J6: An insurrection or a fedsurrection?

[West]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Quoting a TV pundit making is not proof. 

 

Do you have evidence that Carlson was being untruthful? 

[User]

1 minute ago, West said:

Do you have evidence that Carlson was being untruthful? 

Untruthful about what?

He offered no specific examples of anyone being held in prison for years for the equivalent of trespassing, as you claimed. 

[West]

1 minute ago, User said:

Untruthful about what?

He offered no specific examples of anyone being held in prison for years for the equivalent of trespassing, as you claimed. 

OK so you have no proof about your assertion that a news host was lying. You lose. 

Edited December 14, 2024 by West

[Nationalist]

BOYS BOYS!

Donny's gonna pardon most of these people and his administration is gonna go after the bad apples.

Soon this will all just be a bad memory.

[User]

1 minute ago, West said:

OK so you have no proof about your assertion that a news host was lying. You lose. 

LOL

I never asserted he was lying. 

Once again, you made the claim that people were being held in prison for years, with no trial, for the equivalent of trespassing that day. 

You can't come up with one example. 

[West]

2 minutes ago, User said:

LOL

I never asserted he was lying. 

Once again, you made the claim that people were being held in prison for years, with no trial, for the equivalent of trespassing that day. 

You can't come up with one example. 

Correct.. based on reporting from a major news outlet. 

[User]

11 minutes ago, West said:

Correct.. based on reporting from a major news outlet. 

So, you have nothing. 

[West]

6 hours ago, User said:

So, you have nothing. 

So now you are doubling down on stupidity. 

I'll ask you again. Do you have evidence that Carlson, an anchor from a major news outlet, was not being truthful in that clip, or are you going to admit you've got nothing? 

[User]

1 hour ago, West said:

So now you are doubling down on stupidity. 

I'll ask you again. Do you have evidence that Carlson, an anchor from a major news outlet, was not being truthful in that clip, or are you going to admit you've got nothing? 

1st, nothing you showed me of his was anything specific to refute. 

2nd, he did not make the same claim you did. You quite specifically said in prison for years with no trial for the equivalent of trespassing. 

You have nothing to back up your assertion. You can't name one person who was locked up for years in prison for the equivalent of trespassing. 

3rd, Carlson was not a reporter or a journalist. He is a news commentator. 

 

 

[West]

13 minutes ago, User said:

1st, nothing you showed me of his was anything specific to refute. 

2nd, he did not make the same claim you did. You quite specifically said in prison for years with no trial for the equivalent of trespassing. 

You have nothing to back up your assertion. You can't name one person who was locked up for years in prison for the equivalent of trespassing. 

3rd, Carlson was not a reporter or a journalist. He is a news commentator. 

 

 

I'm going on the assumption that a major news outlet is not just making stuff up. So when Carlson puts in a monologue, then proceeds throughout his hour show to have guests on to support his monologue, I assume that he's looked into things and his guests on his shows aren't just pulling stuff out of their asses. He has senators, legal commentary and everything else on his show to back up his monologue. 

You can choose to just ignore it, or not believe what he's saying. That's up to you. But what you are doing in this discussion is dishonest debating tactics..

And yes he did say what I said:

"jailed without trial for months, even years on end, did not commit violence." 

Edited December 14, 2024 by West

[User]

1 minute ago, West said:

I'm going on the assumption that a major news outlet is not just making stuff up.

You presented no example to challenge here as being made up. 

1 minute ago, West said:

So when Carlson puts in a monologue, then proceeds throughout his hour show to have guests on to support his monologue, that he's looked into things. 

He did not say what you said nor did he offer any specific examples. 

2 minutes ago, West said:

You can choose to just ignore it, or not believe what he's saying. That's up to you. But what you are doing in this discussion is dishonest debating tactics..

Name one person who was in prison for years with no trial date set over the equivalent of trespassing. You can't. It did not happen. You have no evidence of it happening. 

[West]

3 minutes ago, User said:

You presented no example to challenge here as being made up. 

He did not say what you said nor did he offer any specific examples. 

Name one person who was in prison for years with no trial date set over the equivalent of trespassing. You can't. It did not happen. You have no evidence of it happening. 

You are dishonest. 

"jailed without trial for months, even years on end, did not commit violence."

right from the goddamn quote that I provided you. I take it you chose not to read. So what's the point in continuing on if you choose not to read people's posts in its entirety? It's pathetic. 

Edited December 14, 2024 by West

[User]

22 minutes ago, West said:

You are dishonest. 

"did not commit violence" != equivalent of trespassing. 

That can include vandalism, theft, breaking down the doors, or any number of other charges that are more than just they were wandering around and left like most people did. 

You are the dishonest one here. 

 

[Deluge]

20 hours ago, User said:

1. So, you have nothing to back up your assertion... yet again, no surprise. 

2. And? It doesn't change the facts that there were in fact people on the right there that day who engaged in violence and other illegal activities. 

3. You just admitted Ashli Babbet was one of them. 

4. She was not a "protestor" when she was illegally entering the building, refusing commands to stop, engaging in trying to breach a secured door and trying to climb through a broken window.

She was not ANTIFA. 

Your absurd attempt to play this off as if it were ANTIFA causing these issues that day is nonsense.  

1. I already backed it up. We don't DO Antifa type shit; Antifa does. We don't INCITE riots - the Biden FBI does. The proof is in history - we don't DO that kind of shit. 

2. They engaged in low level violence, at the worst. Since you snowflakes treat free speech like an act of violence, it's no surprise that you think protesting conservatives is a threat to national security. lol

3. Ashli Babbet was a protester, just like everyone else there; except the FBI and their informants, of course.  

4. She was a protester who lost her head, and she paid for it with her life. 

You're the one who's absurd, my friend. You believe Trump is an insurrectionist, and you believe MAGA is a threat to national security. LOL!!!

 

[User]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. I already backed it up. We don't DO Antifa type shit; Antifa does. We don't INCITE riots - the Biden FBI does. The proof is in history - we don't DO that kind of shit. 

Except, "we" did do Antifa type shit on J6. There is no evidence the FBI was involved in inciting anything on J6. 

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

2. They engaged in low level violence, at the worst. Since you snowflakes treat free speech like an act of violence, it's no surprise that you think protesting conservatives is a threat to national security. lol

So, now you admit "we" did in fact do Antifa type shit, just that it was low level violence at the worst. It is not a "protest" when law enforcement officers are assaulted, beaten, smashed, and then the Capitol was vandalized and broken into. 

I said nothing about national security. I said nothing about free speech being like an act of violence. 

You can't argue with me, so you are building these characterizations to argue against instead. 

9 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Ashli Babbet was a protester, just like everyone else there; except the FBI and their informants, of course.

The point being, she was not Antifa. You are trying to argue it was Antifa doing all the bad stuff that day, which is a lie and patently untrue on its face. I used her as the obvious example of that. 

10 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You're the one who's absurd, my friend. You believe Trump is an insurrectionist, and you believe MAGA is a threat to national security. LOL!!!

Where have I ever said Trump is an insurrectionist? Where have I ever said MAGA is a threat to national security?

I have said neither of those things. 

 

[West]

1 hour ago, User said:

"did not commit violence" != equivalent of trespassing. 

That can include vandalism, theft, breaking down the doors, or any number of other charges that are more than just they were wandering around and left like most people did. 

You are the dishonest one here. 

 

Uh no. We will have to agree to disagree. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, West said:

Uh no. We will have to agree to disagree. 

There is no disagreement, it is just a basic fact. You made a baseless assertion. You can't name even a single person who was in prison as you claimed. 

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, User said:

We are here discussing a report that found just that. 

Who found that? 

Did the FBI "find that out" about themselves, or did an outside group investigate the FBI's "sources and methods"? 

Gimme a break. The FBI never let anyone from the outside investigate their precious sources and methods, and the FBI has been caught lying dozens of times in the past 8 years. They've and even been caught fabricating evidence. 

If you believe anything that the FBI is saying then you are completely hopeless. 

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, User said:

We are here discussing a report that found just that. 

Who found that? 

Did the FBI "find that out" about themselves, or did an outside group investigate the FBI's "sources and methods"? 

Gimme a break. The FBI never let anyone from the outside investigate their precious sources and methods, and the FBI has been caught lying dozens of times in the past 8 years. They've and even been caught fabricating evidence. 

If you believe anything that the FBI is saying then you are completely hopeless. 

[User]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Who found that? 

The Inspector General. 

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Did the FBI "find that out" about themselves, or did an outside group investigate the FBI's "sources and methods"? 

No, it was the Inspector General. 

19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

If you believe anything that the FBI is saying then you are completely hopeless. 

Ah yes, of course. You believe more of what Putin and Russian propaganda sources say than the FBI. 

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, User said:

The Inspector General. 

No, it was the Inspector General. 

Ah yes, of course. You believe more of what Putin and Russian propaganda sources say than the FBI. 

The inspector general is part of the DOJ, just like the FBI. 

The guy literally just has to walk across the hallway to talk to the head of the FBI. Do you think their conversations sound like: "We're gonna have to tell the truth, and it will sink our own battleship", or do they say: "We're gonna have to let some truths out to lend a sense of legitimacy to this report, so how do we do this in a way that minimizes the damage to our own agency?"

BUDDY, THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE CROOKED FBI, WROTE THIS REPORT. 

The FBI sent all kinds of these bogus reports to the FISA judge. Those were all full of lies too. The FBI told so many lies to the FISA court that its judge at the time, Rosemary Collyer, basically said that it called into question the FBI's integrity on every other case that they ever dealt with. 

Remember the FBI, User? They guys that made a huge public stink about Trump "colluding with Russians", they ran a highly publicized smear campaign for 3 years, acted like they were really onto something that whole time - the FBI even arrested people for non-collusion-related crimes and tried to coerce false testimony from them for reduced sentences - came up with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. None. Zero. They went from 3 years of "This is sooooo legit" to, "we never actually found any evidence. Hey look, there goes Elvis!" Ask Beave about it. He still cries himself to sleep at night.

The FBI even set up a meeting between Trump's team and a Russian agent and they never took the bait. They collected zero evidence.

AG Lynch was part of the DOJ too. The woman who "randomly met Bill Clinton on a tarmac and then they just talked about their grandkids (Bill doesn't even have any lol - their excuse was a huge slap in the face)" was a key part of that "entirely legitimate DOJ" just a few years ago.  

This report comes from the same gov't dep't that planned the Whitmer kidnapping ffs. They bought weed to get prospective partners-in-crime high, they bought guns, ammunition, hotel rooms, explosives, and then 'solved' the kidnapping in time to release the deets publicly less than a month before the 2020 election, and then they got rung up for entrapment after the election was over.

This report comes from the same gov't dep't that got the NYPost banned from social media, just for printing the truth. FYI the only reason that the NYPost was banned from TNI scumbags like Twitter and FB is THE FBI ALERTED THEM THAT RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION WAS COMING OUT ABOUT A LAPTOP. That's it. That's why NYPost was banned - disinformation that came directly from the FBI itself. The letter from 51 treasonous intelligence officials was just for the media to talk to the public about. It wasn't their bogus letter that got the NYPost banned for telling the truth.

The FBI is the American KGB/GRU. They are a mirror image. They might try really hard to solve murders, but they try just as hard to influence politics. 

[User]

24 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The inspector general is part of the DOJ, just like the FBI. 

So, did you have anything to add to the discussion here? You did not know what the thread was about, I told you. You did not know who was responsible for the report, I told you. 

OK, so now what?

I am not really interested in your ramblings about the FBI in this thread. 

 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, User said:

So, did you have anything to add to the discussion here? You did not know what the thread was about, I told you. You did not know who was responsible for the report, I told you. 

OK, so now what?

I am not really interested in your ramblings about the FBI in this thread. 

 

My gawd you're a m0r0n. 

1. You've never "told" anyone anything, you just said say stupid things that make us laugh. 
2. "Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice on April 16, 2012.^[5]" The FBI is part of the DoJ you imbecile. The DoJ investigated themselves. 
3. The FBI's laundry list of lies, crimes, and election interference schemes is 100% germane to this discussion you tool. The DoJ's clandestine tarmac meetings are germane to this discussion. I don't really give a sh1t if you don't want to include all the relevant facts in this thread, you're not some kind of debate moderator here, you're just a serial liar and a fool. 

 

Horowitz was the Inspector General of the DoJ when;

1. the tarmac meeting occurred
2. the FBI was caught lying to the FISA courts on multiple occasions
3. the FBI was caught fabricating evidence to provide to the FISA court
4. the FBI solved their own Whitmer entrapment scheme
5. the FBI lied to social media outlets about "Russian disinformation on a laptop" to get the NYPost banned from Twitter, etc
6. the FBI was forced to make a list of policy corrections to increase their legitimacy so that they would be allowed to present evidence at the FISA court again

Now he's te one who's in charge of "getting to the bottom of things"? He's one of the people responsible for the FBI hitting rock bottom in the first place. 

When you look at "the FBI's complete lack of integrity era", Horowitz was a key player the whole time. 

This is what the inspector general is tasked with:

• The OIG conducts independent investigations, audits, inspections, and special reviews of United States Department of Justice personnel and programs. The OIG completes these tasks to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct, and to promote integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Department of Justice operations. 

Here's a perfect summary of what the inspector general was doing during the FBI's crime spree of the past 12 years:

Edited December 15, 2024 by WestCanMan

[User]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

My gawd you're a m0r0n. 

So, no. You don't have anything to add. Got it. 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, User said:

So, no. You don't have anything to add. Got it. 

Ok, fine. That added nothing, because everybody was already aware that you're a m0r0n.

But you should read the rest of the post. It's only about 300 characters or so. At your reading level you should be able to plow through that in a few hours. 

And just remember that the point of all that was just that Horowitz has been a key member of the DoJ during its slide to rock bottom, and is therefor not considered a man of integrity. 

His job as Insp Gen was to admit to just enough so that there was no bombshell evidence left to come out after he's gone, but also to minimize the extent of the damage done by those admissions. 

"Sure, there were a bunch of our guys involved in breaching the capitol's paper-thin defences, but they weren't under our control. Not even Epps was. It was just a coincidence that we had dozens of guys there."