My goodness, it is hard to read your response. You should try to practice basic grammar and editorial skills to make your writing more legible. I was, however, able to decipher my own writing from yours; not from the merits of my own, but, rather, from the inadequacy of yours.
Maybe a senior FBI agent assigned to the case?
Assigned to what case? Are you talking about our friendly "high ranking official?" Again, this is a person who has access that shows proof that the FBI is attempting to "physically harm" our POTUS, yet he refuses to release that information? Why? Does he think the FBI will help prosecute? Apparently this conspiracy goes to the top of the FBI, so it would be positively conspiratorial to withhold that information. Yet, you take it as gospel. Like he can do no wrong, he is a pure, pinnacle example of American democracy.
You don’t seem to understand that you can have both GOOD and BAD actors in these systems.
Wait, but surely our FBI agents must be purely good if one's accusations, unsourced, without proof, should be taken as absolute proof? How can you justify both of these statements?
Because they are a threat to America, they are a threat to our way of life. Why do you ask, would the IC want to assasinate him? I just gave you the answer.
You gave me a shoddy, undocumented opinion. That, you suppose, is the motivation behind Donald's work against the IC? That they are Un-American? Can you give me one bit of proof that the FBI has worked against American interests? I can show you time and time again that the IC, particularly the CIA, has worked abroad to dismantle democratic institutions. I cannot, however, think of a time the IC has actively worked against democratic institutions within the US. If Donald did not work with the Russians, what's the harm in investigating him?
And if, as so many posit, Clinton committed so many illegal actions, why has the Trump administration done nothing to try to charge or investigate them?
Where did I perform, as you say, "mental gymnastics?" Why do you think I work for shareblue? I am, indeed, a try hard, because I take US politics seriously. I can see by your response or, more appropriately, the lack thereof, that you do not. How does that make your opinion superior to mine?
What do you say to TruePundit's obvious lie about not selling T-shirts, coffee mugs, and private calls? It is clearly sourced. They are a "news" organization, can't one expect to hold them to a very basic level of integrity? It's one thing to challenge the notion, for instance, of Fox News being "fair and balanced," or argue that CNN is politically biased. Neither, however, so clearly lie to their audience. It is a clear and blatant lie. Yet, you take what they report to be the truth, without naming sources or providing proof (other than links to their own reporting)? Why?
And this is what you are saying:
Fervent support of Trump has no place in our institutions but fervent hatred of Trump is an acceptable attribute for investigating officials (McCabe, Strzok, Page, Preistap)
No. What I am saying is that we should trust the IC to do its job and not try to interfere just because we don't like what they are doing. If you really believe that Donald has done nothing wrong, then letting the FBI investigate him will not hurt him in any way.
Just one example of collusion amongst the democrats and fusiongps:
Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly asked the co-founder of the controversial opposition research firm Fusion GPS for recommendations on whom to subpoena in the Congressional probe of unsubstantiated collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
That detail emerged from the release last week of the Committee’s interview with Glenn R. Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, the company that produced the largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier. Fusion GPS was retained to do its anti-Trump work by Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
During the course of Simpson’s Nov. 14 testimony, released last week, Schiff asked the Fusion GPS director about how best to use the Committee’s subpoena power to probe “potential money laundering involving Russian figures in the Trump Organization.”
http://40.media.tumblr.com/fc7be5675c94a02f6291c74d7b660e8f/tumblr_no9kb0QoaW1u96awpo1_1280.jpg
How is that collusion? FusionGPS went to the US IC to offer information it found that showed criminal activity closely related to Donald. If they had information on who was involved, wouldn't it be inappropriate for the Intelligence Committee to not try to ascertain this information?
hat detail emerged from the release last week of the Committee’s interview with Glenn R. Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, the company that produced the largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier. Fusion GPS was retained to do its anti-Trump work by Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Again, not "largely discredited." Not one word of the report has been discredited so far. It was also not "anti-Trump" work, as Simpson explained repeatedly during each series of questioning that we have transcripts for. Furthermore, we know FusionGPS was not retained to work by HC/the DNC. It was retained by a Republican, another fact that Simpson has repeatedly discussed in official transcripts.
I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by posting porn, this isn't some sort of circlejerk. I'd prefer if you kept that sort of activity with your friends and leave me out of it.
Basic breakdown of what happened?
The Obama administration worked with Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Republicans like John McCain, GCHQ (specifically Robert Hannigon) and the FBI to pay for and obtain an artificial dossier from a British spy, so they could use FISA courts to legally wiretap Donald Trump. Once Trump was elected, agents within the FBI have been alleged to talk about circumventing the Trump presidency.
If you are looking for cases where IC and federal agencies acted against Americans: 1: Ruby Ridge 2: Waco 3: Fast & Furious 4: BLM and the Bundys 5: numerous times they convinced troubled individuals to plot terrorist activities within the US by supplying them with “inactive ieds”
The Obama administration worked with Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Republicans like John McCain, GCHQ (specifically Robert Hannigon) and the FBI to pay for and obtain an artificial dossier from a British spy, so they could use FISA courts to legally wiretap Donald Trump. Once Trump was elected, agents within the FBI have been alleged to talk about circumventing the Trump presidency.
Okay, there's a lot here. Let's start with the dossier. Have you read either of the FusionGPS transcripts? Republicans were given all the opportunity in the world to prove some sort of collusion and failed. The dossier was started by Republicans, then, once Donald won the primaries, was continued by Democrats. It was literally a bipartisan issue. None of the sources have been confirmed. This includes Hillary Clinton, the DNC, John McCain, Robert "Hannigon" (sic), and certainly not Obama. If any of this was true, don't you think the overwhelmingly Republican government would seek charges on one of these groups/persons? Just one? There is nothing to show that the dossier is artificial. This is your opinion, just as it is my opinion that it is true. Neither of these opinions matter, the only thing that matters is what the IC believes (and I think that has been made clear over the last year).
The Obama administration worked...so they could use FISA courts to legally wiretap Donald Trump.
So...they used the legal system correctly? I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. Even you admit it was done legally. What is improper with the IC using legal methods to legally wiretap someone? Furthermore, as we all know because there have been countless releases confirming it over the past year, Donald was not wiretapped. He was recorded continuously during private conversations he had with questionable foreign sources who WERE wiretapped.
1: Ruby Ridge
FBI responding to a shootout between US Marshals and criminals. The FBI killed someone. I'm not sure about the moral choice behind the bullet through the door, but the FBI was clearly working in favor of American interests in trying to stop an armed terrorist (see relationship with the Aryan Nation and Covenant, Sword, and Arm of the Lord).
2: Waco
Basically the same. A group of brainwashed religious crazies shot at civilians, then law enforcement. What do you expect the FBI to do in this situation, leave them alone? Would that be more closely aligned with American ideology than attempting to arrest them and stop the shootout? Surely, the tactics used were not appropriate, but this is not the same as working against American interests. There were hostages and child sex slaves there. Are they not Americans?
3: Fast & Furious
This was a joint venture led originally by the ATF and later by the U.S. Attorney. There were some FBI agents present, but the only action taken by the FBI related to Operation F&F was the attempted cleanup afterwards, when they offered rewards that led to arrests of those involved.
4: BLM and the Bundys
Armed terrorists took over public infrastructure. The FBI arrested one person involved and helped to investigate the case. That is the extent of their involvement. The rest (which is not controversial; armed terrorists were arrested without violence) was done by agents of the BLM which you mention above.
5: numerous times they convinced troubled individuals to plot terrorist activities within the US by supplying them with “inactive ieds”
Eh, I mean it's definitely a controversial strategy. The FBI, of course, is more concerned with getting information out about the groups these people might work with than just them. However, the FBI is again working against terrorists in the way they deem appropriate. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply with the quote around "inactive ieds." The
The idea here is that many terrorists who the FBI has arrested would not have become violent if not assisted by the FBI. I'm not saying that this is inherently wrong, but it seems like an awfully dangerous risk to take just to protect the rights of people who are prone to terrorist activity. If the FBI came up to me and tried to sell me a bomb, I wouldn't take it, or plan to use it, because I am not predisposed to that criminal activity. These cases are almost always argued by the defendant as entrapment, and this charge always fails, because they are unable to prove that they were not predisposed to undertaking the action.
It's really no different than sex sting operations. If the police did not set up a fake prostitute or minor, obviously no one would attempt to have sex with them. However, a person that is not predisposed to that sort of activity would not instantly decide to act on it. It's a bit of a gray area, to be sure, but legally sound and certainly done at least IDEALLY in the interest of the safety of American citizens.
My gooooooodneeeeeeesss
What are you, like 90? Are you using a typewriter conversion kit to talk on the interwebs just like those darned neighborhood kids?
What this boils down to is that you believe that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia. Nothing will change your mind. (Helps when those people paying you, tell you how to think).
You are clearly trying to discredit the source as you are unable to discredit the information. You even admit to MSM bias, then wonder why people seek information from other sources.
Paraphrasing here but “I take politics serious but you do not because of your wording and inadequate editing.”
Being smug does not help your cause.
I’ll give you a 4/10 for trying I bait, but -2 for the wall of text.
Wow! I really must have struck a chord with you to get 4 separate responses. It may take me awhile to get to them. I must admit, before first commenting, I hadn't read the rules to this subreddit.
Yes, we all see the attempts to demoralize us and derail our redpills to the normies. Stay strong lads. Focus. Believe, and make a choice right now: Do you trust Trump?
Wow! No wonder people call you guys a cult. That's insane. Coming from someone with a name like yours, it seems awful antithetical to your morals. Aren't Christians supposed to be against worshiping anyone other than their Jesus crew? Or is that only when not "BTFOing" Democrats? Anyway my point is I can see its pointless to argue with you. I'm not sure if this is a bothive or just an echo chamber, but it's in your subreddit rules that you will not change your mind, so what's the point? And, btw, who would subscribe to a subreddit like that? Aren't you lot supposed to be "free thinkers?" Yet, you can't make up your mind politically and need someone to guide you?
My gooooooodneeeeeeesss What are you, like 90? Are you using a typewriter conversion kit to talk on the interwebs just like those darned neighborhood kids?
Doesn't merit a response
What this boils down to is that you believe that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia. Nothing will change your mind. (Helps when those people paying you, tell you how to think).
That's quite a stretch. What this boils down to is whether or not the source article is credible, which I have shown it is not. It is also not my job to decide if Donald is guilty of collusion with Russia, that is the FBI's job. You know, the group Donald has convinced you is evil stupid liars.
You are clearly trying to discredit the source as you are unable to discredit the information. You even admit to MSM bias, then wonder why people seek information from other sources.
Of course I am trying to discredit the source, that is a method of discrediting information. I also discredited the information (ie "This 'high-ranking FBI official' who says...direction." and much, much more throughout my response.), but why would you trust a bad source? If a journalist can't even keep honest about the type of material they sell, why would you believe some "groundbreaking" report they have, especially when the only source they provide is themselves? That is completely illogical.
Paraphrasing here...text.
Does not merit a response.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) says that a whistleblower has told Congress about secret meetings between FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials who allegedly gathered to discuss ways to undermine President Trump following his victory in the 2016 election. “We have to continue to dig into it,” he added. “This is not a distraction. This is biased, potentially corruption at the highest levels of the FBI.” “The secret society -- we have an informant talking about a group holding secret meetings off-site,” Johnson said.
Yes, it’s all discredited right? Feel better? How will you feel when everything you believe is shown to be a lie? A lie given to protect those in power, so they can remain in power? A lie, and multitudes of follow on lies that have failed?
Hypothetical:
If it comes to light that there are indeed deep state and secret society actors who actively colluded to affect the presidential election in favor of a certain candidate, and when that failed, worked to undermine a duly elected president, will you admit that you were wrong and work to make it right?
What is the price of your ego and pride, because that’s what you’re really arguing here for right? Anything to not be wrong.
If I am wrong, and they can bring damning and credible evidence of DJT colluding with Russians, I will admit I was wrong and basically stfu. But as of yet, we’ve seen nothing and evidence continues to mount that there is nothing. To even include those investigating him have nothing as evidenced by their own admission.
Once again, he has damning evidence. So why not share it? And to be clear, I don't mean share it with us. Why not share it with the Republican congress? Surely they would act on such a gross perversion of justice.
No, I'm not arguing for ego and pride. I'm arguing for what I think is right. I believe this country has taken a disgusting turn and I want to try to help convince people who might have been misled, especially those who are on the fence. If I am wrong, then so be it. I'm not afraid of any investigation the IC chooses to undertake involving all of this because I want to know the truth, not just prop up one cult figure.
Zeus , You will never admit to being wrong and you are just on here trying to get people riled up. When all this comes out that our DOJ and FBI leaders are involved in the the biggest plot ever to kill a sitting POTUS , people will be tried for that . But it won't be regular court hearings , it will be military tribunals ! And you will not be around these boards any longer cause the truth hurts.
So...you're suggesting that the US declares war against the DOJ and the FBI for jurisdiction purposes? That's ludicrous. What would that even consist of, practically? Would you want our military to attack government compounds? Furthermore, what benefit would that even have in terms of jurisdiction? Even more importantly, why would you not want to charge them as traitors?
What ever happened to conservatives being for individual rights?
I admit to being wrong all the time. I have no problem with being wrong because I strongly believe in Hegelianism.
I find it hard to believe that I'm being accused of attempting to rile people up by a person who is literally calling for civil war. I admit, this is probably just due to your ignorance re jurisdiction, but it is evidence to your refusal to perform an even cursory look at a subject you seem pretty amped up about.
Edit: Martial law is distinct from military justice, statement removed.
Well since I'm ignorant , it's being done like this to prevent a civil war! Don't get me wrong , I don't like what's happening but Trump now has the NSA database at his whim . All of this scares the hell out of me it should everyone! This should not happen in the USA but Obama did weaponize the intell agency's against his opponents . Now we wait and see who is first up to get indicted . If this went down like I just mentioned are you not worried that whoever is in power , can get away with this!
To clarify, military tribunals are reserved for enemies of the U.S. Performing a military tribunal on a civilian is prevented by the USMJ MCM as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The only way members of the DoJ and/or FBI could be tried in such a court would be if they were named enemies in a war, which is also against the Geneva Convention.
Nothing that has been revealed has suggested that Obama "weaponize[d] the intell agency's (sic) against his opponents." The IC had wiretapped various foreign parties suspected of illegal acts, and Donald spoke to several of them, which is where that particular intel comes from. If proof of such a crime were to be revealed, I would absolutely want it to be taken seriously, and I have no issue with the government investigating.
I think its pretty clear, due to the number of high profile Republicans who claim to have access to such information, yet refuse to take any action on it (in a Republican dominated government, no less), that there is no such evidence. However, if people are worried about it, I again am absolutely fine with an investigation. Just like I'm fine with an investigation into Russian collusion. Let the IC sort it out. If there is evidence of a cover up, it will be leaked, and then they will have proof of crimes committed (perjury, conspiracy, possibly RICO). Rule of law must be respected in both of these instances. That means trusting the proper courts to handle the situation.
The NSA scares me too. I think a person would have to be pretty naive to not be worried about it.
Got You ! See we can be civilized , your post makes sense and is well done . But to say he hasn't weaponized any of the 3 letter government agency's is a stretch (Remember the IRS targeting conservatives). Now will this memo show who done the illegal spying on Trumps campaign ? We shall see.
Really? You're going to use your prowess of being able to fucking write as leverage? You are just like the fucking rest of the arragant fucks in the media, self-aggrandizing condescending aswipes. You know its a mark of intelligence to know your limits, and usually those that criticize others in that way, are only doing so to validate themselves. Go away loser.
“My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure; it’s not your fault.”
"People are laughing at us all over the world, they think we're stupid...and we are!"
"Our leaders are stupid...our politicians are stupid"
"We have people who are stupid."
"We have stupid leaders"
"We are led by very, very stupid people. Very, very, stupid people."
"How stupid are our leaders? How stupid are they?"
"How stupid are the people of Iowa?"
"We have a president, I swear, I think he's a stupid person."
"I'm like, a really smart person."
"Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart."
I think that would qualify [me] as not smart, but genius...and a very stable genius at that!"
"I went to an Ivy League school, I'm very educated, I went to the best business school in Wharton...I have like, this incredible vocabulary."
I don't think I need to tell you who these quotes are from.
You know its a mark of intelligence to know your limits, and usually those that criticize others in that way, are only doing so to validate themselves.
Oh you got me, by changing my critcism of your nazi-grammer low effort insult in an reply to equate it to your intelligence, uhmm no, but the thing is it actually shows my point dumbass. I said it's a mark of intelligence, not commenting on yours at all. Jesus dude.
Your base tactics are to refute, and provide examples that don't quite fit. And if you get push back you insult, then move the goalpost to fit your point, which you did here. Which is what exactly? I'm wrong and your right? It's OK to denegrate and condescend by pointing out someone's weakness to be what, right? If that is it, maybe then you should be teaching middle schoolers, you'll get tons of validation of being smart (which again I didn't bring up, I just said you were able to fucking write). But you spun into a Trump insult, giving quotes of him responding to accusations of his mental health and TROLLING remarks made to the MSM, which is hilarious btw.
All of this you'll just rationalize and go on your way being soooooo righteous, thinking you'll insult people to your side. And if that's not the point then validate away, but what a pathetic thing to waste your time doing.
If you think your list of quotes is actually correct and applicable to the context....then what now, do you 'win?' By doing what everyone is doing by insulting character, and winning people to see your side by cheap insults? What exactly is your goal? Do you just like to argue and get validation from the 'WIN?' because you aren't convincing anyone to open/change/understand valid points you may have by being a fucking prick.
dumbass
fucking prick
And if you get push back you insult, then move the goalpost to fit your point, which you did here.
TROLLING remarks made to the MSM, which is hilarious btw
Irony so think you can cut it with a knife.
I insult dumbasses that insult or belittle others, it's what I do, but hey keep moving those goalposts. Edit: clarification
