FBI Thread

#627
#627
WBO said:
The no weapons argument is being debunked in another string.

Me, I would contact my representative's office and find out where and when he is available to constituents. I would make an appointment to then see his chief of staff to arrange to present my grievances. Pretty much every member of the House conducts regular town halls and constituents are given opportunities to speak to in public, and often in private, if you bother to communicate in advance what you wish to discuss. Your prior communications do most of the work because the Representative can have his/her staff analyze the issue prior to your meeting. He will then spend 5 minutes or so with you explaining their decision to help or not help. Some of the firebrands don't do it, but the vast majority do.

I understand that is unsatisfying to those who want to hang the traitors, but it actually works.

I would not desecrate the Capitol and I would not assault law enforcement in the performance of their duties.
Click to expand...

I get all that. I also personally remember all the times a company has called a meeting to ask for "recommendations" to improve things that never come about ... or to explain why black is actually white. Reasonable discussions should represent more than ... "Thanks for the suggestion, however ...". Most of us know exactly how a request for change is going to work out. Most of us also have seen in the news summers of violence with more effect.

Politicians have worked hard to divide us as a country as a means of being continually elected and for using the division to drive their "visions" and somehow become wealthy in doing so. Perhaps they need reminding from time to time that they have seeded the division in the country and the lack of respect people feel for them. I seem to remember someone saying something like "I won. Elections have consequences." A real unifier, that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, InVOLuntary, NCFisher and 5 others
#630
#630
Durham Report: FBI Shut Down 4 Criminal Investigations into the Clintons
Durham-Report-FBI-Shut-Down-4-Criminal-Investigations-Clintons-620x340-1.jpg.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and AM64
#633
#633
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Orangeburst
#634
#634
vols40 said:
One of these men was awarded employee of the year awards so no my first inclination is not to immediately fire them because of their political views.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be firing him because of his political views. It would be firing him for refusing to follow instructions from his superiors, because he has political views which are sympathetic to people who are under investigation for criminal activity.

That is insubordinate conduct.

Show me a line of work, where an employee can refuse to follow a lawful directive from their boss, which falls under the duties as outlined in the job description of that employee's contract, and not face any disciplinary action as a result.

Here is a hypothetical example :

Let's say that a police detective in Texas, who has liberal view points, believes that abortion should be legal to provide under any circumstance ... but his Captain wants him to investigate whether or not a health care clinic in Texas is illegally providing abortions ... and the detective refuses to investigate the matter, because he believes the law is wrong, and a woman should have the right to abort her pregnancy.

Does the detective in question, have the right to refuse a lawful order from his superior officer, just because he has political views which are sympathetic to abortion providers?

The answer to that question is,

"Yes, if he is willing to accept the consequences of his refusal to follow an order."

.... and ....

Does that Police Captain have the right to fire the detective, for refusing to follow this order?

The answer to that question is,

"Yes, the Captain absolutely does have that right. The detective isn't being fired for his political views. The detective is being fired for insubordination."
 
Last edited:
#635
#635
AM64 said:
That sounds a lot like "victims" should never accept funds from Go Fund Me or the like because someone might show later they took a bribe. Better hope nobody takes a deep dive into campaign contributions. Maybe whistleblowers should cash in on the NIL concept that sports is loving so well right now.
Click to expand...
There wouldn't have been anything inappropriate about a "Go Fund Me" account. In fact, I would say that is what they should have done. There is nothing wrong with campaign contributions as long as they fall within FEC guidelines. The one thing you don't do, is take money directly from a political operative, when you are about to testify before Congress .... and I'm not saying that they did anything illegal. They didn't.

However, they are not victims. They are people who were disciplined by their employer for refusing to follow lawful directives from their superiors, which fell under the scope of their duties, as outlined in the employment contracts they signed.

These guys are actually being quite hypocritical. They are accusing their colleagues at the FBI of practicing selective law enforcement. They are alleging that certain FBI officials choose which crimes to investigate and enforce based on the political affiliations and ideology of the people involved ... but that is exactly what they did themselves.

They were sympathetic to January 6th rioters, and so they refused to participate in investigations which involved any of them - including those who were on video breaking the law.
 
#639
#639
BowlBrother85 said:
That is stupid. I have posted links which show that Barack Obama went out of his way to avoid influencing the 2016 Presidential Election. He erred on the side of not taking immediate action against Russia - which was a mistake. Obama was too concerned about the perception that he was trying to influence the election. Trump was adamant that Russia wasn't responsible. Obama could have emphatically contradicted him with intel - but he didn't,
Click to expand...
Instead Obama allowed spying on Trump’s campaign. Way to stay out of it Obama!
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, davethevol, AM64 and 1 other person
#640
#640
BowlBrother85 said:
There wouldn't have been anything inappropriate about a "Go Fund Me" account. In fact, I would say that is what they should have done. There is nothing wrong with campaign contributions as long as they fall within FEC guidelines. The one thing you don't do, is take money directly from a political operative, when you are about to testify before Congress .... and I'm not saying that they did anything illegal. They didn't.

However, they are not victims. They are people who were disciplined by their employer for refusing to follow lawful directives from their superiors, which fell under the scope of their duties, as outlined in the employment contracts they signed.

These guys are actually being quite hypocritical. They are accusing their colleagues at the FBI of practicing selective law enforcement. They are alleging that certain FBI officials choose which crimes to investigate and enforce based on the political affiliations and ideology of the people involved ... but that is exactly what they did themselves.

They were sympathetic to January 6th rioters, and so they refused to participate in investigations which involved any of them - including those who were on video breaking the law.
Click to expand...

These agents aren't the only people accusing the FBI of selective law enforcement. In fact, if you look at Operation Crossfire Hurricane and comments by participating FBI agents, it's hard to see it otherwise. Then again, you probably don't think that dem acceptance of Soros money is hypocritical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, tbwhhs and davethevol
#641
#641
BowlBrother85 said:
There wouldn't have been anything inappropriate about a "Go Fund Me" account. In fact, I would say that is what they should have done. There is nothing wrong with campaign contributions as long as they fall within FEC guidelines. The one thing you don't do, is take money directly from a political operative, when you are about to testify before Congress .... and I'm not saying that they did anything illegal. They didn't.

However, they are not victims. They are people who were disciplined by their employer for refusing to follow lawful directives from their superiors, which fell under the scope of their duties, as outlined in the employment contracts they signed.

These guys are actually being quite hypocritical. They are accusing their colleagues at the FBI of practicing selective law enforcement. They are alleging that certain FBI officials choose which crimes to investigate and enforce based on the political affiliations and ideology of the people involved ... but that is exactly what they did themselves.

They were sympathetic to January 6th rioters, and so they refused to participate in investigations which involved any of them - including those who were on video breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Did it ever occur to you that maybe these people were asked to commit a crime, maybe destroyed evidence that exonerated a J6 protester?? Where does morals rank in you view of what an employer can ask you to do?? Maybe they decided what they were asked was against the oath they took when they were hired?? Lots of senarios that could explain them "not doing their job".
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, BreatheUT and 1 other person
#642
#642
whodeycin85 said:
Did it ever occur to you that maybe these people were asked to commit a crime, maybe destroyed evidence that exonerated a J6 protester?? Where does morals rank in you view of what an employer can ask you to do?? Maybe they decided what they were asked was against the oath they took when they were hired?? Lots of senarios that could explain them "not doing their job".
Click to expand...
No .... that wouldn't occur to me, because in the 28 months since the January 6th riot at the Capitol occurred, no credible evidence of any such thing has been uncovered ... and I'm not a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

If any of the things you are wildly speculating on were true ... then why didn't they mention them to Rep. Jim Jordan? He would believe anything that they said, without a single question.

These men defied their superiors ... and just like anyone else ... they were disciplined for it.
 
#643
#643
AM64 said:
These agents aren't the only people accusing the FBI of selective law enforcement. In fact, if you look at Operation Crossfire Hurricane and comments by participating FBI agents, it's hard to see it otherwise. Then again, you probably don't think that dem acceptance of Soros money is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
You are missing my point. These men are guilty of selective enforcement themselves. They refused to investigate Capitol rioters - even ones who had been captured on video, while indisputedly committing criminal acts.

So who the hell are they, to be calling out other members of the FBI for selective enforcement, based on political partisanship?
 
#644
#644
BowlBrother85 said:
No .... that wouldn't occur to me, because in the 28 months since the January 6th riot at the Capitol occurred, no credible evidence of any such thing has been uncovered ... and I'm not a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

If any of the things you are wildly speculating on were true ... then why didn't they mention them to Rep. Jim Jordan? He would believe anything that they said, without a single question.

These men defied their superiors ... and just like anyone else ... they were disciplined for it.
Click to expand...

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and BreatheUT
#648
#648
BreatheUT said:
You are so delusional that sometimes all a person can do is laugh. Do you even know what a whistle-blower means? There are laws against retribution.
Click to expand...
There is no proof that they were the victims of retribution.

They were disciplined for refusing to follow orders from their superiors, that involved performing job duties, which had been included in the employment contracts they signed when they were hired by the FBI. They were guilty of insubordination and dereliction of duty.

Essentially, they had done the exact same thing that they are now accusing their colleagues at the FBI of doing ...

They engaged in selective law enforcement, based on their own political partisanship, and the political affiliations and the political ideologies of the people under criminal investigation.

I'm not going to say that you are delusional ... but you are willfully ignorant.
 
#650
#650
BowlBrother85 said:
There is no proof that they were the victims of retribution.

They were disciplined for refusing to follow orders from their superiors, that involved performing job duties, which had been included in the employment contracts they signed when they were hired by the FBI. They were guilty of insubordination and dereliction of duty.

Essentially, they had done the exact same thing that they are now accusing their colleagues at the FBI of doing ...

They engaged in selective law enforcement, based on their own political partisanship, and the political affiliations and the political ideologies of the people under criminal investigation.

I'm not going to say that you are delusional ... but you are willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

Another one. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top