FBI Election Fraud

[Rebound]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So you got stooged. Shocker. 

You said "a Trump Cabinet appointee who oversaw that investigation and gave Epstein the plea bargain of a lifetime? And isn’t it the plea bargain that ended the investigation."

The deal in question was from 2007, and Acosta wasn't appointed by Trump when that happened. Trump also said that "Acosta was doing a really good job" under his own administration, which started in 2017. FYI that's ten years later. And FYI Epstein was indicted when Trump was POTUS. He skated through 8 years of Obama untouched. 

Nothing in my statement was false. 
Trump appointed Acosta knowing full well that Acosta had given Epstein this plea deal, and Trump defended it. 
 

Of course Acosta wasn’t a Cabinet Secretary at the time of the deal; Cabinet Secretaries don’t make plea deals (unless they are the accused). I did not say Acosta was a Cabinet Secretary at the time of the plea deal; he was a prosecutor at the time.  

Edited September 4, 2022 by Rebound

[Rebound]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's a cite, Einstein.

It's a link to a leftist-approved site, which you have no choice but to believe verbatim, and it provided a direct quote from the exact person that I said it did, stating what I claimed they said. I just paraphrased because the quote is almost 2 years old. 

 

FYI The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, = egregious behaviour

FYI "Calls into question" = "casts a shroud of doubt"

FYI "whether or not information contained in other FBI applications is reliable" = "over every FBI investigation ever conducted"

 

Grow up, son. 

 

 

No, No, No. 

You put those words in quotes.  You said that a judge stated those words. Not true.  Stop with the lies.  When you put words in quotation marks, by definition of the word “quote,” it means word-for-word, verbatim. 
 

Dude, you have no integrity at all. You’re just spouting lies. You have no concept of honesty or truth or facts.  Telling me a judge said something similar doesn’t matter, ok? You put the words in quotes and nobody ever said such a thing. I gave you the option to back out and apologize for making a mistake, but you’re too MAGA for that.  
 

I get it: If you post something, we can all assume it’s lies and BS that you made up. That’s what you’re about. I’m just letting everybody know that’s who we’re dealing with. Zero integrity, zero honesty. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Nothing in my statement was false. 
Trump appointed Acosta knowing full well that Acosta had given Epstein this plea deal, and Trump defended it. 

No, Trump didn't defend the plea deal by saying it was good, and his only defence of Acosta was by saying that Acosta wasn't the only one involved in making it. 

Your original post implied that Epstein was given some kind of a plea deal by someone that Trump appointed, while under his own administration. 

Your attempt to connect the dots was weak, especially by comparison to the fact that Epstein was arrested while Trump was POTUS.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

No, No, No. 

You put those words in quotes.  You said that a judge stated those words. Not true.  Stop with the lies.  When you put words in quotation marks, by definition of the word “quote,” it means word-for-word, verbatim. 
 

Dude, you have no integrity at all. You’re just spouting lies. You have no concept of honesty or truth or facts.  Telling me a judge said something similar doesn’t matter, ok? You put the words in quotes and nobody ever said such a thing. I gave you the option to back out and apologize for making a mistake, but you’re too MAGA for that.  
 

I get it: If you post something, we can all assume it’s lies and BS that you made up. That’s what you’re about. I’m just letting everybody know that’s who we’re dealing with. Zero integrity, zero honesty. 

A judge actually said it. 

If you wanna split hairs and be angry that I paraphrased, so be it, but you still have to acknowledge that a judge said words TO THAT EXACT EFFECT. 

Bottom line is that my accusation against the FBI was 100% bang on.

And you're trying to call out my integrity because I perfectly paraphrased someone but used quotation marks? FYI here's the conventional usage of quotation marks:

Quote

Paraphrases and summaries do not use quotation marks. However, if you use some words from the original text along with your own words, you need to use quotation marks.

So, if I used some of the judges original text in my quote, then quotation marks were necessary. The quote is almost 2 years old and I didn't remember the exact wording. I used quotes. Big deal. You could have taken umbrage if my quote didn't match hers in form and character but it did.

What I did was more than just "fine" by internet forum standards because the content of my post was 100% accurate. 

There's not a leftist on this site that can hold a candle to my integrity. 

[eyeball]

On 9/4/2022 at 2:10 PM, WestCanMan said:

Paraphrases and summaries do not use quotation marks. However, if you use some words from the original text along with your own words, you need to use quotation marks.

What this means is that you need to use the quotation marks around the words from the original text, people need to differentiate your words from the words of others - which has never been hard the way you post but it does need to be said.

[Rebound]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

What this means is that you need to use the quotation marks around the words from the original text, people need to differentiate your words from the words of others - which has never been hard the way you post but it does need to be said.

Now, let’s be absolutely clear about something; He put those words in quotes. That means he is quoting someone; that someone said the thing word-for-word.  I called him out on it and instead of admitting to his deception, he said that it’s ok because the judge said something similar (similar, yet substantially different).  
 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

What this means is that you need to use the quotation marks around the words from the original text, people need to differentiate your words from the words of others - which has never been hard the way you post but it does need to be said.

TBH, it's rare in this day and age to find someone who says the truth. 

If someone got a quote wrong but didn't change its meaning at all, that's close enough for me.

What we should be more concerned about is people who know what's meant by a quote and lie about it.

There are MSM outlets and high-ranking politicians who referenced Trump's quote after he was asked about MS-13: "These people are animals" [or whatever it was] and said that he was talking about 'all immigrants' when he said it. 

NYTimes 

Quote

Trump Calls Some Unauthorized Immigrants 'Animals' in Rant

https://www.nytimes.com › U.S. › Politics

 

 

 

May 16, 2018 — WASHINGTON — President Trump lashed out at undocumented immigrantsduring a White House meeting on Wednesday, warning in front of news

WashPo 

Quote

"May 16, 2018 — President Trump on Thursday pointedly referred to undocumented immigrantsas "animals" in a statement his critics say betrays a gross ..."

So, you can see that it's possible to get the words inside of the quotation marks correct, but still lie about what they said.

[WestCanMan]

24 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Now, let’s be absolutely clear about something; He put those words in quotes. That means he is quoting someone; that someone said the thing word-for-word.  I called him out on it and instead of admitting to his deception, he said that it’s ok because the judge said something similar (similar, yet substantially different).  

Liar.

There was no deception involved at all. 

After you read what I said about the FBI and the FISA court judge, and you read the actual verbatim quote from the FISA judge, there was no difference at all. 

It's almost a 2-yr-old quote and I don't have it memorized. Big deal. The FISA court judge said exactly what I said they did, just in different words.

Deception is you, right now, trying to act like what I said wasn't true when you know that everything that I said has been verified.

But such is the life of a leftist - the facts are never on your side. All you ever have is baseless insults and strawman arguments. 

? 'til next time, little buddy. 

[eyeball]

46 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Now, let’s be absolutely clear about something; He put those words in quotes. That means he is quoting someone; that someone said the thing word-for-word.  I called him out on it and instead of admitting to his deception, he said that it’s ok because the judge said something similar (similar, yet substantially different).

Yep, that's his style alright.

Wait until he tells you what you're thinking before you're even aware of it. WasteCanMan is pretty special that way. 

[Rebound]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yep, that's his style alright.

Wait until he tells you what you're thinking before you're even aware of it. WasteCanMan is pretty special that way. 

He can’t do those things. TrashCanMan is on my Ignore list.  

Edited September 6, 2022 by Rebound

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

TBH, it's rare in this day and age to find someone who says the truth. 

If someone got a quote wrong but didn't change its meaning at all, that's close enough for me.

What we should be more concerned about is people who know what's meant by a quote and lie about it.

There are MSM outlets and high-ranking politicians who referenced Trump's quote after he was asked about MS-13: "These people are animals" [or whatever it was] and said that he was talking about 'all immigrants' when he said it. 

NYTimes 

WashPo 

So, you can see that it's possible to get the words inside of the quotation marks correct, but still lie about what they said.

Ah, so two wrongs make it right.But only when you do it.

Definitely your style.

[robosmith]

38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Liar.

There was no deception involved at all. 

After you read what I said about the FBI and the FISA court judge, and you read the actual verbatim quote from the FISA judge, there was no difference at all. 

It's almost a 2-yr-old quote and I don't have it memorized. Big deal. The FISA court judge said exactly what I said they did, just in different words.

Deception is you, right now, trying to act like what I said wasn't true when you know that everything that I said has been verified.

But such is the life of a leftist - the facts are never on your side. All you ever have is baseless insults and strawman arguments. 

? 'til next time, little buddy. 

It's very simple. If you don't remember what someone said, LOOK IT UP, or DON'T USE DOUBLE QUOTES.

"Something similar" may be good enough for you, but it's NOT A QUOTE.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Ah, so two wrongs make it right.But only when you do it.

Definitely your style.

That was inane. 

Definitely your style.

FYI: if it was a case of "two wrongs make a right" then the wording of my quote would have been off as well as the meaning, but the meaning of my quote was 100% accurate.

IE, the FISA court judge actually did say words which meant that the level of FBI malfeasance in the collusion case cast a shroud of doubt over everything the FBI was involved in. 

You should be less upset about my 100% accuracy and more concerned about the FACT that the FBI didn't just "make a bunch of mistakes" - their investigation was so corrupt that it forced a judge to publicly question the integrity of the entire bureau. 

[robosmith]

On 9/4/2022 at 12:21 PM, WestCanMan said:

That's a cite, Einstein.

It's a link to a leftist-approved site, which you have no choice but to believe verbatim, and it provided a direct quote from the exact person that I said it did, stating what I claimed they said. I just paraphrased because the quote is almost 2 years old. 

 

FYI The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, = egregious behaviour

FYI "Calls into question" = "casts a shroud of doubt"

FYI "whether or not information contained in other FBI applications is reliable" = "over every FBI investigation ever conducted"

 

Grow up, son. 

Physician heal thyself. What YOU BELIEVE to be similar is obviously very slanted to fit your agenda of vilifying the FBI at every opportunity; including invoking conspiracy theories as "facts."

For example: 

"whether or not information contained in other FBI applications is reliable" = "over every FBI investigation ever conducted"

 is a FALSE EQUIVALENCE: "other" =/= "every" and certainly NOT "ever conducted."

Time for you step up and APOLIGIZE for your misrepresentations. Not that I expect you will admit to being WRONG. 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

It's very simple. If you don't remember what someone said, LOOK IT UP, or DON'T USE DOUBLE QUOTES.

"Something similar" may be good enough for you, but it's NOT A QUOTE.

No, it's actually not like that.

It's actually normal to refer to things that are common knowledge without getting caught up in unnecessary details. 

You're just trying to turn this into a debate about semantics so that you don't have to acknowledge the fact that the fBI is no longer a reputable police force.

If you think about it, this little debate that we're having is proof that you think my integrity is actually higher than that of the FBI, because your criticism of me is limited to "Even though the meaning of your quote was bang on, you used quotation marks improperly", while we're both acknowledging that the FBI committed crimes and ran a show trial against a sitting president. 

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Physician heal thyself. What YOU BELIEVE to be similar is obviously very slanted to fit your agenda of vilifying the FBI at every opportunity; including invoking conspiracy theories as "facts."

For example: 

"whether or not information contained in other FBI applications is reliable" = "over every FBI investigation ever conducted"

 is a FALSE EQUIVALENCE: "other" =/= "every" and certainly NOT "ever conducted."

Time for you step up and APOLIGIZE for your misrepresentations. Not that I expect you will admit to being WRONG. 

Grow up robo.

You started of being silly, now you're having a tantrum. 

If you don't understand the length and breadth of the judge's comment that's your own problem. I'm not your English teacher. 

[WestCanMan]

for @robosmith:

Everyone in the world knows that high-Ranking FBI officials were demoted, fired, and even charged criminally for their malfeasance in the 3-yr-long Russian collusion witch hunt, which was an overt attempt to slander Donald Trump and to dislodge him as the winner of the 2016 presidential election. In the end, a FISA court judge released a statement saying that the FBI's conduct in the Russian Collusion investigation was so egregious that it cast a shroud of doubt over every FBI investigation ever conducted.

Then on Oct 8 2020, just a month before the 2020 election, the FBI started lying to Americans about their ownfabricated attempt to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of a large swing state. That little bit of FBI skullduggery was undoubtedly a huge blow to the Republicans' election hopes. 

At almost the exact same time, about a month before the 2020 election, the FBI and the intel community were also lying to Americans about the validity of the Hunter laptop, and telling them that it was just "Russian disinformation". The MSM ran with that claim, and Twitter took the extraordinary step of banning the New York Post for publishing laptop info that Twitter called "Russian disinformation". The laptop and its contents are now known to be 100% legitimate, but what's really important to consider the fact that the FBI already had the laptop in their possession for approximately 11 months at the time they falsely called it "Russian disinformation" - they obtained it in Dec of 2019. Was the FBI fabricating a second story for the American public (voters) right before the 2020 election? 

Honestly, if there was a legitimate federal police force in the United States, they'd be investigating the FBI for concurrently running two frauds on the American people which both influenced the 2020 election in favour of the Dems. 

Ooh, but there's more. 

Given the FBI's history of getting agents into the mix to incite violence and (reportedly) even being involved in setting up terrorist plots, it's almost impossible to believe that they didn't have agent provocateurs influencing people on and before Jan 6th. Ray Epps is a shining example - a guy who was caught on video multiple times in different places influencing people to enter the capitol buildings, and even being there when the first gate was stormed, and yet miraculously he's not charged with anything. So, in a time where the DOJ is going after anyone and everyone involved in the Jan 6th event, racking up more Jan 6th convictions than BLM riot convictions, Ray Epps officially "did nothing wrong" according to them. 

The Dems, the DOJ and their FBI are completely fixated on Jan 6th now. The 2 hrs of rioting at the capitol produced more criminals than all of the rioting, looting, arson, overrunning of gov't buildings, assaults and murders at the 4 months of BLM riots in 2020. There are 300 criminal cases and 120 convictions from all of the BLM riots, which caused billions of dollars in damages, and 895 people charged with crimes on Jan 6th.

The Dems and the MSM were cheerleaders when BLM was destroying communities, local residents were supposed to condone and support all of the violence in their own neighbourhoods, but two hours of semi-rioting at the capitol was enough to give some of those same people PTSD (AOC). The FBI has to go after them ALL. All of them except for Ray Epps, that is. 

If we tie everything up and put a bow on it, this is the view from 30,000 feet: the Dems slander and malign local police constantly, even going so far as to recommend "defunding police", and the FBI now has an extensive history of fabricating stories of corruption and violence against the Republicans while downplaying crimes by the DNC, and even giving its members prosecutorial immunity for no reason at all. Which begs the question - are the Dems trying to get rid of local law enforcement agencies to make room for an increase of the role of their own federal police force?

The last paragraph is an aside, the main question is, are the FBI just blatantly using their power and influence to change election outcomes? 

[robosmith]

35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Grow up robo.

You started of being silly, now you're having a tantrum. 

If you don't understand the length and breadth of the judge's comment that's your own problem. I'm not your English teacher. 

You're certainly NOT a teacher of ANY kind. It is you who needs to grow up and learn grammar.

[eyeball]

32 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

FIFY

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're certainly NOT a teacher of ANY kind. It is you who needs to grow up and learn grammar.

In between bouts of whining and name-calling, did you learn anything of the criminal misconduct of the FBI?

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

FIFY

Judges, like the FISA court judge and the judge in the Whitmer case, agree with me. 

Snotty leftists with their heads in the sand agree with you. 

Why does stuff like this keep happening? 

[robosmith]

On 9/6/2022 at 12:35 PM, WestCanMan said:

In between bouts of whining and name-calling, did you learn anything of the criminal misconduct of the FBI?

All I learned from you is that you naively believe the ranting of a conman.

Of course Trump fired and demoted those FBI agents and officials who would not swear personal loyalty to HIM instead of the Constitution which is where their loyalty BELONGS.

Edited September 11, 2022 by robosmith

[robosmith]

On 9/6/2022 at 12:40 PM, WestCanMan said:

Judges, like the FISA court judge and the judge in the Whitmer case, agree with me. 

Snotty leftists with their heads in the sand agree with you. 

Why does stuff like this keep happening? 

Because you understand neither US law nor what you read.

Or you just get your info from places like Dimbart.

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

All I learned from you is that you naively believe the ranting of a conman.

Of course Trump fired and demoted those FBI agents and officials who would not swear personal loyalty to HIM instead of the Constitution which is where their loyalty BELONGS.

So you have access to all of the information that we're talking about and yet you still don't know wtf you're talking about, yet there you are, still prattling.

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

Because you understand neither US law nor what you read.

Or you just get your info from places like Dimbart.

I understand what pleading guilty to a crime means. Apparently you don't. 

I trust the words of a FISA court judge who has access to every shred of information about this topic more than I trust WashPo, CNN and a known internet liar.