FBI Thread

If you were using CrowdStrike's own words, then you would acknowledge that they clearly say that they believe that Russia was responsible for the DNC hack.
Again, 'belief' is the key subjective word as is 'circumstantial'; "no concrete evidence" are the factual words. Those came from the same mouth.
 
That's absurdly naive. A genuine whistleblower wouldn't take money from someone who had a vested interest in the content of their testimony as Kash Patel clearly does. It's highly inappropriate.

Mehhhh A genuine whistleblower wouldn’t make campaign commercials to support a Presidential candidate running against someone he had just testified against. I didn’t hear anyone complain when Vindman did exactly that. That looks no better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and StarRaider
Yeah it was Democrats who desecrated the Capitol on Jan 6th. No it was right wing seditionists who are now getting what they deserve. Hard time.

Looks like the Proud Boys are going to become a prison gang now. I say put them all in Atlanta federal prison. It's nothing short of a war zone.

If you are starting a sedition/rebellion, would you not bring guns?
 
Mehhhh A genuine whistleblower wouldn’t make campaign commercials to support a Presidential candidate running against someone he had just testified against. I didn’t hear anyone complain when Vindman did exactly that. That looks no better.
Trump was railing against Vindman non-stop.
 
Trump was railing against Vindman non-stop.

And Vindman justifiably filed suit against him. Which was summarily dismissed. Making campaign commercials for Biden was crass and no one took him seriously. Endorsing someone for office is like testifying in court. If you have a clear bias against the person then you’re not a reliable witness. That’s why I pitched a fit when Trump held up his promotion. It was clearly personal.
 
And Vindman justifiably filed suit against him. Which was summarily dismissed. Making campaign commercials for Biden was crass and no one took him seriously. Endorsing someone for office is like testifying in court. If you have a clear bias against the person then you’re not a reliable witness. That’s why I pitched a fit when Trump held up his promotion. It was clearly personal.
It's become too much of a tribal show at this point to have any impact. They shouldn't have taken money from a political partisan if they wanted their testimony to make a difference. As it stands now, it's too easy for Democrats to present them and their complaints as just more partisan politics.

Sorry ... but it matters that they were paid by Kash Patel. That is the lead story right now.
 
Also, I love how Friend characterized the payment from Patel as being a "donation." Like he is St. Jude's Hospital or something. LOL.
 
Patel is anti-FBI and anti-Biden ... just like Trump. Nobody is this naive. Good lord.

I don't think you understand the term 'vested interest'; the agents testifying does not advantage Patel. Patel's 'interest' is seeing rogue agencies brought to heel, having seen it firsthand at highest levels of NSC/ODNI.

Democrats used to care about that but think because Trump, we can break shite that will magically heal if he didn't exist. Well no; they'll hide behind classification to hide the destruction of rule of law which is the foundation of the nation.

But you continue twitching about military vets/FBI agents blowing the whistle getting some damned financial help from Trump loyalists, you wretch.
 
It's become too much of a tribal show at this point to have any impact. They shouldn't have taken money from a political partisan if they wanted their testimony to make a difference. As it stands now, it's too easy for Democrats to present them and their complaints as just more partisan politics.

Sorry ... but it matters that they were paid by Kash Patel. That is the lead story right now.

What if they had gotten the money from me? I hate Biden and hate the Bureau even more. Is it ok for me to give them money since I also hate Trump and I’m not famous? Also were the impeachment hearings any less tribal? They were driven forward by a woman who made faces and ripped up paper at the SOTU. Do you think that reasonable people thought Pelosi was unbiased and that this wasn’t a political farce?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and AM64
Patel's 'interest' is seeing rogue agencies brought to heel,
If that was true ... then Patel would have objected to the way Donald Trump tried to weaponize the DOJ against his political opponents and critics while in office. Trump was tweeting questions to William Barr such as "Where are the arrests?" of the Bidens, less than a month before the 2020 election. Patel never objected to that..

If the agents testifying do support Trump's claim that the FBI systematically targets conservatives, then that absolutely does serve Patel's political agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
If that was true ... then Patel would have objected to the way Donald Trump tried to weaponize the DOJ against his political opponents and critics while in office. Trump was tweeting questions to William Barr such as "Where are the arrests?" of the Bidens, less than a month before the 2020 election. Patel never objected to that..

If the agents testifying do support Trump's claim that the FBI systematically targets conservatives, then that absolutely does serve Patel's political agenda.

Trump was absolutely right about the corruption and asking Barr WTF are you doing about it? It's literally a presidents sworn constitutional oath to uphold the laws of the land, whereas the AG and (much later) DOJ are congressional constructs.

Why would Patel - or any decent American - object to stating people should be investigated and go to prison for illegal attempts to unseat a president? The FBI at DOJ direction is ideologically targeting American citizens; again, why would that not be 'political agenda' for ANY decent American?
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
Trump was absolutely right about the corruption and asking Barr WTF are you doing about it?
That says it all, right there.

It's not the weaponization of the FBI that bothers you. You would be comfortable with it, as long as it was Democrats who were being systematically targeted.

... and you are pretty much advocating for authoritarian rule here. You are a radical wing-nut.
 
That says it all, right there.

It's not the weaponization of the FBI that bothers you. You would be comfortable with it, as long as it was Democrats who were being systematically targeted.

... and you are pretty much advocating for authoritarian rule here. You are a radical wing-nut.

It says you're a dullard who doesn't comprehend. Trump knew he was innocent of the charges alleged and justifiably asked why it was being allowed. He's not a legal expert but he knew the investigations were crooked. He's not an espionage expert but knew he was being spied upon.

It wasn't Democrats; feckless people like yourself kept reminding us repeatedly of the Republicaness of Comey, Mueller, Bolton, Espey, et al; it was a matter of legal principle not party. Of rogue bureaucracy that likes being answerable to no one and imposed themselves into elections to effect an outcome in a way the Kremlin could only aspire to.

That you extrapolate that to assert I'd be comfortable with rogue agencies targeting Democrats demonstrates your lunacy. Rogue. Bureaucracy. Is. A. Nation. Destroying. Force.

Got it now?
 

VN Store



Back
Top