Jump to content

America's Federal Police Farce - The FBI


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

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

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.

Evidence for America hating sociopaths. These f*ckers will manufacture anything to get their political enemies behind bars. lol

I tell ya, robomarx, your little communist playworld is about to end. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Evidence for America hating sociopaths. These f*ckers will manufacture anything to get their political enemies behind bars. lol

I tell ya, robomarx, your little communist playworld is about to end. ;)

YOU posted the EVIDENCE. Shoulda read it FIRST. LMAO

Trump is SINKING in DESPAIR despite your best MAGA CULT efforts. 🤮

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, robosmith said:

YOU posted the EVIDENCE. Shoulda read it FIRST. LMAO

Trump is SINKING in DESPAIR despite your best MAGA CULT efforts. 🤮

That's right, robostalin, I posted EVIDENCE that the FBI has been weaponized by the democrat party. 

We need to stamp out the woke cult, not let it fester and grow. 

Good catch. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Deluge said:

That's right, robostalin, I posted EVIDENCE that the FBI has been weaponized by the democrat party. 

Nope. YOUR CITE show Wray specifically saying it was in response to the Jan 6th MAGA CULT GOONS.

Wray is a REPUBLICAN. Duh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

1. Nope. YOUR CITE show Wray specifically saying it was in response to the Jan 6th MAGA CULT GOONS.

2. Wray is a REPUBLICAN. Duh

1. Of course it does. It shows the FBI has been weaponized by the Joe Biden Administration. It's a witch hunt, robodenial, and no amount of kicking and screaming on your part will change that fact. 

2. Wray is just as anti-Trump as you. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You have got to be kidding.

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

Who says it shouldn't have happened? A Trump special prosecutor appointed by Trump's attorney general. Others disagreed, like the Justice Department Inspector General. 

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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

Unrelated to the Trump investigation. 

Hey, the guy spent four years and millions investigating. He had to come up with SOMETHING!

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

ANd all these agents represent "a few"?

Yes. The FBI is a large organization.

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

Well, Durham's own report found no political motivation. So what more do you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Unrelated to the Trump investigation. 

Wow.

You're a special kind of weasel, ain't ya?

How can Clinesmith's crimes be "unrelated" to the Trump investigation, Grooty wooty?

Quote

Hey, the guy spent four years and millions investigating. He had to come up with SOMETHING!

He did. Wray came up with a list of "40 corrective steps" to try to get the FBI back to respectability, as per the FISA court's orders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Wow.

You're a special kind of weasel, ain't ya?

How can Clinesmith's crimes be "unrelated" to the Trump investigation, Grooty wooty?

He did. Wray came up with a list of "40 corrective steps" to try to get the FBI back to respectability, as per the FISA court's orders. 

Seems like a big nothingburger to me.

After three-and-a-half-years, Durham indicted three men. One was an FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email that was included in a June 2017 application for a surveillance warrant on a former Trump campaign aide; he was sentenced to probation. The other two men were tried and acquitted. In both trials, Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI but did not allege the FBI acted improperly toward Trump.[8][9] According to conservative lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy, the alleged deception was "only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself."[10]

 

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Seems like a big nothingburger to me.

After three-and-a-half-years, Durham indicted three men. One was an FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email that was included in a June 2017 application for a surveillance warrant on a former Trump campaign aide; he was sentenced to probation. The other two men were tried and acquitted. In both trials, Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI but did not allege the FBI acted improperly toward Trump.[8][9] According to conservative lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy, the alleged deception was "only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself."[10]

Yeah, they just altered an email to turn it into a lie so that they could renew their warrant to spy on Trump. AKA, the President of the United States of America. Ho-hum. 

BKAWK, BKAWK! HEY, DID YOU HEAR THIS: TRUMP OVERESTIMATED THE VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY WHEN HE APPLIED FOR A LOAN!!!!! WHERE'S THE DEATH SQUAD, DUMMY? THIS IS THE BIGGEST CRIME THAT HAS EVER TAKEN PLACE IN AMERICA!!! BKAWK!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Who says it shouldn't have happened? A Trump special prosecutor appointed by Trump's attorney general. Others disagreed, like the Justice Department Inspector General. 

Ahhhh so it's not the FBI that's bias, it's the prosecutors :)  

The guy was very detailed in his report as to why he made that statement and it's pretty compelling. Do you have a different source explaining in any detail why he's wrong?

Quote

Unrelated to the Trump investigation. 

It involved obtaining a search warrant for the trump investigation. How could it not be related? it couldn't be MORE related.

 

Quote

Yes. The FBI is a large organization.

So unless the whole entire thing is bias there's no bias in it? I think that's a tough argument to make.

Quote

Well, Durham's own report found no political motivation. So what more do you want?

I don't recall him being asked to look for it.  He simply looked at whether the investigation followed proper proceedure or was flawed.  We do know from his investigation tho that there is a huge body of evidence that it was flawed and bias.  So if your argument is that the bias isn't politically motivated, do you have any evidence or the like to suggest a DIFFERENT motivation?  We certainly have evidence from the texts that at least some of the anti trump sentiment in the fbi was political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is amazing what some deem as "evidence". When our dept was sued, we became paralegals and lawyers overnight. I was able to show not infer that the person originated the claims from the Cayman Islands. Also, through some clever sleuthing.. we proved that the name that they used was fictitious. Also, were able to prove with 100% certainty that the claims were generated through via AI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2024 at 2:17 PM, robosmith said:

There was never legislation introduced to do what YOU ALLEGE.

"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.

You're just a HUGE LIAR.

Lol...can you smellll...

The desperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

It is amazing what some deem as "evidence". When our dept was sued, we became paralegals and lawyers overnight. I was able to show not infer that the person originated the claims from the Cayman Islands. Also, through some clever sleuthing.. we proved that the name that they used was fictitious. Also, were able to prove with 100% certainty that the claims were generated through via AI

So basically you got sued by ex-flyer :)

the problem is that people confuse evidence and 'Proof" and conflate the two inappropriately.

If person A says that they saw person B do something - that is evidence. But that does not mean it's accurate or that it's proof.  Person A could be mistaken in what they saw, person A might have a reason to lie about person B.

So evidence? Yes - proof? no.

So in order to prove something you have to collect ENOUGH evidence that corroborates the claim from different angles and eliminates the other possibilities till you arrive at a conclusion that meets the bar - beyond reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, balance of probability, whatever.

Right now - the FBI will claim they have evidence that trump may have committed a crime. That is not the same as proof or a conviction (which is basically a statement of proof).  The defense will claim that the evidence is not sufficient for whatever reason and provide their own evidence that refutes the claim.
 

The fact both sides have evidence should not be interpreted as guilt or innocence. But that's what people today do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2024 at 12:19 PM, Hodad said:

You're like a volcano of bullshit. Lol

I say things that trigger your leftard confirmation bias little boy, that's it. FYI just because you're butthurt by it doesn't make it BS.

Quote

"The Dems" did not try to add seats to the SCOTUS.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132

ScreenShot2024-03-26at9_20_34AM.thumb.png.5d439e9b19529fdbdc58867ef57b901e.png

Nancy Pelosi, from the above article: 

Quote

Pelosi: "I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered," she said of the court expansion plan. "And I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step."

I just have to print the facts. Please don't take it personally, stupid.

Quote

A few people might have wanted to balance this crazy court,

Hmmm, balance...

Wouldn't that mean, an even number of judges? Not "We're gonna stack the court with 4 of our own justices"...

Quote

but there was no popular support,

They were openly floating the idea in public, trying to see how the public would receive it. 

They had no doubt about whether or not their MSM and the other leftard-targeted 'news' and info outlets, such as Vox, etc,  would support it, they just needed to know if their cultists were ready for it. 

NBC, from the above article:

Quote

The push represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for denying a vote in 2016 to President Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year.

Vox: "Hell yeah! Bring it on baby!"... https://www.vox.com/22384461/supreme-court-court-expansion-packing-judiciary-act-13-seats-jones-nadler-markey-johnson

It wasn't until 12 hours after Nadler et al openly talked about their plan to hijack the SC that Pelosi said she wouldn't take it to the floor for a vote:

Quote

CBS Article: "But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi swiftly said 12 hours later that she would not bring the bill to the floor for a vote."

She read the room AFTER the Dems, alongside their activists, started their pitch. Her and Biden weren't against it at all, they just saw where it was headed when they were approaching the finish line.

It turns out that leftists were only comfortable with 75% fascism at that point. If they tried again I'm sure that they'd be at 100%.

Do you personally think the Dems should add 4 of their own SCJ's? I already know that you'd love it, but you will probably pretend that you're above it. 

Quote

no legislation up for a vote,

They got as far as they could with it. They drew the plan up on the board, handed the ball to their running back - Jerry Nadler - and he ran it up the middle. Hit a wall. Dems bailed out. 

They still tried

Quote

no executive support from the Biden administration. 

CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-packing-expansion-democratic-bill-13-justices/

Where did the executive action come from? Joe Biden, dummy. Is that not "executive support"? 

The Dems were trying hard to package it, and their MSM went as far as they could to support it, but they dropped it like a hot potato after they saw the level of outrage from the public.

This is how they were going to sell it [from NBC article above]:

Quote

The lawmakers, who intend to announce the introduction of the bill outside the Supreme Court building, will be joined by progressive activists Aaron Belkin, who leads Take Back the Court; Chris Kang, a co-founder and chief counsel of Demand Justice; and Meagan Hatcher-Mays of Indivisible, according to an advisory notice. All three groups advocate adding justices.

Dems: ACTIVISTS WANT THIS! DID YOU HEAR ME DUMMIES! ACTIVISTS WANT THIS!!! THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU'RE NOT A RACIST, YOU WANT IT TOO!!!!

Quote

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

That's as "demonstrably true" as it gets.

It has the quotes and the actions of Nadler, Pelosi, and the POTUS himself, all from your approved leftard MSM sources. They had activists on hand to announce that their bill was ready to go to congress, and they had already scheduled which butthurt activists they'd have on hand at the SC on the day the bill was formally set in motion. It was a full production, ready to go. 

FACT: The Dems had a plan to put 4 SCJ's on the bench, they moved ahead with it to stage 4/5. They worked hard on it and packaged it all up along with no less than 2 public performances by activist criers, and then pulled the chute after they knew for sure that their bill would fail. 

[/spanking]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I say things that trigger your leftard confirmation bias little boy, that's it. FYI just because you're butthurt by it doesn't make it BS.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132

ScreenShot2024-03-26at9_20_34AM.thumb.png.5d439e9b19529fdbdc58867ef57b901e.png

Nancy Pelosi, from the above article: 

I just have to print the facts. Please don't take it personally, stupid.

Hmmm, balance...

Wouldn't that mean, an even number of judges? Not "We're gonna stack the court with 4 of our own justices"...

They were openly floating the idea in public, trying to see how the public would receive it. 

They had no doubt about whether or not their MSM and the other leftard-targeted 'news' and info outlets, such as Vox, etc,  would support it, they just needed to know if their cultists were ready for it. 

NBC, from the above article:

Vox: "Hell yeah! Bring it on baby!"... https://www.vox.com/22384461/supreme-court-court-expansion-packing-judiciary-act-13-seats-jones-nadler-markey-johnson

It wasn't until 12 hours after Nadler et al openly talked about their plan to hijack the SC that Pelosi said she wouldn't take it to the floor for a vote:

She read the room AFTER the Dems, alongside their activists, started their pitch. Her and Biden weren't against it at all, they just saw where it was headed when they were approaching the finish line.

It turns out that leftists were only comfortable with 75% fascism at that point. If they tried again I'm sure that they'd be at 100%.

Do you personally think the Dems should add 4 of their own SCJ's? I already know that you'd love it, but you will probably pretend that you're above it. 

They got as far as they could with it. They drew the plan up on the board, handed the ball to their running back - Jerry Nadler - and he ran it up the middle. Hit a wall. Dems bailed out. 

They still tried

CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-packing-expansion-democratic-bill-13-justices/

Where did the executive action come from? Joe Biden, dummy. Is that not "executive support"? 

The Dems were trying hard to package it, and their MSM went as far as they could to support it, but they dropped it like a hot potato after they saw the level of outrage from the public.

This is how they were going to sell it [from NBC article above]:

Dems: ACTIVISTS WANT THIS! DID YOU HEAR ME DUMMIES! ACTIVISTS WANT THIS!!! THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU'RE NOT A RACIST, YOU WANT IT TOO!!!!

That's as "demonstrably true" as it gets.

It has the quotes and the actions of Nadler, Pelosi, and the POTUS himself, all from your approved leftard MSM sources. They had activists on hand to announce that their bill was ready to go to congress, and they had already scheduled which butthurt activists they'd have on hand at the SC on the day the bill was formally set in motion. It was a full production, ready to go. 

FACT: The Dems had a plan to put 4 SCJ's on the bench, they moved ahead with it to stage 4/5. They worked hard on it and packaged it all up along with no less than 2 public performances by activist criers, and then pulled the chute after they knew for sure that their bill would fail. 

[/spanking]

Jeebus, that's an AWUFL LOT of text to finally get around to the point that they evaluated the option but didn't try to do anything.

  • House leadership didn't support
  • Senate leadership didn't support
  • Biden didn't support
  • No vote was taken 
  • The idea was explored, nothing was "tried"

 

The Republicans have played the dirtiest pool with the SCOTUS seats, but the Democrats exercised restraint instead of revenge. Was probably pretty tempting though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2024 at 12:21 PM, Deluge said:

1. Of course it does. It shows the FBI has been weaponized by the Joe Biden Administration. It's a witch hunt, robodenial, and no amount of kicking and screaming on your part will change that fact. 

2. Wray is just as anti-Trump as you. ;)

Right. Wray is SANE and you MAGA CULTISTS ARE NOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah, they just altered an email to turn it into a lie so that they could renew their warrant to spy on Trump. AKA, the President of the United States of America. Ho-hum. 

BKAWK, BKAWK! HEY, DID YOU HEAR THIS: TRUMP OVERESTIMATED THE VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY WHEN HE APPLIED FOR A LOAN!!!!! WHERE'S THE DEATH SQUAD, DUMMY? THIS IS THE BIGGEST CRIME THAT HAS EVER TAKEN PLACE IN AMERICA!!! BKAWK!

Are you having a stroke? Quick call 911 before it's too late!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So basically you got sued by ex-flyer :)

the problem is that people confuse evidence and 'Proof" and conflate the two inappropriately.

If person A says that they saw person B do something - that is evidence. But that does not mean it's accurate or that it's proof.  Person A could be mistaken in what they saw, person A might have a reason to lie about person B.

So evidence? Yes - proof? no.

So in order to prove something you have to collect ENOUGH evidence that corroborates the claim from different angles and eliminates the other possibilities till you arrive at a conclusion that meets the bar - beyond reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, balance of probability, whatever.

Right now - the FBI will claim they have evidence that trump may have committed a crime. That is not the same as proof or a conviction (which is basically a statement of proof).  The defense will claim that the evidence is not sufficient for whatever reason and provide their own evidence that refutes the claim.
 

The fact both sides have evidence should not be interpreted as guilt or innocence. But that's what people today do.

and because they want affirmation not information.. the slightest hint that something/someone agrees with them, this "evidence" is not only rock solid but the proverbial smoking gun. Ask a DA and they will tell that almost never have the "smoking gun". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...can you smellll...

The desperation.

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I can SEE your continual BANKRUPTCY in your DRIVEL.

 

LOL - yep, their desperation lives in their caps lock key :) 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

and because they want affirmation not information.. the slightest hint that something/someone agrees with them, this "evidence" is not only rock solid but the proverbial smoking gun. Ask a DA and they will tell that almost never have the "smoking gun". 

Sure. Human nature i'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure. Human nature i'm afraid.

agreed... human nature means both sides. I remember reading a post of liberalforum.org and the guy was absolutely convinced that because two individuals in the Russian collusion were seen entering the same building 5 minutes apart from each other.. this was the "smoking gun".. When asked about what was said.. he could not produce a single syllable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

agreed... human nature means both sides. I remember reading a post of liberalforum.org and the guy was absolutely convinced that because two individuals in the Russian collusion were seen entering the same building 5 minutes apart from each other.. this was the "smoking gun".. When asked about what was said.. he could not produce a single syllable. 

Sure - and yes it's both sides on occasion and not just politics of course. ;) 

Humans. 4 billion years of evolution and this is the best we could do. Pfft.

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
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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