WestCanMan

Can you explain how you feel like someone might have a very good reason to say something, yet when they say it you'd honsetly consider that their comment was "not in good faith"? The Dems are weaponizing the IRS and DOJ and they have been since Obama was POTUS. It's legitimate banana republic stuff. Their grandiose claims of treason, their history of getting intelligence officials and lawyers to lie to the court, and their televised pre-dawn raids regarding Russian collusion, Ukrainian collusion, Jan 6th, etc haven't been supported by the level of evidence needed to justify that type of behaviour. I get that the FBI might have needed to bend some laws to get arrests on outlaws who were shooting up banks and murdering multiple people for a bit of cash, but they're committing crimes now just to extend criminal investigations that had the appearance of show trials from the get-go. Honestly, the genesis of the Russian collusion story was a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of FB ads which were "targeting both political parties in order to sow discord among Americans", and the FBI turned that into a public lashing of a duly elected POTUS, which we now know was done "erroneously". I originally found it hard to believe too, but I don't choose what I do and don't believe. I just follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of the amount of cognitive dissonance it causes, and right now it's impossible to believe that the FBI don't have some type of unholy alliance with the Dems. Their laundry list of biased comments, outright lies, demotions, firings, and actual crimes in and around the collusion farce are indisputable proof of it.

1) If you want to reply to me, hit the quote button on the bottom left of my post. You're old enough to know how this works. 2) You're the one who babbled like a spaghetti-faced toddler about "The Orange Oaf" just being in it for himself, without so much as a smidgeon of proof of your inane claim. If you don't understand how my reply about "Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Trudeau, SNC and Quebec and Alberta" have anything to do with the topic of "politicians just being in office to line their pockets" that's your problem, I'm not here to hold your hand through the basics. Do you see the irony here herbie? I made truthful, declarative, on-topic and well-presented adult statements about Trudeau and Biden as counterpoints to your sandbox insults about Trump, you characterized my reply as "rolling on the floor kicking and screaming like a 4 yr old's temper tantrum", and then you went on to try to make a point (I think?) just by throwing around some more sandbox insults, generic lies and swearwords (ie - you rolled on the floor kicking and screaming like a 4 yr old having a temper tantrum). Are we done here? I recommend you just lay low for a while now. Cheers herbie.

What about the $900,000,000,000,000,000.00 that Hunter made while Traitor Joe was in the WH? As long as we're just pulling facts outta our asses I thought I'd just throw that one into the ring...

Who cares?

If that's really a big deal to you then why isn't Biden's influence peddling the biggest deal of the last 20 years for you? Hunter reaped $$millions$$ of dollars from Ukraine and China, and his main contribution to anyone in those countries was access to his father - the VPOTUS. When SNC Lavalin wanted access to bid on the $150,000,000,000.00 in federal contracts that the Libs were handing out in their infrastructure program, they got Trudeau to create the DPA law for them, but that wasn't even enough because our AG still didn't believe that they qualified for its protection. So Trudeau pressured the AG to use it, and when she didn't do his bidding, she was fired. CTV and CBC won't tell you this, but SNC had a court-documented history of bribing Canadian politicians. CBC and CTV both covered the story of Michel Fournier back in 2017 - he pleaded guilty to accepting $2,300,000.00 in bribes from SNC Lavalin to win a $127M contract to repair/maintain the Jacques Cartier Bridge in Mtl. FYI SNC has an international division, do you think that it's worth considering the fact that maybe a company that bribed a guy to win a single bridge contract might have given Trudeau some form of compensation for all the hard work that he did on their behalf, so that they could bid on $150B worth of federal projects? Trudeau said that he did it to save the jobs of 5,000 Quebec workers, but he cost 100,000 jobs in Alberta quite happily. What gives you the impression that the Bidens and Trudeau aren't just in it for themselves? Or Nancy Pelosi, and her husband with the impeccable track record for timely investing? You're such a sucker that I just feel sad for you.

Top Secret isn't actually that big of a deal. You've probably known people with that clearance, you just didn't ask. I had a secret clearance when I was in the navy and I was just a gunner. Everyone who worked in signals had a top secret clearance (no one was allowed to go into the Communications Control Room without that clearance) and half of them were potheads right out of high school. Members of the gov't have lawyers, and I'm sure that lawyers would have to get a security clearance to work with high-level politicians. Trump, being the POTUS, had the power to get anyone a security clearance. That doesn't mean that he just says it and it becomes a thing, but he can tell the SS or Pentagon to get someone a classification, and then they'd do the background checks on them to see if they qualify. Long story short, for sure he has lawyers with a high enough security clearance to deal with his personal matters. TBH though, TS clearance isn't the be-all, end-all. Just because someone has a Top Secret security clearance doesn't mean that they can look at anything that's considered top secret. That info is compartmentalized, so you can only get access to top secret information within your own purview, and on a need-to-know basis.

There are extremely valid reasons for their complaints. Do you think that the Dems and FBI do anything in good faith?

You're a sad, ultra-biased joke MH. The FBI already has a court-documented history of lying to judges and the media about Trump. Of course some oversight is necessary when the FBI raids a Trump property. Their "secret reasons" aren't enough.

From your article: I don't even understand how this is even a controversial arrest based on the above. She's acknowledging that she's guilty, and she had 17 vials of cannabis oil, but some people in the US think that she shouldn't have to serve... based on what? (Kamala Harris ?) Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse in the US, I'm not sure why Americans feel like it would be a good enough excuse in Russia. It's not like she broke an obscure law - most people know that carrying drugs across international borders is "frowned upon" lol. If she broke a weird law like feeding pigeons in Venice or wearing high heels to the Acropolis I'd acknowledge that they have a point. Russia's laws re: marijuana aren't actually out of line with a lot of other countries. A 4-year minimum sentence for what she did is quite common.

Just answer the question.

In general, when threads aren't going well for leftists here, they like to try to twist them into ad-hominem slugfests so that they get shut down.

That's kind of ironic if you look back at it lol.

Do you understand the difference between "public" and "Trump & his lawyers"? Or "public" and "the House Intel Committee"? FYI the FBI has already lost all credibility, and that's not just coming from me, a FISA court judge said that. Their joint raids with CNN and their joint collusion witch hunt with CNN didn't help their reputation either. The notion that police should be trusted to operate without showing warrants is anathema in free, democratic nations, but the notion that the FBI can be trusted at all right now is absurd.

I think he already crossed that bridge when he tried to call people terrorists just for raising their voices at PTA meetings.

That's not even true, and it's not what we're talking about. Trump and his lawyers had every right to see the warrant that was used to search his home, and that is a key right in a non-authoritarian society. That doesn't mean that they were allowed to stall investigators while they read the warrant over in its entirety, but the investigating officers still had to provide them with a warrant (copy) at the time of the search. They are accused of failing to provide a full copy. So now what? Do they see what they can find and then provide an amended version of the warrant to include the new stuff? FYI providing a warrant identifying the scope of a raid is done to help prevent the exact soviet-style investigation that is taking place against Trump right now. That way police can't just get access to your home by pretending to try to find a marijauna pipe and then just get into the business of rooting through all of your computers, phones, etc, and coming away with private information about you & your family, sensitive information about your business, your religious observances, or anything else that's not named in the warrant.

Are you honestly that stupid or are you kidding? You'd be correct to say that "Hillary didn't take an honest attempt at a legitimate court battle" but the truth is that "she colluded with foreigners to compile a fake dossier and had her lawyer pimp it to the FBI as "some stuff that I'm handing over as a concerned citizen". That pile of crap formed the basis of a three-year, highly publicized smear campaign by corrupt FBI officials against the duly elected president. Members of the fake media said that Trump was an illegitimate POTUS for years. Some people on this site actually still believe in Russian collusion.

Affidavits? We don't need no stinking affidavits! This is another case of the FBI's soviet-style of investigation: "You show me the man, I'll show you the crime." They're just hoping that by raiding Trump's personal residence they can find something that justifies another witch hunt.

I don't have to answer the kinds of questions that you're asking. It's your job to get up to speed, it's not my job to handhold you through the basic parts that everyone else understands.

Why didn't the FBI didn't bring CNN to tag along during this raid? That's kinda weird.

Standard of living.

You should ask your mom these kinds of questions.

Riiiight. Like the Hunter laptop conspiracy? Wait, that wasn't a theory. The notion that it was a conspiracy was just disinformation from the Demonrats and the FBI & CIA. Like the lab leak conspiracy theory? Again, not just conspiracy theory. Like the Russian collusion conspiracy theory? Yep, that was conspiracy bullshit, but it was the Dems and the FBI again. I see a pattern forming here.... Conspiracy theories are all coming from leftists and their fake news...

I guess that the Demonrats felt like their last witch hunt didn't get started early enough, and so a lot of it occurred during Trump's time in office, so their unlawful control over the FBI wasn't as thorough as they would have liked.

? Where did you hear this?

LMAO. That's pretty ripe coming from a Trudeau/Biden supporter. All you've got against Trump is some lies about racism, the witch hunt and 1.5 hours of rioting. Trudeau and Biden are responsible for destroying two countries.