The Biden Presidency

Garmel said:
1) Registration doesn't prove anything.

2) Some j6ers deserve to be arrested. You keep bringing up "Trump's DOJ and FBI" as if they were somehow different as they are now. His own FBI, if you want to call it that, tried to get him out of officmanipulate.
have an e-mail of "one of his FBI people" wanting to stop him from being president.

3) A couple of isolated cases of informants in BLM doesn't prove much. Do you want to compare the amount that were in the Proud Boyd and OathKeepers?

4) I have zero clue to the point about those convicted because it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...



1. So you are going with multiple life long Republicans including the ones appointed by Trump working as a wing of the Democratic party? That's special.


2. Why even vote for Trump again if he is so incompetent he puts people like Wray in the FBI. At what point do you blame Trump for anything? The person you claim wanted to stop Trump from becoming Presidents tried to tell Congress what he believed about Trump and Russia. There's nothing wrong with that. You people act like Trump was charged and found not guilty. If that had happened you might have a point but he was never charged with a crime. No one is above investigation. You sure as he'll don't see anyone on the "left," here crying about any Democrat that's investigated. Investigate Biden all day long I don't care. You are so far gone that you don't even realize that I would love for Biden to actually be guilty of a crime.



3. Isolated cases of informants? These are just the ones we know about. I guarantee you there were plenty of instances of FBI agents and informants in BLM crowds. And there absolutely should be FBI agents and informants monitoring the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. It's not like they were just convicted of a seditious conspiracy or anything.........



4. The point about the convicted is if you want to claim the FBI did anything wrong or illegal regarding the people they have prosecuted there should be convictions overturned. No conviction has been overturned because of any revelation about the FBI. The right has been claiming the FBI hid exculpatory evidence from the J6 people, yet not one conviction has been overturned because of new evidence. The right claims the FBI did something wrong regarding the J6 people yet no misconduct by the FBI has resulted in a conviction being overturned. Going back to Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, Manafort, etc. Not a single one that the right claims was persecuted has had their conviction overturned.
 
Garmel said:
Firing Comey and Asking Russia caused it? lol. Let's see, Durham and even Barr who doesn't like Trump has said the investigation into Trump was bunk and political. As usual you miss the point. They are openly helping liberals in the media at the expense of conservatives. Like Tapate said perhaps you need to to watch the FBI whistleblowers testimony that's going on today.
Click to expand...


I watched about 5 minutes. The first guy I saw said he was suspended for being supportive of the J6 terrorists. That's all I needed to see it was BS.



I don't know at what point Trump became a target in the investigation. Comey told Trump he wasn't a target shortly before he was fired. At the very least Trump deserved to be a target for atlesst obstruction after he fired Comey and told two Russian agents that doing so would take the pressure of the investigation off of him.



Bill Barr is so anti Democrat he would vote for a meteor to destroy the planet over voting for a Democrat. WhatvTrump does is insult and harass someone who says something bad about him then when they retaliate or just continue to criticize him he claims they are biased against him. There's no worse argument to ever make than Bill Barr is a neutral party. The way you see Adam Schiff is how we see Bill Barr. Now imagine I tried to use Adam Schiff as if he was a neutral party.




Durham is a partisan hack. The IG report was and is a far better and unbiased report.
 
goldfly said:
can it not change? of course it can change

that question is so absurdly wide open it's like saying

are you saying there isn't a chance I could **** Emily Ratajkowski?

I mean, yeah, there's a chance. but we all know it isn't going to happen

and no, it hasn't changed. right wingers still populate this examples more than liberals

if everything else has changed in your opinion, maybe it's you and your ilk that has actually changed and not the other people

or you could keep playing the fake victim I guess
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've ever met someone more retarded than you

Your mother failed so badly. Private school for the win
 
The idiot GOP "whistleblowers" have "informants" that now can't be found. LMAO

Their whistleblowers only heard anonymous BS. That's so typical of them.
 
Garmel said:
I love how Durham is some partisan hack when he took down a republican governor. lol
Click to expand...


I admit he had a good record as a straight shooter before all this. He kind of outed himself by making a public statement about the IG report which was not appropriate. He prosecuted 2 people who no reasonable prosecutor would have brought. Clinesmith should have been prosecuted but the other 2 were laughed out of court. In a way he is guilty of exactly what he says the FBI did except everyone the FBI prosecuted was convicted and Durham secured no convictions from his investigation. Clinesmith was uncovered by the IG not Durham. Durhams investigation reads like this whole thing was a politically motivated attempt to "get Hillary,".




For those of you who complained about Alvin Bragg not sharing exculpatory evidence with the grand jury, I cant confirm 100% but I guarantee you Durham didn't give exculpatory evidence in his grand juries either. Neither was legally obligated to do so.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I admit he had a good record as a straight shooter before all this. He kind of outed himself by making a public statement about the IG report which was not appropriate. He prosecuted 2 people who no reasonable prosecutor would have brought. Clinesmith should have been prosecuted but the other 2 were laughed out of court. In a way he is guilty of exactly what he says the FBI did except everyone the FBI prosecuted was convicted and Durham secured no convictions from his investigation. Clinesmith was uncovered by the IG not Durham. Durhams investigation reads like this whole thing was a politically motivated attempt to "get Hillary,".




For those of you who complained about Alvin Bragg not sharing exculpatory evidence with the grand jury, I cant confirm 100% but I guarantee you Durham didn't give exculpatory evidence in his grand juries either. Neither was legally obligated to do so.
Click to expand...

His task was to show that deep state couped against very poorly chosen one. That the investigation into Russian interference was not properly predicated.

In the end Italy gave him and Barr a credible tip about criminal activity by none other than very poorly chosen one. An honest prosecutor would have investigated that and included it in his report along with an explanation for his prosecutorial decision on the matter.
 
Last edited:
cajunrevenge said:
I admit he had a good record as a straight shooter before all this. He kind of outed himself by making a public statement about the IG report which was not appropriate. He prosecuted 2 people who no reasonable prosecutor would have brought. Clinesmith should have been prosecuted but the other 2 were laughed out of court.
Click to expand...

lol. I'll be sure to go to your cop thread and talk about the police who were let go by the justice system and how that means they're innocent. Then I'll tell you how you fell for a hoax.

Your hypocrisy is utterly mind blowing.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
His task was to show that deep state couped against very poorly chosen one. That the investigation into Russian interference was not properly predicated.

In the end Italy gave him and Barr a credible tip about criminal activity by none other than very poorly chosen one. An honest prosecutor would have investigated that and included it in his report along with an explanation for his prosecutorial decision on the matter.
Click to expand...

lol
 
57Brave said:
Durham will be testifying before the Jordan Committee.
Bank it, Jim Jordan will get to the bottom of it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything wrong with him appearing before a congressional committee and answering questions.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
lol. I'll be sure to go to your cop thread and talk about the police who were let go by the justice system and how that means they're innocent. Then I'll tell you how you fell for a hoax.

Your hypocrisy is utterly mind blowing.
Click to expand...


By legal standards they are. You fundamentally misunderstand my position. I do not object to claims a person who wasnt charged or convicted is actually guilty. I do not object to using the standard that a lack of conviction is proof of innocence. What I object to is using one for people you like and another for people you dont. Be consistent or I will contiue to point out your arguments hypocrisies.
 
MAGA when I ask them which Pulitzer prize winning articles are fake news....


R.e19785f6d4ed4b298960b14009463c50
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top