Nah—you’re just so buried in an uninformed echo chamber and show no willingness to understand reality.
So go be you! No hard feelings. It’s simply exhausting and unproductive to read.
Last edited:
I'm glad they are clarifying this a little
- Thread starter Biggie357
- Start date
So go be you! No hard feelings. It’s simply exhausting and unproductive to read.
Lol coming from the Biden supporter who won’t answer whether Hunter’s laptop is evidence. Still happy with your vote? Talk about uninformed Echo chamber
Did anyone forget to tell the president?
Does he not follow the news?
What game are you running here?
If you know Jackie is dead why doesn’t the president?
Why is he looking for her a month after her death?
Last edited:
I can tell you watched Tucker last night. In fact, your methods are just like his. You start with an actual event, put a biased spin on it, then draw a conclusion from it not based in fact, and then come to more conclusions that are even more one sided.
Historically the DOJ does not conclude or publicly report on investigations before elections. I don’t believe it’s written down anywhere, but it’s the way it works.
As you yourself said, all the laptop stuff came out just weeks before the 2020 election. The DOJ, which includes the FBI, is not going to say anything publicly that close to the election.
If you’ll recall, the FBI had an ongoing probe into the trump campaign and Russian interference in the summer of 2020. We didn’t find out about it until after the election…….because of the policy I’ve just explained. There are reports that Coney wanted to go public with it but……… guess who, Obama shut it down. There was an effort to make a bipartisan statement about the interference but McConnel wouldn’t agree to it. Ironically, trump criticized the Obama admin for his handling of Russia’s meddling.
Comey broke the unwritten rule when he reopened the Hillary investigation days before the election.
So how is it that the FBI hates trump so much and is out to get him……..when they stayed quiet about the trump probe before the election AND reopened the Hillary investigation days before before the election? Is it not plain to see that BOTH those things helped trump in the election?
And just to anticipate the deflection, this isn’t about whether RussiaRussiaRussia was true. Just that there was sufficient evidence for a probe that became a full fledged investigation.
What you spin (this is the Tucker technique) as the FBI “covering up” the laptop story and therefore “interfering in the election” was simply DOJ policy.
As for the Hunter investigation…..as JM said….. why didn’t the DOJ change US attorneys when Biden came into office if there’s some scheme to get Hunter off? Why did the DOJ let Durham keep doing his thing, investigating the investigation of Russia if they are so biased against trump and the republicans? No interference. No public rants or accusations from Biden about how “unfair” it all is or the evil republicans. Kind of a nice change, isn’t it?
He’s fvcking OLD. He made a mistake. He forgets shit.
We all know this. You can continue to beat the dead horse. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove that everybody doesn’t already know. Is anybody denying it?
You obviously dont know much about what happened in the laptop situation. The investigation was stopped by agents within the FBI who ran interference about the story. This is what Zuckerburg spoke about w/Roge(sp) although I dont think he realized what he was disclosing.. It's not that the FBI/DOJ had to make a statement it's that Americans were not allowed to read the NY Post story or any associated stories. All of which was well sourced and true. No doubt this affected how some people voted - or would have voted - knowing that a candidate was brokering illegal deals with US enemies.
And you want to talk about authoritarians, the whistle blowers who brought this to light are facing retribution. Just like during the Obama/Biden administration. You know, the guys who wire tapped journalists and collected phone data on news organizations?
To help clue you in. As a note, since the whistleblowers went to the Senate Mr. Thibault just up and
"retired." https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/0...tigations-isnt-off-the-hook-just-by-retiring/
Whistleblowers disclosed to Grassley that the FBI has received “either verifiable or verified” information about Hunter Biden “separate from the ongoing Hunter Biden criminal probe.” And though the FBI reportedly wanted to follow up on this separate information regarding the Biden son — something that would have typically been further investigated — Thibault blocked a further probe of this separate material.
Thibault made this decision under “the false assertion that it was disinformation,” as Grassley noted in July. Whistleblowers alleged to Grassley that “Thibault and other FBI officials sought to falsely portray as disinformation evidence acquired from multiple sources that provided the FBI derogatory information related to Hunter Biden’s financial and foreign business activities, even though some of that information had already been or could be verified.”
I forgot to post this when I read it. Since it was published one agent has already decided to spend more time with family. RCI is very highly regarded and investigates both sides of the aisle. Great work on Covid.
I would say that the chance that a few guys in a federal agency of thousands keep popping up on these investigations is well......
https://www.realclearinvestigations...be_previously_led_russiagate_hoax_848582.html
I would say that the chance that a few guys in a federal agency of thousands keep popping up on these investigations is well......
https://www.realclearinvestigations...be_previously_led_russiagate_hoax_848582.html
I do. I just said so…….again. I also see a new thread about it every other day. And no, I still don’t regret my vote.
So you are satisfied with the open border, drug cartels fentanyl, excessive spending, criminals freedom, student loan forgiveness, lying to the people, energy policy and SPR release, Afghanistan exit, to name a few?
So you think Zuckerberg was lying about the 'warning' from the FBI?
Would that warning to a major media company simply have been DOJ policy, in your view?
If the FBI was not involved in covering up the laptop story, then who was - because obviously the story got covered up.
NO ONE believed the story. Hell Fox News wouldn’t even put it on air. The WSJ didn’t print it.
Exclusive: Fox News News Division Passed on Hunter Biden Laptop Story Over Credibility Concerns
Mediaite has learned that Fox News was first approached by Rudy Giuliani to report on a tranche of files alleged to have come from Hunter Biden's unclaimed laptop, but that the news division declined.
www.mediaite.com
It wasn’t covered up, it just wasn’t reported. It couldn’t be verified. Social media has already started to police their sites for BS stories thanks to…….who?
The FBI didn’t refer to the Hunter or the laptop when it talked to FB. I mean, surprise, the Russians WERE spreading disinformation just like in the previous election cycle.
The right hates Zuckerberg but you’re using him as some kind of reliable source…….and he didn’t say anything specific about Hunter because the FBI didn’t say anything about Hunter. But in the world of Tucker, it’s an open and shut case. The FBI was absolutely talking about Hunter, which means they were covering it up, which means they were interfering in an election. BTW, it wouldn’t even BE interfering in an election in any conventional sense if it was true.
At the eleventh hour before a presidential election, Mr Truth and Honesty himself Rudy Giuliani comes forward with a story about Biden’s son forgetting about a laptop he dropped off in Delaware that contains all kinds of incriminating evidence. It’s surprising no one believed it? It didn’t have to be covered up, it’s crazy. But it turned out to be true.
Did the FBI put a muzzle on all the conservative news outlets? They had the laptop for how long before the election, weeks? What would you expect them to say?
And BTW, “liberal “ news organizations tried to get copies from Rudy so they could source the info and confirm. But he wouldn’t give them copies, he only let them look at it. No reputable news organization is going to publish a story without checking it out. Don’t you guys complain about that shit all the time?
So much wrong with your statements.NO ONE believed the story. Hell Fox News wouldn’t even put it on air. The WSJ didn’t print it.
Exclusive: Fox News News Division Passed on Hunter Biden Laptop Story Over Credibility Concerns
Mediaite has learned that Fox News was first approached by Rudy Giuliani to report on a tranche of files alleged to have come from Hunter Biden's unclaimed laptop, but that the news division declined.
It wasn’t covered up, it just wasn’t reported. It couldn’t be verified. Social media has already started to police their sites for BS stories thanks to…….who?
The FBI didn’t refer to the Hunter or the laptop when it talked to FB. I mean, surprise, the Russians WERE spreading disinformation just like in the previous election cycle.
The right hates Zuckerberg but you’re using him as some kind of reliable source…….and he didn’t say anything specific about Hunter because the FBI didn’t say anything about Hunter. But in the world of Tucker, it’s an open and shut case. The FBI was absolutely talking about Hunter, which means they were covering it up, which means they were interfering in an election. BTW, it wouldn’t even BE interfering in an election in any conventional sense if it was true.
At the eleventh hour before a presidential election, Mr Truth and Honesty himself Rudy Giuliani comes forward with a story about Biden’s son forgetting about a laptop he dropped off in Delaware that contains all kinds of incriminating evidence. It’s surprising no one believed it? It didn’t have to be covered up, it’s crazy. But it turned out to be true.
Did the FBI put a muzzle on all the conservative news outlets? They had the laptop for how long before the election, weeks? What would you expect them to say?
And BTW, “liberal “ news organizations tried to get copies from Rudy so they could source the info and confirm. But he wouldn’t give them copies, he only let them look at it. No reputable news organization is going to publish a story without checking it out. Don’t you guys complain about that shit all the time?
It was reported.
Remember Joe lying about it in the debate?
Remember 60 Minutes dismissing Trumps claim?
The NY Post reported it.
It was all over REAL NEWS NETWORKS.
NO ONE believed the story? "No one" wanted to believe the story so they blacked it out to keep voters from hearing it, lest more voters came to understand that Brandon was a corrupt hack selling his influence - as is now pretty clear to everyone who can think.NO ONE believed the story. Hell Fox News wouldn’t even put it on air. The WSJ didn’t print it.
Exclusive: Fox News News Division Passed on Hunter Biden Laptop Story Over Credibility Concerns
Mediaite has learned that Fox News was first approached by Rudy Giuliani to report on a tranche of files alleged to have come from Hunter Biden's unclaimed laptop, but that the news division declined.
It wasn’t covered up, it just wasn’t reported. It couldn’t be verified. Social media has already started to police their sites for BS stories thanks to…….who?
Fauci?
Carlson had a full hour interview with Bobulinski the week before the election, so Fox did put it on the air. Carlson continued to talk about it, pointing out like a real journalist would that Bobulinski, a highly credible witness, had produced incriminating emails sent from Hunter's laptop. He devoted another full hour the next night.
The NY Post published its story and was promptly de-platformed by Twitter and Facebook. The one newspaper doing its job was blacked out by big tech. We know the FBI 'warned' fb. Think they might have warned Twitter also, by any chance?
The usual hacks at the NYT, NPR, etc blacked it out.
In the debate, Brandon cited "50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage."
Who do you think organized that letter, Bob? Any thoughts on it?
bump so you can post an apology on the other thread.Technically, you are right. None have been charged with "insurrection," because that's not the title of the applicable federal statute.
Now "Seditious Conspiracy?" Yes eleven charged with exactly that; let me assist with your "as far as I know" comment. (Now you know. You're welcome)
Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment yesterday, which was unsealed today, charging 11 defendants with seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, which disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress...www.justice.gov
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States
Exactly. As said by me in the other thread -- Seditious Conspiracy is the Federal Statutory term to charge these treasonous bastards.
"Insurrection" is the layman's term.
You keep saying that if no one was charged with "insurrection" it must not have been that bad after all.
Hey! No one was charged with a statute called "Really Awfulness by People that HATE America in the Name of Donald Trumpikins!" so it must not be that bad after all and the FBI must not have any evidence and blahblahblahblahblah.
I choose to believe that you are just trolling against a losing cause and aren't this devoid of reading comprehension, but just in case you STILL haven't absorbed this? Let me make it clear:
Many, many have been charged with Seditious Conspiracy for their organized efforts to violently overthrow the United States Government on January 6, 2021.
They have uniformly stated that they were inspired by then-President Donald J. Trump.
They have been charged.
Many have pled guilty.
Some conspiracy leaders went to trial and were convicted.
The next widespread Seditious Conspiracy trial of Proud Boys leadership has begun.
The Oath Keepers leadership will rot in Federal Prison.
The evidence took months to collect, but citing a pre-indictment/plea article that states no one has been charged yet is childish, and transparently desperate and false.
NOW do you understand?
They were "inspired" by Trump? How is that statement relevant when someone makes it under the duress of trying to work a deal with the police state, saying what he knows they want to hear so they will go easy?
Did you get that from those fictional FBI hero shows you love?
It didn’t help any of them statutorily, but it explained how they got indoctrinated.
Then what was the purpose of saying they were inspired by Trump, whatever that means, if they didn't expect a better deal?
They were required per their plea to testify honestly and/or we’re looking to shift the blame.
Required to testify honestly? How could a statement that someone was 'inspired' by Trump be disproven?
Or, why would they look to shift the blame if they didn't think they could get a better deal by doing so?
Admit it, you are making it up (again) as you go along.
You’re asking for my OPINION.
Then you get pissy when I give it.
You’re trying to play gotcha over completely innocuous stuff. Hoping there’s nothing personal that’s agitating you, my friend.
You stated this as a fact, in bold face.
They have uniformly stated that they were inspired by then-President Donald J. Trump.
It is a 'fact' that makes no sense and has no meaning, so I wanted you to explain what it means. Obviously, you can't.
It's a fact that they said it.
Then, you asked me for my opinion as to why they said it, and I offered that, "They were required per their plea to testify honestly and/or we’re looking to shift the blame."
I don't think that's confusing.
I can't find where they all uniformly said it, per the 'fact' you are claiming. Have a link to support your claim?
Oh lord, not every single one of the 800+ convictions.
You’re looking for some word to take literally as an absolute on a message board. That’s wacky.
US Capitol rioter who blames Trump for his actions is found guilty
Dustin Byron Thompson, 38, claimed he was following orders when he stole a coat rack from a Senate office
At least 10 people charged in the Capitol siege are blaming Trump for their involvement in the attack
Criminal law experts told Insider that the outcome of the trial could help Capitol rioters shift the blame to Trump in their criminal cases.
www.businessinsider.com
'He invited us': Accused Capitol rioters blame Trump in novel legal defense
Emanuel Jackson, a 20-year-old Washington area man, was caught on video using a metal bat to strike the protective shields wielded by police officers as they tried to fend off rioters storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
www.reuters.com
'Trump Called Us to D.C.': Capitol Rioter Who Tased Cop Blames Trump for Jan. 6 Attack. So Does a Federal Judge
Judge Amy Berman Jackson said on Wednesday that the former president and his allies “explicitly encouraged [attendees] to go to the Capitol and fight … to make sure the certification of…
www.rollingstone.com
Those were your words. Why did you use them if you knew they were not accurate. Sounds like a Santos move.
Lol—I cannot imagine you go through life like this. It’s either an incredible level of literalism or you are extraordinarily dense.
You must be fun at parties:
“Hey Riveting-, here’s your drink!”
“Drink?!? There’s a large ice cube in it. Do you expect me to drink an ice cube?!!?”
“You could wait for it to melt.”
“But you were dishonest; you said it was already a drink when you handed it to me.”
Last edited:
And then there’s invariably the childish, silly, middle-school nicknames.
Serious question; are you over the age of 16?
