a later representative met with the Russians and got an offer or suggestion that illegally obtained emails would be leaked, that would be a conspiracy to obtain or have use of illegally obtained espionage products, hence, a criminal conspiracy. I am not trying to argue the merits of the case, rather, answering your original question about what law may have been violated.

Except many officials in the intel community, including Clapper, have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that.

.

That is incorrect. Clapper came out to clear that confusion.

James Clapper on collusion between Russia, Trump aides: There could be evidence

(CNN) Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told MSNBC'S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign -- a statement that comes on the heels of an apparent public threat Trump made this morning to fired FBI Director James Comey, tweeting that Comey had better hope their conversations have not been taped.
There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."

Well then maybe you'll believe one of the biggest Trump detractors in the country who's seen all the evidence to date.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that she has seen no evidence thus far showing collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and the Russian government during the presidential campaign.

“Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” Blitzer asked Feinstein, noting that she and her colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee were recently briefed on the subject at the CIA headquarters.

“Not at this time,” Feinstein responded.

“Well, that’s a pretty precise answer,” Blitzer said.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

.

Look at the dates between those 2 links.

My point was Clapper left the government on Jan 20, Feinstein has been in every briefing from Comey that Clapper would have not been privy to.

if the FBI can't tell us due to their on going investigation and not wanting to spoil their leads, why would you think Feinstein would show the FBI's hand?

 

[charwin95]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

1. Russia is a well known adversaries of America. Putin and his government are serious threat to American civilization before ISIS.
2. Any connection -------- ANY connections of a candidates especially president with the Russians to interfere into our democracy is NOT acceptable. Those are called traitors.
3. Any specific law broken ------ That would be espionage by the Russian and treason by Trump associates.
4. How you applied your HYPOTHETICAL doesn't match the reality.

Your turn.

I'm going to switch gears for a second and ask you a question I posed to another poster in this thread in case you didn't see it.

Which is more dangerous to our elections: Appropriated truth or outright fabricated lies like Harry Reid told from the senate floor about Romney's taxes? Reid admitted it was a lie and laughed about it, saying, it worked didn't it.

.

Why did you switch gears? Hacking by foreign government that is hostile to this country is not acceptable.
Reid and other politicians lying is a practice of all political figures.

I thought Trump was the only political figure that lied, and that made him ineligible to be President.

That is not what Oktexas was asking.

Rebuttal for your post------- Trump lied most of the time he open his mouth.
Reid lied was 5 years ago ------ that is a big difference.

 

[OKTexas]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

Mine good colleague...

Have you not yet grown tired of making excuses for your Mistaken Vote?

I would have thought that the Embarrassment Factor by itself would have been enough to put you right off your lunch by now.

Mistake, hardly. I've already have gotten everything I hoped for from Trump. He kept the bitch out of the WH and appointed an apparently good justice who is not a hard left ideologue. Mission accomplished.

.

 

[radical right]

You are delusional. They haven't found the names of the people who unmasked, and they haven't found the source of the leaks. No one said unmasking is leaking, but both can be illegal, and it sure looks like the person who did the unmasking was also involved in the leaking.

No one has found that the unmasking was legal or necessary except a gang of delusional snowflakes.

Why do you claim the same person that unmasked them, leaked them? Do have any evidence? Or did you just pull it out your ass?

 

[bripat9643]

Except many officials in the intel community, including Clapper, have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that.

.

That is incorrect. Clapper came out to clear that confusion.

James Clapper on collusion between Russia, Trump aides: There could be evidence

(CNN) Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told MSNBC'S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign -- a statement that comes on the heels of an apparent public threat Trump made this morning to fired FBI Director James Comey, tweeting that Comey had better hope their conversations have not been taped.
There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."

Well then maybe you'll believe one of the biggest Trump detractors in the country who's seen all the evidence to date.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that she has seen no evidence thus far showing collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and the Russian government during the presidential campaign.

“Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” Blitzer asked Feinstein, noting that she and her colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee were recently briefed on the subject at the CIA headquarters.

“Not at this time,” Feinstein responded.

“Well, that’s a pretty precise answer,” Blitzer said.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

.

Look at the dates between those 2 links.

My point was Clapper left the government on Jan 20, Feinstein has been in every briefing from Comey that Clapper would have not been privy to.

if the FBI can't tell us due to their on going investigation and not wanting to spoil their leads, why would you think Feinstein would show the FBI's hand?

How would saying "there is no evidence" spoil any leads?

 

[OKTexas]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

1. Russia is a well known adversaries of America. Putin and his government are serious threat to American civilization before ISIS.
2. Any connection -------- ANY connections of a candidates especially president with the Russians to interfere into our democracy is NOT acceptable. Those are called traitors.
3. Any specific law broken ------ That would be espionage by the Russian and treason by Trump associates.
4. How you applied your HYPOTHETICAL doesn't match the reality.

Your turn.

I'm going to switch gears for a second and ask you a question I posed to another poster in this thread in case you didn't see it.

Which is more dangerous to our elections: Appropriated truth or outright fabricated lies like Harry Reid told from the senate floor about Romney's taxes? Reid admitted it was a lie and laughed about it, saying, it worked didn't it.

.

Why did you switch gears? Hacking by foreign government that is hostile to this country is not acceptable.
Reid and other politicians lying is a practice of all political figures.

So why didn't you answer the question? Is truth or lies more damaging?

.

 

[radical right]

Mistake, hardly. I've already have gotten everything I hoped for from Trump. He kept the bitch out of the WH and appointed an apparently good justice who is not a hard left ideologue. Mission accomplished.

.

So you don't care that Trump is a serial lying, delusional megalomaniac, that will raise your taxes, and bankrupt the country.

 

[Care4all]

Well, obviously the FBI, when they added the Trump campaign to their Russian investigation, did so, because of possible criminal or espionage activity, no? I said possible...something in their investigation lead them to add or include them...

AS I WAS TOLD BY ALL REPUBLICANS two years ago when the FBI opened their Clinton email server investigation, the FBI doesn't investigate unless there is a possible crime being committed...

ONLY the FBI Counter intelligence division and Comey, would know the laws that were POSSIBLY broken, since they are all on the hush, hush, and are not leaking.

We can guess...accessories to cyber theft, or accessories to the distribution and dissemination of stolen goods etc....

But more than likely, it's the possibility of something much deeper than those two things that brought the FBI in to pulling the Trump Campaign in to their investigation is my thought....may not be connected to the stolen email part of the investigation at all...they've testified in hearings the stolen emails was not even the tip of the iceberg on what they systematically did to interfere....

Plus, there are the Russian/Ukrainian money laundering connections to the campaign manager, Paul Manafort that may have nothing to do with the stolen emails and Flynn's troubling situation may not have anything to do with the stolen emails....but still be connected to the Russians or even possibly the Kremlin...

You're living in a fantasy world. The only crimes committed were unmasking the names of American citizens and leaking that information to the press. Those are genuine crimes that were irrefutably committed.

Also, the term "connected" is virtually meaningless. It has about the same significance as saying everyone is connected to Kevin Bacon by six degrees.

Unmasking requests is not leaking and it was ALREADY investigated by the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee and they found the unmasking was all legal and necessary and not unusual by Susan Rice.

LEAKING classified information to people not cleared to receive it is illegal, and should be investigated when it happens!

You are delusional. They haven't found the names of the people who unmasked, and they haven't found the source of the leaks. No one said unmasking is leaking, but both can be illegal, and it sure looks like the person who did the unmasking was also involved in the leaking.

No one has found that the unmasking was legal or necessary except a gang of delusional snowflakes.

what ''unmasking'' are you talking about?

 

[OKTexas]

How many times did she meet with Russian reps during her tenure as SOS or as a candidate either in the 2008 or 2016 campaigns? Do you know what might have been said in any of those, I don't with the exception of what was reported and no one knows if the reporting was a full disclosure or even accurate.

.

Under those situations Hillary would have a minimum of 4 people with her, and the person she's meeting with at least 2 people with them. Both the State Department and Russians would have witnesses if not transcripts of the conversation.

What sort fo "bad shit" would they have about a meeting with half a dozen witnesses?

There ya go, making assumptions again. LOL

.

 

[Kondor3]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

Mine good colleague...

Have you not yet grown tired of making excuses for your Mistaken Vote?

I would have thought that the Embarrassment Factor by itself would have been enough to put you right off your lunch by now.

Mistake, hardly. I've already have gotten everything I hoped for from Trump. He kept the bitch out of the WH and appointed an apparently good justice who is not a hard left ideologue. Mission accomplished.

.

I hear what you're saying about Shrillary...

Still, this Amateur-Hour. haphazard style of governance is a very high price to pay for a couple of modest Wins in a SEA of broken campaign promises, corruption and arrogance. It is going to get us into big trouble sooner rather than later, unless they invoke the 25th or move to impeach and convict.

 

[Darkwind]

The integrity of our election is intact. Publishing information about a candidate (written by that candidate or her minions) does not harm the integrity of our elections. Unless of course, you are willing to stipulate that the media also acts in a treasonous way.

So you agree it wouldn't effect the election if somebody got a copy of Trumps tax returns (between Trump and his lawyers) and released it to the pulbic. That would be perfectlyt O.K. with you? Right?

They are Trump's tax returns. It would not harm Me one bit if they were released. However, it seems to Me that you would be dead set against it given that to publish information about a candidate is tantamount to treason against your country.

Of course, there is that whole right to privacy issue. Do tell Me, if the media managed to get ahold of Trump's tax return, no matter how nefariously it was gained, you'd support their right to publish it, right? Oh wait. We have an example of the media trying to harm a specific candidate. Hell, we have examples of the media trying to influence the 2018 election right now. Just turn on your TV set.

 

[OKTexas]

Still doing some research on that one, I haven't forgotten.

.

Rule: Use the semicolon if you have two independent clauses connected without a conjunction.
Example: I have painted the house; I still need to sand the floors. Rule: Also use the semicolon when you already have commas within a sentence for smaller separations, and you need the semicolon to show bigger separations.

No need to keep repeating yourself, like I said, I haven't forgotten.

.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, obviously the FBI, when they added the Trump campaign to their Russian investigation, did so, because of possible criminal or espionage activity, no? I said possible...something in their investigation lead them to add or include them...

AS I WAS TOLD BY ALL REPUBLICANS two years ago when the FBI opened their Clinton email server investigation, the FBI doesn't investigate unless there is a possible crime being committed...

ONLY the FBI Counter intelligence division and Comey, would know the laws that were POSSIBLY broken, since they are all on the hush, hush, and are not leaking.

We can guess...accessories to cyber theft, or accessories to the distribution and dissemination of stolen goods etc....

But more than likely, it's the possibility of something much deeper than those two things that brought the FBI in to pulling the Trump Campaign in to their investigation is my thought....may not be connected to the stolen email part of the investigation at all...they've testified in hearings the stolen emails was not even the tip of the iceberg on what they systematically did to interfere....

Plus, there are the Russian/Ukrainian money laundering connections to the campaign manager, Paul Manafort that may have nothing to do with the stolen emails and Flynn's troubling situation may not have anything to do with the stolen emails....but still be connected to the Russians or even possibly the Kremlin...

You're living in a fantasy world. The only crimes committed were unmasking the names of American citizens and leaking that information to the press. Those are genuine crimes that were irrefutably committed.

Also, the term "connected" is virtually meaningless. It has about the same significance as saying everyone is connected to Kevin Bacon by six degrees.

We will honor the people who out traitors to this country--and I don't really give a rat's ass who does it. They will be the Hero's not the villians.


Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia
utm_term=.dd85be1f3321

More Trump advisers disclose meeting with Russia's ambassador - CNNPolitics.com
Comey says FBI began investigation into Russia meddling in July



Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

Flynn reportedly lied to FBI about sanctions talk with Russian envoy
Flynn was paid to lobby for Turkey while attending Trump intel briefings: report
Michael Flynn received more than $33,000 from Russian TV
Michael Flynn targeted by grand jury subpoenas, sources confirm

Jeff Sessions spoke twice with Russian envoy during presidential campaign: Department of Justice
Did AG Sessions violate his recusal by advising on the decision to fire Comey?

Trump fires FBI director James Comey - CNNPolitics.com

So, Wikileaks is your knight in shining armour I take it? After all, they outted the traitor Clinton.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, obviously the FBI, when they added the Trump campaign to their Russian investigation, did so, because of possible criminal or espionage activity, no? I said possible...something in their investigation lead them to add or include them...

AS I WAS TOLD BY ALL REPUBLICANS two years ago when the FBI opened their Clinton email server investigation, the FBI doesn't investigate unless there is a possible crime being committed...

ONLY the FBI Counter intelligence division and Comey, would know the laws that were POSSIBLY broken, since they are all on the hush, hush, and are not leaking.

We can guess...accessories to cyber theft, or accessories to the distribution and dissemination of stolen goods etc....

But more than likely, it's the possibility of something much deeper than those two things that brought the FBI in to pulling the Trump Campaign in to their investigation is my thought....may not be connected to the stolen email part of the investigation at all...they've testified in hearings the stolen emails was not even the tip of the iceberg on what they systematically did to interfere....

Plus, there are the Russian/Ukrainian money laundering connections to the campaign manager, Paul Manafort that may have nothing to do with the stolen emails and Flynn's troubling situation may not have anything to do with the stolen emails....but still be connected to the Russians or even possibly the Kremlin...

You're living in a fantasy world. The only crimes committed were unmasking the names of American citizens and leaking that information to the press. Those are genuine crimes that were irrefutably committed.

Also, the term "connected" is virtually meaningless. It has about the same significance as saying everyone is connected to Kevin Bacon by six degrees.

Unmasking requests is not leaking and it was ALREADY investigated by the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee and they found the unmasking was all legal and necessary and not unusual by Susan Rice.

LEAKING classified information to people not cleared to receive it is illegal, and should be investigated when it happens!

You are delusional. They haven't found the names of the people who unmasked, and they haven't found the source of the leaks. No one said unmasking is leaking, but both can be illegal, and it sure looks like the person who did the unmasking was also involved in the leaking.

No one has found that the unmasking was legal or necessary except a gang of delusional snowflakes.

what ''unmasking'' are you talking about?

How can you claim "Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee and they found the unmasking was all legal and necessary and not unusual by Susan Rice" if you don't even know what unmasking I'm talking about?

 

[OKTexas]

Except many officials in the intel community, including Clapper, have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that.

.

That is incorrect. Clapper came out to clear that confusion.

James Clapper on collusion between Russia, Trump aides: There could be evidence

(CNN) Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told MSNBC'S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign -- a statement that comes on the heels of an apparent public threat Trump made this morning to fired FBI Director James Comey, tweeting that Comey had better hope their conversations have not been taped.
There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."

Well then maybe you'll believe one of the biggest Trump detractors in the country who's seen all the evidence to date.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that she has seen no evidence thus far showing collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and the Russian government during the presidential campaign.

“Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” Blitzer asked Feinstein, noting that she and her colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee were recently briefed on the subject at the CIA headquarters.

“Not at this time,” Feinstein responded.

“Well, that’s a pretty precise answer,” Blitzer said.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

.

Look at the dates between those 2 links.

My point was Clapper left the government on Jan 20, Feinstein has been in every briefing from Comey that Clapper would have not been privy to.

if the FBI can't tell us due to their on going investigation and not wanting to spoil their leads, why would you think Feinstein would show the FBI's hand?

Feinstein didn't go into any details, all she said is she hasn't seen any evidence of collusion to this point. She is in a position to have the most up to date info. Also both she and Grasslley have said Comey said Trump himself is not a target in the investigation.

.