FBI Thread

[Carl Pickens]

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.

You making this comment to someone is funny

 

[AM64]

They were punished for their insubordination and dereliction of duty .... They were not punished for "whistleblowing."

The timeline shows this to be true.

You might want to read this before standing on that statement. It's a bit more detailed than what the "news" media are putting out - check page 50; and, no, I don't take what comes out of any congressional committee, subcommittee, or representative's mouth as truthful and reliable. Still I guess you and I will never really know all the facts even if this goes to court.

I still find it ironic that dems are suddenly supporting "law enforcement".

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/e...llocation-of-resources-and-retaliation-sm.pdf

 

[Weezer]

I did read somewhere that some of the 1/6 protesters were armed. I also read they fired no shots.

 

[AM64]

Don’t think this scenario involved all of the whistleblowers and it doesn’t matter even if it did. Did the FBI have “informants” lead those on Jan 6? Did the FBI send agents to stalk people in school board meeting parking lots labeling them by stickers they had in the mini van windows? All of these 3 letter agencies are politically motivated and corrupt as f***.

This is an interesting tidbit in the report I suggested BB take a look at. It backs up the kind of thing you are talking about. The numbers "56" through "60" reference footnotes.

Retired Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Hill provided one insightful example. According to Hill, two individuals organized a bus trip from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C., to attend a political rally in support of President Trump on January 6, 2021.56 The group included a total of 140 people on two buses.57 The two organizers of the trip entered restricted areas in the United States Capitol that day and, as a result, the FBI’s Boston Field Office (BFO) opened cases against them for potentially violating federal law.58 Rather than limiting the investigation to just the two people who entered restricted areas of the Capitol, however, the WFO instructed the BFO to open cases on all 140 individuals who attended the political rally.59 As Hill testified to the Committee:

WFO wanted us to open up a case on each and every one of those 140 individuals, to which the [Supervisory Special Agent] in Boston said, “They were going to a political rally, which is First Amendment-protected activity. No, we’re not starting cases on these people.” To which they said, “Well, we’re going to call your SAC.” And the SSA said, “Go right ahead.”. . . [T]o his credit, [the SSA] said, no, we’re not opening up cases on people who went to a rally . . . .60

 

[BowlBrother85]

You might want to read this before standing on that statement. It's a bit more detailed than what the "news" media are putting out - check page 50; and, no, I don't take what comes out of any congressional committee, subcommittee, or representative's mouth as truthful and reliable. Still I guess you and I will never really know all the facts even if this goes to court.

I still find it ironic that dems are suddenly supporting "law enforcement".

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/e...llocation-of-resources-and-retaliation-sm.pdf

That's the GOP's House report ....

.... and I actually agree with you on what I placed in bold. I don't think Jim Jordan is reliable either. I'm not wasting 1 second of my time with that partisan bull crap.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I did read somewhere that some of the 1/6 protesters were armed. I also read they fired no shots.

Oh, well .... that makes it okay then.

 

[BowlBrother85]

This is an interesting tidbit in the report I suggested BB take a look at. It backs up the kind of thing you are talking about. The numbers "56" through "60" reference footnotes.

See post # 680.

 

[AM64]

That's the GOP's House report ....

.... and I actually agree with you on what I placed in bold. I don't think Jim Jordan is reliable either. I'm not wasting 1 second of my time with that partisan bull crap.

A large part of the document is question and answer. Assuming people aren't supposed to lie to congress - at least that's what we were told a few years ago, you'd think there's more credibility in the report than what you've been reading. Should these cases do go to court as wrongful actions, you'd think it would be bad form to deviate in a courtroom from what one said before a congressional subcommittee. "I was lying then, but honestly I'm telling the truth now" kind of thing doesn't generally help with a question of honesty and reliability.

 

[BowlBrother85]

A large part of the document is question and answer. Assuming people aren't supposed to lie to congress - at least that's what we were told a few years ago, you'd think there's more credibility in the report than what you've been reading. Should these cases do go to court as wrongful actions, you'd think it would be bad form to deviate in a courtroom from what one said before a congressional subcommittee. "I was lying then, but honestly I'm telling the truth now" kind of thing doesn't generally help with a question of honesty and reliability.

... but it's a one-sided perspective. It's not as much that they are lying, as they are telling half-truths.

And once again, the fact they were paid directly beforehand by a Republican political operative? Yeah, that will come up in any such future court case as well.

 

[AM64]

... but it's a one-sided perspective. It's not as much that they are lying, as they are telling half-truths.

And once again, the fact they were paid directly beforehand by a Republican political operative? Yeah, that will come up in any such future court case as well.

You mean something like when dems locked everybody out and wrote/passed obamaCare ... that kind of one-sided? At least this report didn't require a vote to see what was in it presumably.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You mean something like when dems locked everybody out and wrote/passed obamaCare ... that kind of one-sided? At least this report didn't require a vote to see what was in it presumably.

No, it's more like what Republicans accused the January 6th Commission of being. It's not that lies were told. It just gave a one-side perspective.

 

[vols40]

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."

Again with your sanctimonious BS observation. Again no where in your fantasy observation did you ever mention that the liberal view detective was ever an employee of the year who was fired was prevented for 2 months from being able to pick up his personal items like his clothes.


In this fairytale scenario this fictional liberal would be portrayed in every media outlet and there would be a complete meltdown if his fictitious conservative superior even thought about preventing him from becoming a whistleblower. And stop before you even start because you know it's true because the democrats did just that with a CIA hack who did not have first hand information about a freaking phone call.

Be careful going down this road my friend because once you do it can do a complete 180 after the next election cycle and you would be confused as a bud light drinker when you suddenly have a problem with heavy hands at the DOJ

 

[BowlBrother85]

Again no where in your fantasy observation did you ever mention that the liberal view detective was ever an employee of the year who was fired was prevented for 2 months from being able to pick up his personal items like his clothes.

None of this is central to the issue of whether or not he had been fired with just cause. I understand that you are sympathetic to him. However, he was doing the same thing, which he is now accusing his FBI colleagues of doing ... selectively enforcing the law, based on political affiliations.

In this fairytale scenario this fictional liberal would be portrayed in every media outlet and there would be a complete meltdown if his fictitious conservative superior even thought about preventing him from becoming a whistleblower. And stop before you even start because you know it's true because the democrats did just that with a CIA hack who did not have first hand information about a freaking phone call.

This is just nasal whining about media coverage. Again, not central to anything.

 

[vols40]

None of this is central to the issue of whether or not he had been fired with just cause. I understand that you are sympathetic to him. However, he was doing the same thing, which he is now accusing his FBI colleagues of doing ... selectively enforcing the law, based on political affiliations.


This is just nasal whining about media coverage. Again, not central to anything.

No we were given daily lectures that we should be grateful for CIA hacks as whistle blowers. Regardless of whether they have first hand witness accounts. That we should also not even consider the thought of him testifying. That our democracy was at stake over this "phone call"

"Insubordination" works two ways when it comes to the DOJ. And we don't want to hear anything about firing whistle blowers when we occupy the white house

 

[BowlBrother85]

And we don't want to hear anything about firing whistle blowers when we occupy the white house

"we" ????

I would have never guessed that you were a political partisan, without such an astonishing reveal. LOL.

... and these guys are not "whistleblowers." They are disgruntled former employees, with a bad case of sour grapes.

 

[Weezer]

Oh, well .... that makes it okay then.

It makes a big difference in what the charges should be. Not that it matters, because many of those convicted of "crimes" for 1/6 are political prisoners. Those that did damage, who committed acts of violence or vandalism, they should be punished. They should serve jail time. Simply being there shouldn't be a crime. But it's not really about crime, it's about politics, and the Democrats are using the justice system to do their dirty work. No one should be surprised. It's far from the first time the Democrats have weaponized government agencies. They've done it with the FBI before during the Clinton administration. They did it with the IRS under Obama. Now they're using the entire DOJ. It's what they do. The Republicans just weren't smart enough to do it themselves.

Both parties are corrupt. Both parties are eating away at the foundations of this country. But the Democrats are far more insidious than the Republicans. They control the majority of the MSM. They weaponize government. They continually preach promises they will never keep (which is really a both sides thing). And their masses, people like you, you eat up the propaganda and beg for more. You refuse to see that the government itself has become corrupt, rotted at the core. It's a bloated beast, eroding our freedoms, and people like you just beg for more.

And it's no wonder the other side was so eager to embrace an arrogant POS human being like Trump simply because he was willing to stick it to the left. They're willing to ignore that he's cut from the same cloth, that he's no better than those he's trying to kick in the nuts. He's more of the same, just the different side of the coin. The Republicans and the Democrats have the same agenda, it's just about who gets to control it. And neither side is about "We the People". Two snakes, eating this country, piece by piece, as people who pledge allegiance to both parties sit idly by and let it happen.

What this country has become is sad. It's certainly not what our Founding Fathers dreamed it could be. And the Spirit that fueled this country to fight for its independence, to fight for the rights of its people, that Spirit is dead. We've abandoned it and become subservient sheep. We bend our knee to corrupt politicians that represent their own interests, not ours, and we do it gleefully. Gone is the spirit of revolution. Gone is the demanding of accountability. Gone is the government that served at the will of its people. Now it's more like the people serve the government. And we just accept that as what is.

Unity is gone. We are no longer a united people. We are now a culture that demands conformity. Be it in politics, be it in religion, be it in things as simple as who we love or how we dress, we demand conformity. We draw battle lines, hurl insults, and we do worse things, all because someone dares to think or do differently than we ourselves think or do. It's pathetic.

I'm in a ranting mood tonight, but it nears its end. But my real message is, we need to do better. Don't fall for the propaganda of the parties. Neither side serves you. They don't serve us. They serve only themselves, and whatever anyone does to convince themselves they're part of either collective, they're not. Stop defending Biden. Stop defending Trump. Stop defending any politician. They all need to be held accountable because they have all failed to serve "We the People".

.

 

[BowlBrother85]

But it's not really about crime, it's about politics,

No ... it's about their crimes.

They ceased merely being protestors when they forcefully entered the United States Capitol, and overran Capitol security and DC police. What were they hoping to accomplish with those actions? Some of them were talking about hanging Mike Pence. Republicans have tried to whitewash the events of that day, but they can't. It's on video. Those people who are in jail because of their actions at the Capitol on 1/6/21 are where they are because of their own foolishness ... not because of politics.

It looks like the "Party of Law and Order" would care something about individual accountability .... but that's just empty rhetoric.

 

[rekinhavoc]

The Hunter investigation needs a special counsel

ENTIRE IRS INVESTIGATIVE TEAM REMOVED FROM HUNTER BIDEN CASE

"To review, last October, news outlets reported that federal agents believed they had enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden with tax crimes and with making false statements about a gun purchase. His laptop contents also make clear that he hooked up with high-priced international prostitutes, which raises trafficking concerns. And congressional investigators have shown conclusively that at least seven Biden family members were paid by dubious foreign sources, usually funneled through one or more of some 20 intermediary “shell” corporations."

"This isn’t just smoke. It’s a raging fire. When so many federal agents say federal law enforcement and intelligence are politicized and abusive, with so many examples to back up their claims, it’s impossible to deny plausibly that a thoroughly corrupt federal culture is now in place."

 

[JOEY’S ALL VOL !!!]

"we" ????

I would have never guessed that you were a political partisan, without such an astonishing reveal. LOL.

... and these guys are not "whistleblowers." They are disgruntled former employees, with a bad case of sour grapes.

Every time I see that you have used the word “tribal” or “partisan” or accuse someone else of being politically partisan, I laugh my ass off! The hypocrisy is as thick as molasses. Carry on.

 

[whodeycin85]

Did I read that these whistleblowers followed the chain of command regarding thier issues with J6 investigations?? If so what was the responses from the higher ups besides firing them...

 

[BreatheUT]

Did I read that these whistleblowers followed the chain of command regarding thier issues with J6 investigations?? If so what was the responses from the higher ups besides firing them...

I have heard the higher ups didn't want paper trails about their complaints. I forgot where I first got this. Just filling in a piece of the possible cover up by the higher ups.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Gee, how surprising is this? The FBI was scared that they'd be put on Hillary's suicide list.

 

[hog88]

Aaaaand the Rs in congress will do nothing but keep bitching about the FBI and sending them money.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Gee, how surprising is this? The FBI was scared that they'd be put on Hillary's suicide list.

That linked article to The New York Times has been misrepresented in that tweet. It basically accuses the DOJ of being weaponized by the Trump administration, and carrying on an investigation of Hillary Clinton into Trump's last days which never proved anything. Read the damn article.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Aaaaand the Rs in congress will do nothing but keep bitching about the FBI and sending them money.

You are too quick to accept that guy's interpretation. Read The New York Times article which was linked.