Jump to content

America's Federal Police Farce - The FBI


Recommended Posts

We're constantly propagandized about the professionalism and exceptionalism of the FBI in Hollywood and TV, institutions largely controlled by the Dems, while local PD's are denigrated, ridiculed and demeaned at every opportunity.

Meanwhile the FBI works almost exclusively for the Dems. They ran a 3-yr show trial against the Dems' opposition, then ran interference on the Hunter laptop story before the last election. The FBI even tried to force false confessions from people they indicted for non-collusion-related crimes during their collusion witch hunt.

Does it seem like the Dems are trying to pave the way for Americans to accept the demise of local PD's in favour of a one-party police force for all? 

Even if the Dems can just manage to mandate the FBI as the sole recruitment/training/promoting agency for local PD's, they can basically control them all at some point down the road. 

The Dems control the MSM, they control all of social media aside from Musk's X, they tried to take control of the SC by adding 4 of their own justices, and they have complete control of the FBI.

Everything that the Dems are doing - from "defund police" to inciting riots based on false accusations against local police officers - seems to be geared towards getting rid of local PD's and going with a federal farce. 

Opinions?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

We're constantly propagandized about the professionalism and exceptionalism of the FBI in Hollywood and TV, institutions largely controlled by the Dems, while local PD's are denigrated, ridiculed and demeaned at every opportunity.

Meanwhile the FBI works almost exclusively for the Dems. They ran a 3-yr show trial against the Dems' opposition, then ran interference on the Hunter laptop story before the last election. The FBI even tried to force false confessions from people they indicted for non-collusion-related crimes during their collusion witch hunt.

Does it seem like the Dems are trying to pave the way for Americans to accept the demise of local PD's in favour of a one-party police force for all? 

Even if the Dems can just manage to mandate the FBI as the sole recruitment/training/promoting agency for local PD's, they can basically control them all at some point down the road. 

The Dems control the MSM, they control all of social media aside from Musk's X, they tried to take control of the SC by adding 4 of their own justices, and they have complete control of the FBI.

Everything that the Dems are doing - from "defund police" to inciting riots based on false accusations against local police officers - seems to be geared towards getting rid of local PD's and going with a federal farce. 

Opinions?

My opinion is that you're a fever swamp conspiracy loon and there isn't an ounce of truth, reason or evidence to any of what you say here.

Thanks for asking.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

We're constantly propagandized about the professionalism and exceptionalism of the FBI in Hollywood and TV, institutions largely controlled by the Dems, while local PD's are denigrated, ridiculed and demeaned at every opportunity.

Meanwhile the FBI works almost exclusively for the Dems. They ran a 3-yr show trial against the Dems' opposition, then ran interference on the Hunter laptop story before the last election. The FBI even tried to force false confessions from people they indicted for non-collusion-related crimes during their collusion witch hunt.

Does it seem like the Dems are trying to pave the way for Americans to accept the demise of local PD's in favour of a one-party police force for all? 

Even if the Dems can just manage to mandate the FBI as the sole recruitment/training/promoting agency for local PD's, they can basically control them all at some point down the road. 

The Dems control the MSM, they control all of social media aside from Musk's X, they tried to take control of the SC by adding 4 of their own justices, and they have complete control of the FBI.

Everything that the Dems are doing - from "defund police" to inciting riots based on false accusations against local police officers - seems to be geared towards getting rid of local PD's and going with a federal farce. 

Opinions?

So many ^errors, so little time. You don't even know that as the most popular cable "news" channel, your beloved FOS LIES is MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

But we can understand why YOU'D believe they are not.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

We're constantly propagandized about the professionalism and exceptionalism of the FBI in Hollywood and TV, institutions largely controlled by the Dems, while local PD's are denigrated, ridiculed and demeaned at every opportunity.

Meanwhile the FBI works almost exclusively for the Dems. They ran a 3-yr show trial against the Dems' opposition, then ran interference on the Hunter laptop story before the last election. The FBI even tried to force false confessions from people they indicted for non-collusion-related crimes during their collusion witch hunt.

Does it seem like the Dems are trying to pave the way for Americans to accept the demise of local PD's in favour of a one-party police force for all? 

Even if the Dems can just manage to mandate the FBI as the sole recruitment/training/promoting agency for local PD's, they can basically control them all at some point down the road. 

The Dems control the MSM, they control all of social media aside from Musk's X, they tried to take control of the SC by adding 4 of their own justices, and they have complete control of the FBI.

Everything that the Dems are doing - from "defund police" to inciting riots based on false accusations against local police officers - seems to be geared towards getting rid of local PD's and going with a federal farce. 

Opinions?

holy crap - you didn't just trigger the lefties - they're in full on machine gun mode :) 

Here's the thing.  The 'left' wing has evolved into something very socialistic and authoritarian. That's where they are these days. Where many decades ago the left was all about freedoms and choice and free speech, they're now all about "cancel" and laws to enforce 'preferred pronouns' and censorship.

Any such group will ALWAYS seek to vest power in a central authority - they cannot effectively rule without that. We see it in the states- we see it in canada. 

So when you say there's an effort on the left's part to remove power from local authorities and vest it federally, of COURSE there is. And it doesn't matter if we're talking police, or medical practices, or law, or anything.  They're just not happy about you knowing about it :)

Which is why the lefties here chose to freak out at you rather than discuss it rationally.

At the end of the day it's probably not really a specific plan regarding police - they want ALL power taken and vested in a centtral authority period, as much as they can get  away with it.  Police are just one element.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Law and order Conservative, I've always been a strong supporter of law enforcement agencies - as has the Republican Party over the entire history of my life until Trump became president and it continued to try to enforce the law, even against him and other Republicans, who he felt should be immune.

The FBI is a notoriously conservative agency known for the similarity of the dress style, hair style and attitude of its agents even today, after they've been forced, kicking and screaming, into letting in minorities and women. It has long been a known fact that the great majority of its agents and employees are Republicans. The current head of the FBI, Chris Wray, is a registered Republican appointed by Donald Trump to replace the previous FBI head who was also a registered Republican.

Donald Trump's victory in 2016 was in part ascribed to Comey's decision just before the election to reopen the Clinton case because of new emails found on an employee's computer. This precipitated a fresh wave of "Clinton scandal" stories, which, in a razor tight campaign, could easily have cost her the election.

Edited by I am Groot
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

As a Law and order Conservative, I've always been a strong supporter of law enforcement agencies - as has the Republican Party over the entire history of my life until Trump became president and it continued to try to enforce the law, even against him and other Republicans, who he felt should be immune.

The FBI is a notoriously conservative agency known for the similarity of the dress style, hair style and attitude of its agents even today, after they've been forced, kicking and screaming, into letting in minorities and women. It has long been a known fact that the great majority of its agents and employees are Republicans. The current head of the FBI, Chris Wray, is a registered Republican appointed by Donald Trump to replace the previous FBI head who was also a registered Republican.

Donald Trump's victory in 2016 was in part ascribed to Comey's decision just before the election to reopen the Clinton case because of new emails found on an employee's computer. This precipitated a fresh wave of "Clinton scandal" stories, which, in a razor tight campaign, could easily have cost her the election.

The fbi opened an investigation based on the steel dossier that later investigations agreed they never should have had they followed standard proceedure.

FBI agents texts indidated they were extremely upset at the idea of trump becoming president and were prepared to take action to prevent it as the FBI. The texts certainly suggest that they weren't the only two who felt that way.

The fbi literally broke the law pursuing trump, and rode the edge of that numerous times.

Even the FBI agents involved were shocked when comey said there'd be no charges against Clinton. (maybe that's why he didnt' cover up a second time - starting to look a little too obvious).

 So how do you circle that square?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hodad said:

My opinion is that you're a fever swamp conspiracy loon and there isn't an ounce of truth, reason or evidence to any of what you say here.

Thanks for asking.

At least 75% of the things that I said are demonstrably true, such as the Dems trying to add SCJ's and covering up the laptop story, offering plea deals, etc.

You're just a butthurt cultist. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

As a Law and order Conservative, I've always been a strong supporter of law enforcement agencies - as has the Republican Party over the entire history of my life until Trump became president and it continued to try to enforce the law, even against him and other Republicans, who he felt should be immune.

The FBI is a notoriously conservative agency known for the similarity of the dress style, hair style and attitude of its agents even today, after they've been forced, kicking and screaming, into letting in minorities and women. It has long been a known fact that the great majority of its agents and employees are Republicans. The current head of the FBI, Chris Wray, is a registered Republican appointed by Donald Trump to replace the previous FBI head who was also a registered Republican.

Donald Trump's victory in 2016 was in part ascribed to Comey's decision just before the election to reopen the Clinton case because of new emails found on an employee's computer. This precipitated a fresh wave of "Clinton scandal" stories, which, in a razor tight campaign, could easily have cost her the election.

Comey's decision to PUBLICLY reopen the Clinton email was a violation of DoJ policy in addition to costing her the election. Of course, that was the desired result of Congressional Republicons who pressured Comey to do that.

It was the main reason Trump thought Democrats would support his firing of Comey, which they did NOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

At least 75% of the things that I said are demonstrably true, such as the Dems trying to add SCJ's

There was never legislation introduced to do what YOU ALLEGE.

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

and covering up the laptop story, offering plea deals, etc.

"Democrats" had nothing to do with suppressing the "the laptop story."

It was "suppressed" by other news agencies because it was unverified, PRIMARILY due to the NYP refusing to share the CONTENTS. Which of course, was ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED and the CHAIN of CUSTODY was UNDOCUMENTED and HIGHLY SUSPECT.

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're just a butthurt cultist. 

You're just a HUGE LIAR.

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

At least 75% of the things that I said are demonstrably true, such as the Dems trying to add SCJ's and covering up the laptop story, offering plea deals, etc.

You're just a butthurt cultist. 

You're like a volcano of bullshit. Lol

"The Dems" did not try to add seats to the SCOTUS. A few people might have wanted to balance this crazy court, but there was no popular support, no legislation up for a vote, no executive support from the Biden administration. 

It's not demonstrably true. It's demonstrably false. Yet you keep repeating it. Because lying is your only recourse.

Edited by Hodad
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The fbi opened an investigation based on the steel dossier that later investigations agreed they never should have had they followed standard proceedure.

FBI agents texts indidated they were extremely upset at the idea of trump becoming president and were prepared to take action to prevent it as the FBI. The texts certainly suggest that they weren't the only two who felt that way.

The fbi literally broke the law pursuing trump, and rode the edge of that numerous times.

Even the FBI agents involved were shocked when comey said there'd be no charges against Clinton. (maybe that's why he didnt' cover up a second time - starting to look a little too obvious).

 So how do you circle that square?

I don't need to as there's no square. You're using Republican talking points that cherry-picked incidents of little relevance. A few FBI agents didn't like Trump. They texted each other. And then they did... nothing about it. The FBI were contacted by a foreign government about possible Russian involvement with people on Trump's campaign. They HAD to open an investigation on that. A few of the people on the large team were unhappy no charges were laid. The rest - were not. 

And no the FBI did not break 'the law'. That's what Trump did.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I don't need to as there's no square. You're using Republican talking points that cherry-picked incidents of little relevance.

You have got to be kidding.

A multi million dollar investiagtion that should never have happened involving 64 federal agents is "nothing"? 

A federal agent being charged and convicted of essentally planting evidence and several more being chastized for almost crossing the line is 'nothing'?

ANd all these agents represent "a few"?

4 years where there were regular "irregularities" along those lines is 'cherry picking'?

The investigation into all of this made it crystal clear - they did NOT need to open an investiation and in fact the practice in every other case is to get at least SOME corroborating evidence of some type or at least interview a few of the people making the allegations and they did none of that.

From the Durham report:

Most significantly, Durham’s report said that the FBI at the very least was too hasty in opening its investigation of Trump, saying the department at the time lacked “actual evidence” – including any proof of contact between Trump campaign staff and Russian intelligence agents – and instead relied on “raw, unanalysed and uncorroborated intelligence”. Acting with such speed, Durham’s report said, was a departure from the norm.

there is a TONNE of evidence that MULTIPLE fbi agents on MULTIPLE occasions acted improperly up to and including breaking the law and frequently worked "Outside the norm".

 

Sorry man - if you're pretending that the FBI did NOT act in  a political fashion to attempt to inappropriately target trump over a long period of time in a systematic way then you're not being honest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You're using Republican talking points that cherry-picked incidents of little relevance.

Banning the NYPost from social media right before the 2020 election was of little relevance?

If the FBI stepped in and said that the "Trump sold the plans for the USS Enterprise Starship to Russia" story was Russian disinformation, got the NYT from social media for talking about it before the 2024 election, even though they knew it was true, you'd lose your marbles. 

It's a big deal that all of the stories about influence peddling were corroborated with hard evidence - Joe and Hunter had lied about that stuff for years. The FBI canned it, hard. That's a huge deal. It's enormous. It's tter BS to pretend it was no big deal.

You guys pretend that it's  big deal if Trump said "shithole countries" in a private meeting. I think it's a far bigger deal if Trump was caught taking several millions of dollars from China and Ukraine. 

Quote

A few FBI agents didn't like Trump. They texted each other. And then they did... nothing about it.

Well, the FBI did run that investigation for two years after they knew they had no evidence. They also lied to the FISA court on multiple occasions while Strzok was leading the investigation, and they lied to the public thousands of times. 

Strzok might not have been there anymore when the FBI presented their own fabricated evidence to the FISA court, but they were backing his play. 

Quote

The FBI were contacted by a foreign government about possible Russian involvement with people on Trump's campaign. They HAD to open an investigation on that. A few of the people on the large team were unhappy no charges were laid. The rest - were not. 

They were contacted because some people in Australia heard someone talking in a bar. Then they got the dossier from "a concerned citizen" who actually happened to be Hillary's lawyer. FYI that's not the stuff of a 3-yr public investigation into the president, and it's not enough info to justify attempting to coerce false testimony from Trump's associates. 

Quote

And no the FBI did not break 'the law'. That's what Trump did.

Jesus Christ you're stupid.

If the FBI didn't break the law then what did Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty to? 

And FYI, before the FBI altered that email to send it to the FISA court, they lied about Carter Page on all of the previous FISA warrant applications. Multiple members of the FI were aware of the fact that they were lying to the FISA court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fbi-abuses-domestic-surveillance-trump-campaign-eerily-echo-red-scare-ncna1113696

FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer: "The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession [aka - lies], and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

I know that you don't understand what all that means, but take my word for it - it's a really big deal when a judge calls the FBI a bunch of serial liars

Quote

Friday marks the deadline given to the FBI to tell the nation’s top national security court how it will fix the process that led to doctored surveillance requests and improper spying on a presidential campaign staffer in 2016. 

The FBI had to go hat-in-hand to the FISA court like a little kid who got caught cheating on a test:

  • That’s why, regardless of one’s politics, we should all hope the 40 “corrective steps” ordered by FBI Director Christopher Wray address the bureau’s failings. But it will be up to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also known as the FISA court) — which oversees FBI requests for wiretapping and other surveillance — to determine if they are adequate.

Nah, not a big deal at all, right Groot? Dummy. 

 

v

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

holy crap - you didn't just trigger the lefties - they're in full on machine gun mode :) 

I think they always are.

They never respond to anything with a factual, rational argument. It's always "OMG YOU'RE SUCH A LIAR, I'M TOTALLY BUTTHURT!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I think they always are.

They never respond to anything with a factual, rational argument. It's always "OMG YOU'RE SUCH A LIAR, I'M TOTALLY BUTTHURT!!!"

Where is YOU EVIDENCE that Biden tried (and failed) to expand the SCOTUS?

That's right, you have NONE.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2024 at 12:03 AM, robosmith said:

So many ^errors, so little time. You don't even know that as the most popular cable "news" channel, your beloved FOS LIES is MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

But we can understand why YOU'D believe they are not.

roboshill = 100% politicized bullshit. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Where is YOU EVIDENCE that Biden tried (and failed) to expand the SCOTUS?

That's right, you have NONE.

I feel like half of my sentences here are just reminding leftists how stupid you all are, and how much you all lie.

TBH, it's not a question of how much you lie, it's a question of whether you ever tell the truth.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-04-16/can-democrats-really-pack-the-supreme-court

  •  Democrats have introduced a bill to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court from nine to 13. Such a move could allow President Biden to swing the current 6-3 conservative majority in favor of liberals.

What does ^that^ look like to you, dummy? Does it look like something that never happened? Something I just made up? And then I convinced the LA Times to write a fake story about it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I feel like half of my sentences here are just reminding leftists how stupid you all are, and how much you all lie.

TBH, it's not a question of how much you lie, it's a question of whether you ever tell the truth.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-04-16/can-democrats-really-pack-the-supreme-court

  •  Democrats have introduced a bill to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court from nine to 13. Such a move could allow President Biden to swing the current 6-3 conservative majority in favor of liberals.

What does ^that^ look like to you, dummy? Does it look like something that never happened? Something I just made up? And then I convinced the LA Times to write a fake story about it? 

That article says the Senator from Massachusetts sought to expand the number of judges on the court, not Biden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rebound said:

That article says the Senator from Massachusetts sought to expand the number of judges on the court, not Biden. 

It wasn't 'one guy'. It was the Demonrats.

The idea was floated around for a while, and they hoped that it would gain traction, but only about 80% of Dems are in favour of actual, full-on authoritarianism. They needed 100% of Dems in the senate to get it through and unfortunately for the Demis, Manchin isn't a goose-stepper.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP is nothing but a subjective opinion from someone who has no first hand or boots on the ground knowledge. Yes, he has a computer and can search the internet... so can millions of others. Before the inevitable gaslighting comes on... I can freely admit that I do not work for the FBI, have never done so, and have never dealt with them. We occasionally converge with the IRS at the office but its nothing all that interesting. That being said, my knowledge is limited to the same subjective internet articles as everyone else and so of little informative value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2024 at 8:28 PM, Hodad said:

My opinion is that you're a fever swamp conspiracy loon and there isn't an ounce of truth, reason or evidence to any of what you say here.

Thanks for asking.

Your opinion is actually interference. 

There isn't any reason to NOT believe that the democrat party has weaponized the FBI against US Citizens. In fact it's pretty much obvious at this point. 

https://www.newsweek.com/2023/10/13/exclusive-fbi-targets-trump-followers-as-2024-election-nears-1831836.html

 

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The OP is nothing but a subjective opinion from someone who has no first hand or boots on the ground knowledge. Yes, he has a computer and can search the internet... so can millions of others. Before the inevitable gaslighting comes on... I can freely admit that I do not work for the FBI, have never done so, and have never dealt with them. We occasionally converge with the IRS at the office but its nothing all that interesting. That being said, my knowledge is limited to the same subjective internet articles as everyone else and so of little informative value. 

partialobserver has strong opinions against conservatives. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I feel like half of my sentences here are just reminding leftists how stupid you all are, and how much you all lie.

TBH, it's not a question of how much you lie, it's a question of whether you ever tell the truth.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-04-16/can-democrats-really-pack-the-supreme-court

  •  Democrats have introduced a bill to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court from nine to 13. Such a move could allow President Biden to swing the current 6-3 conservative majority in favor of liberals.

What does ^that^ look like to you, dummy? Does it look like something that never happened? Something I just made up? And then I convinced the LA Times to write a fake story about it? 

 

YOU FAILED to read your CITE:

Quote

What are prospects for passage of the new court expansion plans?

Not good. The leading Democrats are lukewarm to the idea.

Biden said he is no fan of court packing and opted to set up a 36-member commission to spend six months pondering possible reforms or changes to the Supreme Court.

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said she was not enthused about the expansion bill introduced Thursday. “I have no intention to bring it to the floor,” she said.

Per your own cite Joe Biden never TRIED to pack the court. Thanks for proving your allegation is BULLSHIT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Your opinion is actually interference. 

There isn't any reason to NOT believe that the democrat party has weaponized the FBI against US Citizens. In fact it's pretty much obvious at this point. 

https://www.newsweek.com/2023/10/13/exclusive-fbi-targets-trump-followers-as-2024-election-nears-1831836.html

Thanks for posting the EVIDENCE that there is VALID REASON for targeting the MAGA CULT:

Quote

Though the FBI's data shows a dip in the number of investigations since the slew of January 6 cases ended, FBI Director Christopher Wray still says that the breach of the Capitol building was "not an isolated event" and the threat is "not going away anytime soon." In a joint report to Congress this June, the Bureau and the Department of Homeland Security say that "Threats from...DVEs [domestic violent extremists] have increased in the last two years, and any further increases in threats likely will correspond to potential flashpoints, such as high-profile elections and campaigns or contentious current events."

The FBI and DHS report concludes: "Sociopolitical developments—such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol, conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence—will almost certainly spur some domestic terrorists to try to engage in violence."

Republican FBI Director Wray tells you WHY they target the MAGA CULT: ONE DAY JAN 6th. AKA violent attack on the Capitol and disrupting election certification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Matthew earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CouchPotato earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      First Post
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...