 
     |
| Tucker Carlson (Page 41/41) |
|
ray b
|
MAY 23, 03:49 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
This is pure nonsense. |
|
AGREED
and exactly what your leader did do
|
|
|
cliffw
|
MAY 24, 09:43 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
Of course I inferred it.
|
|
Your delusion is showing.
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
so did everyone else who understood what he was talking about. |
|
There you go again, showing your delusion.
We have a dweeb on this board who harps on those who believe things, in their opinion. Oh wait, that dweeb is YOU !
| quote | Originally posted by ThingB:
In my opinion, President Trump trusts Putin over his own intelligence. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
In my opinion, everyone else who understood what he was talking about believes President Trump trusts Putin over his own intelligence. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
You don't get it because you don't understand the context. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by ThingB:
In my opinion, you don't get it because you don't understand the context. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
When he talked about "the server in Ukraine" he was flat out calling the FRI liars because the FBI told him that there was no missing server and that the whole CrowdStrike issue was nothing but a baseless conspiracy.
|
|
Would you trust the FBI ? Honest question.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAY 24, 10:01 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Would you trust the FBI ? Honest question.
|
|
I know this isn't for me... but since I used to work with them a lot. I'd have to say that most of them were good people. Many of them are former military, and / or joined because they wanted to make a difference for (and serve) their country. The problem is the reality of what the organization is... it's OWNED by the Executive Branch, and as a result, it can and will get filled at the top by political appointments. Appointments that don't always go away after the president transitions. These become salary exempt civil service employees at some point, and are then more or less permanent. Because the FBI is "owned" by the executive branch, it does the bidding of the executive branch, as does the Department of Justice. I think this is an important thing that people really do not full understand about our government. Most people (at least they did) have this ethereal concept that each of these organizations work independently, with authority granted to them by Congress. Congress does of course have to approve the "creation" of these organizations in the first place, AND... the directors of these organizations need to be confirmed; however, aside from that... these organizations fall directly under the authority of the executive branch. By virtue of this, the president has DIRECT authority to tell these agencies what to do... and can directly hire whomever they want, bypassing any laws they want. So, for example... political appointments aren't required to get polygraphed. They don't even have to go through the clearance adjudication process because the administration can (and does) simply waive it. Most of the Biden appointments that have Communist ties, or even strong Communist ideological beliefs, they would never be given a clearance if it wasn't for the waiver that being a political appointee grants them.
So... to answer the question. No... I do not. The leadership within the FBI, primarily the majority of the seniors, they're politically complicit. I've directly seen where a FOIA request gets tossed aside because no one wants to answer it, because it's inconvenient to do so.
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
MAY 24, 10:43 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Would you trust the FBI ? Honest question.
|
|
Over Vladimir Putin? Yes. 100% of the time. How about you?
I am not naïve regarding our government agencies. I remember Iran Contra and WMD in Iraq. But I am logical with my analysis of when the US government agencies are telling the truth. They only lie when they have something to gain from it. So why would they lie about Russia trying to influence our election?
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAY 24, 11:09 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
Over Vladimir Putin?
|
|
That wasn't the question.
You have a real knack for answering questions that weren't asked.
Liars do that a lot.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-24-2024).]
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
MAY 25, 08:36 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Would you trust the FBI ? Honest question.
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
Over Vladimir Putin? Yes. 100% of the time. |
|
100 % of the time ? When you started your crusade, you claimed that Trump trusted Putin over the FBI 100% of the time. Hmm ...  .
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
How about you? |
|
No, I do not trust the FBI. I learned a very important lesson when I was younger. "Never trust your friends. You can trust your enemies because you always know where they stand."
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
I am logical with my analysis of when the US government agencies are telling the truth. They only lie when they have something to gain from it. So why would they lie about Russia trying to influence our election? |
|
Is that why you lie ?
You should be wondering why the FBI lied. Why would the FBI have to say anything ? Russia has been interfering in our elections since they were the USSR.
Let me see if I can find a leftoid source you can believe. How about the counterfeit news network, know as CNN.
Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe
| quote |
Durham’s 300-plus page report also states that the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” to launch the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign. |
|
| quote |
The report also concludes that “at least on the part of certain personnel intimately involved in the matter” there was “a predisposition to open an investigation into Trump.” |
|
| quote |
“Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” Durham said in his report. |
|
\
| quote |
Durham mentions former FBI Deputy Director and CNN senior law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe and zeros in on Peter Strzok, the ex-deputy director of the counter-intelligence division.
“Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump,” Durham wrote, while quoting in a footnote previously known texts between Strzok and Lisa Page, then an FBI attorney. |
|
| quote |
Durham knocked the FBI for failing to take several steps before launching the Trump campaign investigations, such as interviewing relevant witnesses, reviewing its own intelligence databases or using “any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence.”
Durham suggested that if the FBI had taken those steps, it would have found that US intelligence agencies did not have any evidence tying Trump to Russian leadership officials. |
|
| quote |
The report cites for comparison examples of how the FBI approached investigations concerning former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic White House nominee Clinton. Durham points to specifically to “highly significant intelligence” the FBI “received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server.”
“Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information,” the report said. |
|
| quote |
Durham notes that the FBI did not open an investigation into a purported plan by foreign operatives to target the Clinton campaign but rather took other steps in response to those concerns, which included providing defensive briefings for the then-Democratic presidential nominee and her staff. |
|
You should change teams but we don't want you.
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
MAY 25, 12:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Let me see if I can find a leftoid source you can believe. How about the counterfeit news network, know as CNN.
Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe
|
|
OMG not the dreaded "Durham Report"!!!
Remember how Hannity and Carlson built up this investigation that was going to "blow the top off" the corruption in the FBI? It ended up being a lot of nothing. No major FBI policy changes. No firings (Strzok had already been dismissed by the FBI for misconduct). Only one guilty plea (against two acquittals) with no hail time for an FBI attorney who altered information on a search warrant application. The saddest part was how the right tried to make such a big deal about the slight difference between "preliminary investigation" and "full investigation". Durham acknowledged that there was enough evidence to justify a preliminary investigation, but the only section the right quoted was where he said he did not feel there was enough evidence to justify the "full investigation".
Basically the right had their hand-picked investigator go over the "totally corrupt, political FBI" for years and he came up with basically nothing.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
MAY 25, 03:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|