The FBI was Busy Lying and Committing Crimes for the Dems Instead of Doing their Job, Now This...

Matthew · January 3

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It is supposed to be lead by Brandon.

Not on January 6th 2021. Thanks for participating anyway.

Matthew · January 3

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhh - you mean back when the fbi agents were caught texting each other about how they'd do what it took to 'stop' trump? gotcha

Yes. The question was why the FBI did not coordinate with nancy polosi. Answer: not their job nor branch of gov. The fact that trump does not inspire loyalty among those who work for him is beside the point but thanks for that hopeful reminder.

CdnFox · January 3

42 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Yes.

Well there you go. So I guess the fact that trump was in charge of an organization riddled with people who already hated him doesn't alter the fact that the organization was already riddled with people who hated him

Quote

The question was why the FBI did not coordinate with nancy polosi.

That is in no way shape or form any kind of reasonable question.

The question is why did the FBI guardian take actions to further a political agenda rather than focusing on criminal activity. It is quite apparent that that is what happened and that is very bad for America ust remember, anything that is used against The republicans today can be used against the democrats tomorrow. So if I were you I would be focusing on calling for purge and cleansing of those who don't understand the importance of neutrality. And hoping that trump doesn't look for ways to weaponize it to his benefit the way the democrats did

NAME REMOVED · January 3

15 hours ago, Matthew said:

They were aware and lots of Intel and dozens of operatives emedded in the far right groups involved. But at what point do vaugly seditious plans become illegal? The US gives a remarkably high level of freedom for openly seditious speech and activism in peacetime.

The January 6 insurrection proves that American democracy is broken. The fact that Trump was allowed to run again, was scandalous. In any other nation, he would be in prison. Just look at places like Brazil or South Korea as examples, on how to deal with this kind of thing.

Venandi · January 3

19 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

I find it interesting that most on here think that they have insider information. Everything that they "know" came from secondary media sources.

I understand your point and normally I'd agree with you, then again, I also think virtually anyone who ever spent an hour doing access control (as a security guard) had a few valid questions about this.

Open source reporting (after the fact) didn't change those questions, it simply added a WTF prefix to them. How a gunman could access a roof top within 150 metres of a presidential candidate (and then get off as many shots as he did) is contained in the same box.

Open source reporting on that incident blew WTF right out of the water, no security training required... even deer hunters (who spend 2 hours a year at the range) were in awe. We actually need a new prefix now, WTF has been overcome by a level of incompetence so profound as to (almost) appear deliberate.

IMO, the reporting served to make most of the people you refer to realize that the situation was actually worse than they originally imagined it to be. We could have an entire thread on the intelligence and threat assessments available before the incident, and another one on the thinking behind the (arguably) inadequate preparations made in the face of those assessments.

And that's all before watching any video of the event itself.

Edited January 3 by Venandi

Matthew · January 3

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That is in no way shape or form any kind of reasonable question.

Yes, its the actual thing that brought up the point you're responding to before you injected yourself into two other people's dialogue.

Nationalist · January 3

7 hours ago, Matthew said:

Not on January 6th 2021. Thanks for participating anyway.

Lol...ya you hang your dunce cap on that.

Matthew · January 3

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The January 6 insurrection proves that American democracy is broken. The fact that Trump was allowed to run again, was scandalous. In any other nation, he would be in prison. Just look at places like Brazil or South Korea as examples, on how to deal with this kind of thing.

The US presidency has only ever been vaguely democratic.

- The people don't directly choose the president.

- Our representatives in Congress have very few tools to keep the presidency in check

- In the previous 240 years Congress has failed to prevent many their constitutional powers from drifting to the presidency.

So yeah any criminal who can win a presidential election is off the hook and unlike other systems there is little recourse for a bad one being removed. Only impeachment and the 25th Amendment but neither has ever been done.

impartialobserver · January 3

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm not guessing... What are you talking about?

We know they wasted all that time and money because they admitted to wasting all that time and money:

They're the ones who said that they spent $25M or whatever committing crimes and lying about Russian collusion.

I don't doubt Zuckerberg when he says that it was the FBI that told FB that "Russian disinformation about a laptop" was coming their way.

I don't doubt the FBI when they say that they bought weed to get their Whitmer kidnapping partners high, or when they say that they gave those guys guns, ammo and explosives.

They're the ones who made persecuting J6 rioters their primary concern, after years of letting BLM and Antifa attack gov't buildings, including the attack on the WH - where they attacked secret service members with actual weapons like molotovs, fireworks, etc - which injured several dozens of officers.

There's zero guessing involved here. No theories. None of this has anything to do with stats that I may or may not have access to. This is all based on things that the FBI has either admitted to, or things that they got caught doing by various judges.

None of this is even closely related to the situation in New Orleans. So yes, you are guessing.

WestCanMan · January 3

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

None of this is even closely related to the situation in New Orleans. So yes, you are guessing.

It's just a fact that the FBI has wasted an incredible amount of money and man-hours on political witch hunts within the US when they could have been using all of those resources to protect the country from terror cells.

Hodad · January 3

Just now, WestCanMan said:

It's just a fact that the FBI has wasted an incredible amount of money and man-hours on political witch hunts within the US when they could have been using all of those resources to protect the country from terror cells.

Not sure you know what "witch hunt" means. They call it that because witches (of the magic variety) are fictional, so it refers to a hunt for things that aren't real.

The FBI, on the other hand, investigates things that may or may not turn out (upon investigation) to be factual. However in this case the suspicions were validated through investigation and demonstrably factual.

You could just refer to the investigations as inconvenient.

CdnFox · January 3

9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The January 6 insurrection proves that American democracy is broken. The fact that Trump was allowed to run again, was scandalous. In any other nation, he would be in prison. Just look at places like Brazil or South Korea as examples, on how to deal with this kind of thing.

So in your mind democracy only works if people are forced NOT to run and the people don't get to choose.

I think you may need to look up the definition of democracy again

As long as there's full disclosure and people are aware of what's involved the democracy means you have to leave it up to the people. Nobody really believed that the January 6th thing was a true insurrection. That was just the democrat diehards. Further people didn't believe that the crimes he was convicted of were actual crimes. Everyone realized they were politically motivated concoctions.

Allowing the public to make that judgment safeguards democracy it doesn't break it. It means that people like you can't dictate democracy or use political stunts in order to oppress an opponent and get away with it.

For over a year myself and several others were warning people like you and the democrats that their nonsense was going to backfire and put trump right back in office. And that's what the people chose. And you have to learn that democracy means respecting people's choices

Edited January 3 by CdnFox

WestCanMan · January 5

On 1/3/2025 at 11:49 AM, Hodad said:

Not sure you know what "witch hunt" means. They call it that because witches (of the magic variety) are fictional, so it refers to a hunt for things that aren't real.

The FBI, on the other hand, investigates things that may or may not turn out (upon investigation) to be factual. However in this case the suspicions were validated through investigation and demonstrably factual.

You could just refer to the investigations as inconvenient.

I'm 100% sure that you don't know what fictional means, because it's about 3 or 4 letters too long for the average leftard, and you're below average even for that clown car of losers.

The FBI clearly started that investigation with zero evidence - because they ended it with zero evidence - but what's even more important here is that there was never any legitimate intel to start with, and the crap that they did have came from a source which they knew to be compromised, by their own admission.

Additionally, the FBI kept the bogus investigation highly public, and pretended to have real evidence that entire time, long after they knew there was nothing to go on, and they even lied and fabricated evidence for the FISA court judge to keep the "investigation" going.

So tell me, sh1thead, when the FBI:

were a year into the "investigation"
had no evidence whatsoever
all of the original 'intel', which had looked ridiculous from the very outset and even came to them through a compromised source, from "Russian agents" no less, had proven to be completely bogus,
they knew that there was never going to be any evidence uncovered
they couldn't even coerce false testimony from people who were convicted on charges completely unrelated to Russian collusion
all of the bogus indictments that they levelled against Trump associates had completely fallen apart
they had already been lying to the FISA court judge to get the original and subsequent warrants to spy on Trump associates for that full year
they were in a position where they were going to have to fabricate evidence and provide it to a FISA court judge in oder to keep the investigation open...

why did they keep the "investigation" going? Why did the MSM and lowlife cultists like you keep on lying about how much success the FBI was having? The story went: "There have been dozens of people indicted on collusion related charges and some of them had been convicted!!!" They always leave out the part about "on completely unrelated charges", which is key to making the sentence even the slightest bit correct. FYI that was a MASSIVE lie the way that the MSM and cultists like you (and especially Beave) worded it.

So how the F does that not qualify as a witch hunt dummy? Are you saying that it's equally accurately to describe it as a show trial as well? If so, congrats. It qualifies as a witch hunt, but it's important to note that it was also a show trial.

Which begs the question "What's the difference between a witch hunt and a show trial?"

The witch hunt is started with no evidence, in hopes that their illegitimate investigation will uncover some evidence that they can use in subsequent investigations, or as the KGB would say "You show me the man and we'll find the crime".

The Show trial is also started with no real evidence, but with the understanding that there would never be any real evidence uncovered. It's done purely as a means of slandering the "suspect".

I guess you could say that the FBI's investigations are what's actually "suspect", not the subjects of their "investigations".

Hodad · January 5

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm 100% sure that you don't know what fictional means, because it's about 3 or 4 letters too long for the average leftard, and you're below average even for that clown car of losers.

The FBI clearly started that investigation with zero evidence - because they ended it with zero evidence - but what's even more important here is that there was never any legitimate intel to start with, and the crap that they did have came from a source which they knew to be compromised, by their own admission.

Additionally, the FBI kept the bogus investigation highly public, and pretended to have real evidence that entire time, long after they knew there was nothing to go on, and they even lied and fabricated evidence for the FISA court judge to keep the "investigation" going.

So tell me, sh1thead, when the FBI:

were a year into the "investigation"

had no evidence whatsoever

all of the original 'intel', which had looked ridiculous from the very outset and even came to them through a compromised source, from "Russian agents" no less, had proven to be completely bogus,

they knew that there was never going to be any evidence uncovered

they couldn't even coerce false testimony from people who were convicted on charges completely unrelated to Russian collusion

all of the bogus indictments that they levelled against Trump associates had completely fallen apart

they had already been lying to the FISA court judge to get the original and subsequent warrants to spy on Trump associates for that full year

they were in a position where they were going to have to fabricate evidence and provide it to a FISA court judge in oder to keep the investigation open...

why did they keep the "investigation" going? Why did the MSM and lowlife cultists like you keep on lying about how much success the FBI was having? The story went: "There have been dozens of people indicted on collusion related charges and some of them had been convicted!!!" They always leave out the part about "on completely unrelated charges", which is key to making the sentence even the slightest bit correct. FYI that was a MASSIVE lie the way that the MSM and cultists like you (and especially Beave) worded it.

So how the F does that not qualify as a witch hunt dummy? Are you saying that it's equally accurately to describe it as a show trial as well? If so, congrats. It qualifies as a witch hunt, but it's important to note that it was also a show trial.

Which begs the question "What's the difference between a witch hunt and a show trial?"

The witch hunt is started with no evidence, in hopes that their illegitimate investigation will uncover some evidence that they can use in subsequent investigations, or as the KGB would say "You show me the man and we'll find the crime".

The Show trial is also started with no real evidence, but with the understanding that there would never be any real evidence uncovered. It's done purely as a means of slandering the "suspect".

I guess you could say that the FBI's investigations are what's actually "suspect", not the subjects of their "investigations".

You're like an AI minus the "intelligence" and programmed for hallucination.

Not only was the investigation well founded (even the Durham investigation acknowledged that an investigation was warranted) it clearly established collusion, which is now documented as a matter of public record.

Anyone in the world can read the reports and see that the Trump campaign did, in fact, clandestinely meet with and deliver sensitive campaign strategy and polling information to Russian intelligence while same Russian intelligence agency was actively targeting Americans with election interference. None of that is debatable. Your lies won't change that.

User · January 5

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Anyone in the world can read the reports and see that the Trump campaign did, in fact, clandestinely meet with and deliver sensitive campaign strategy and polling information to Russian intelligence while same Russian intelligence agency was actively targeting Americans with election interference. None of that is debatable. Your lies won't change that.

This is so beyond a lie.

No, Manafort had a long-time business partner and employee with whom he continued to meet and share information. That business partner and long time employee is alleged to have ties to Russian intelligence and there is no evidence for what Kilimnik did with any of that information, if he gave it to Russia or not. No evidence that Manafor knew he was working directly with Russian Intelligence and knew the information he was sharing with him was going to Russia. Manafort was not directly engaged with Russian Intelligence and the Mueller report very specifically said that they could not establish a connection between the information shared by Manafort with the Russian interference.

I swear... this is exactly why you are such a coward and hide from me. It is because I can systemically pick apart your dishonesty on this forum like this.

CdnFox · January 5

3 hours ago, User said:

This is so beyond a lie.

No, Manafort had a long-time business partner and employee with whom he continued to meet and share information. That business partner and long time employee is alleged to have ties to Russian intelligence and there is no evidence for what Kilimnik did with any of that information, if he gave it to Russia or not. No evidence that Manafor knew he was working directly with Russian Intelligence and knew the information he was sharing with him was going to Russia. Manafort was not directly engaged with Russian Intelligence and the Mueller report very specifically said that they could not establish a connection between the information shared by Manafort with the Russian interference.

I swear... this is exactly why you are such a coward and hide from me. It is because I can systemically pick apart your dishonesty on this forum like this.

I love that the hypersensitive information that he transferred supposedly was pulling results

Like, don't these weenies realize literally anybody from any country can go to a polling company or as many polling companies as they like and have the same polls done anytime they want

How in the universe is something that literallyl anyone can get if they want "Sensitive'? It's like saying "he turned over the public phone book for the area.... nobody should have that information!!!"

WestCanMan · January 5

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

You're like an AI minus the "intelligence" and programmed for hallucination.

Not only was the investigation well founded (even the Durham investigation acknowledged that an investigation was warranted) it clearly established collusion, which is now documented as a matter of public record.

There was no collusion, or there would have been charges, and the FBI wouldn't have stated "We found no evidence of collusion."

What's the point of running a collusion investigation and finding collusion but then saying "We found no evidence of collusion"?

What did they spend $25M to gather evidence if they were just going to say "We found no evidence of collusion" no matter what?

If someone spends decades of their life and millions of dollars searching for the Loch Ness monster, and then they find it and get clear video of it, do you think that they'll just keep it to themselves and say: "I just wasted all that time and money because I have the brains of a Democrat president... there's nothing down there"?

I swear to G you're so stupid that you'd vote for Kamala Harris.

CdnFox · January 5

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There was no collusion, or there would have been charges, and the FBI wouldn't have stated "We found no evidence of collusion."

What's the point of running a collusion investigation and finding collusion but then saying "We found no evidence of collusion"?

What did they spend $25M to gather evidence if they were just going to say "We found no evidence of collusion" no matter what?

If someone spends decades of their life and millions of dollars searching for the Loch Ness monster, and then they find it and get clear video of it, do you think that they'll just keep it to themselves and say: "I just wasted all that time and money because I have the brains of a Democrat president... there's nothing down there"?

I swear to G you're so stupid that you'd vote for Kamala Harris.

Honestly it's got to be one of the biggest scandals in our history, certainly American history. A political party creates a fake story using a fake dossier that they pay to have created that has no validity or truth in it at all, they talked the FBI into treating it as if it's real despite the fact that it's against policy to do so and they make no attempt to verify it, they use it as a springboard to launch an investigation that winds up having several illegal acts done as part of it in an effort to take out somebody that the FBI agents were caught saying they would do anything to stop, and they use this to make false allegations for over 4 years and spend millions of dollars and dozens and dozens of agents time and money to investigate only to find out there was no truth to it and still continue to make the claim.

How that isn't a lawsuit for somebody is utterly Beyond me. The behavior is reprehensible

WestCanMan · January 5

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Honestly it's got to be one of the biggest scandals in our history, certainly American history. A political party creates a fake story using a fake dossier that they pay to have created that has no validity or truth in it at all, they talked the FBI into treating it as if it's real despite the fact that it's against policy to do so and they make no attempt to verify it, they use it as a springboard to launch an investigation that winds up having several illegal acts done as part of it in an effort to take out somebody that the FBI agents were caught saying they would do anything to stop, and they use this to make false allegations for over 4 years and spend millions of dollars and dozens and dozens of agents time and money to investigate only to find out there was no truth to it and still continue to make the claim.

That's why they say "Truth is stranger than fiction."

If you wrote a book and used that as the storyline, people would say "There are 2 places where that might work: 1) Iran, and 2) in Columbia, after a drug cartel seized power and legalized cocaine."

Edited January 5 by WestCanMan

Hodad · January 5

25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There was no collusion, or there would have been charges, and the FBI wouldn't have stated "We found no evidence of collusion."

What's the point of running a collusion investigation and finding collusion but then saying "We found no evidence of collusion"?

What did they spend $25M to gather evidence if they were just going to say "We found no evidence of collusion" no matter what?

If someone spends decades of their life and millions of dollars searching for the Loch Ness monster, and then they find it and get clear video of it, do you think that they'll just keep it to themselves and say: "I just wasted all that time and money because I have the brains of a Democrat president... there's nothing down there"?

I swear to G you're so stupid that you'd vote for Kamala Harris.

Good luck citing your made up quote, liar.

User · January 5

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Good luck citing your made up quote, liar.

No luck needed coward. Stop hiding from me.

Straight from the Mueller report:

"We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Matthew · January 5

9 hours ago, User said:

No luck needed coward. Stop hiding from me.

Straight from the Mueller report:

"We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

This isn't making the point you think it is. Its from a paragraph in which they state that collusion and coordination are not terms in US law and that conspiracy is in US law. So they focused on ways in which the trump campain conspired to violate the law. The sentence you're quoting defines coordination this way:

"We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

AKA they were using a very high bar legalese definition of the term. This does not contradict @Hodad when he said that the trump campain and Russians met and exchanged info on Hillary, which is also described in detail in the report:

"Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had ”dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.

"Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as ”official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.”
The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as ”part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such information."

Legato · January 5

On 1/3/2025 at 2:49 PM, Hodad said:

Not sure you know what "witch hunt" means. They call it that because witches (of the magic variety) are fictional, so it refers to a hunt for things that aren't real.

The FBI, on the other hand, investigates things that may or may not turn out (upon investigation) to be factual. However in this case the suspicions were validated through investigation and demonstrably factual.

You could just refer to the investigations as inconvenient.

I don't know where you conjured that definition from, was you under a spell at the time?

User · January 5

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

This isn't making the point you think it is. Its from a paragraph in which they state that collusion and coordination are not terms in US law and that conspiracy is in US law.

Yes, and that is where they also explained why they used the term coordination as well. And they found none.

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

AKA they were using a very high bar legalese definition of the term. This does not contradict @Hodad when he said that the trump campain and Russians met and exchanged info on Hillary, which is also described in detail in the report:

Except, Hodad did not say "Russians" as if merely meeting a Russian was the bar. He claimed they met with Russian intelligence.

So yes, it 100% refutes what Hodad claimed.

And, why did you stop reading after the section you quoted? I know why, because right after what you quoted, here is what the report said:

"...electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So... why did you leave that part out?