January 6 - How much do you care?

[AZGrizFan]

But you have zero issue with what the FBI did.

I do but I also have issues with trump over January 6 and absconding with documents so declaring him the winner or a new election isn't the answer either.

All of this needs to be fully investigated.

Do you acknowledge that the FBI’s decision (most probably directed by some Trump hater within the dept) affected the outcome of the election?

[UNI88]

I do but I also have issues with trump over January 6 and absconding with documents so declaring him the winner or a new election isn't the answer either.

All of this needs to be fully investigated.

Do you acknowledge that the FBI’s decision (most probably directed by some Trump hater within the dept) affected the outcome of the election?

If the FBI withheld info about or failed to investigate Hunter's laptop then yes, it could have affected the outcome of the election.

trump's actions following the election would not have happened if he had won but they did happen and they should be factored into considering his eligibility for office.

[kalm]

Bracing for a few days of crazy uncle chain emails and social media posts…

But you have zero issue with what the FBI did.

I will have an issue if anything illegal is proven.

[houndawg]

Bracing for a few days of crazy uncle chain emails and social media posts…

But you have zero issue with what the FBI did.

Which time? I don't remember you taking this sort of attitude when James Comey interfered with the '16 election....

[kalm]

But you have zero issue with what the FBI did.

Which time? I don't remember you taking this sort of attitude when James Comey interfered with the '16 election....

Or Kemp’s role in the Georgia election fraud investigation being postponed until after the elections.

[houndawg]

Which time? I don't remember you taking this sort of attitude when James Comey interfered with the '16 election....

Or Kemp’s role in the Georgia election fraud investigation being postponed until after the elections.

AZGrizFan


not everybody is post-partisan...

[kalm]

Interesting timing.

[UNI88]

Interesting timing.

Didn't you post "I will have an issue if anything illegal is proven" above?

Why is it that that it is nefarious when there's something hinky about someone tied to trump but illegality much be proven when it's something tied to the Democrats or a federal agency that has demonstrated it is hostile toward trump?

[kalm]

Interesting timing.

Didn't you post "I will have an issue if anything illegal is proven" above?

Why is it that that it is nefarious when there's something hinky about someone tied to trump but illegality much be proven when it's something tied to the Democrats or a federal agency that has demonstrated it is hostile toward trump?

I was told on here by several people that Ornato was willing to testify and debunk Hutchinson’s testimony as she was not a credible witness. Hutchinson was a conk who worked for Trump so…where would you like me to go with your question?

[JohnStOnge]

just as long as everybody who is sane remembers that those January 6 people are the kinds of people you are voting to turn the country over to if you vote Republican.

[Skjellyfetti]

Lol

Totally normal. And, also "both sides"

Trump demands reinstatement as 'rightful' president or 'a new Election, immediately!' as some Republicans seek distance from him
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-demands-re ... 20572.html

[UNI88]

Didn't you post "I will have an issue if anything illegal is proven" above?

Why is it that that it is nefarious when there's something hinky about someone tied to trump but illegality much be proven when it's something tied to the Democrats or a federal agency that has demonstrated it is hostile toward trump?

I was told on here by several people that Ornato was willing to testify and debunk Hutchinson’s testimony as she was not a credible witness. Hutchinson was a conk who worked for Trump so…where would you like me to go with your question?

It stinks and should be mocked and investigated.

The surveillance of the trump campaign that started under Obama and intentionally avoiding looking at the Hunter laptop also stink and should be mocked and investigated.

They should be treated with similar disdain.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I was told on here by several people that Ornato was willing to testify and debunk Hutchinson’s testimony as she was not a credible witness. Hutchinson was a conk who worked for Trump so…where would you like me to go with your question?

It stinks and should be mocked and investigated.

The surveillance of the trump campaign that started under Obama and intentionally avoiding looking at the Hunter laptop also stink and should be mocked and investigated.

They should be treated with similar disdain.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Perhaps they should. If unwarranted surveillance occurred it should be investigated. Then again, Trump’s administration had 4 years to crack it open but were unable to. Cover up…worse than the crime?

If there were truly Russians sniffing around at the edges of US elections, that also needs to be investigated.

If we’re going to investigate Hunter, shouldn’t we also be investigating Kushner and his Saudi deal?

Corruption and grift is one better instance of how both sides do it.

Now…back to your original point…what do I win for defending a conk in Hutchinson rather than your undeserved accusation of partisanship?

[AZGrizFan]

It stinks and should be mocked and investigated.

The surveillance of the trump campaign that started under Obama and intentionally avoiding looking at the Hunter laptop also stink and should be mocked and investigated.

They should be treated with similar disdain.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Perhaps they should. If unwarranted surveillance occurred it should be investigated. Then again, Trump’s administration had 4 years to crack it open but were unable to. Cover up…worse than the crime?

If there were truly Russians sniffing around at the edges of US elections, that also needs to be investigated.

If we’re going to investigate Hunter, shouldn’t we also be investigating Kushner and his Saudi deal?

Corruption and grift is one better instance of how both sides do it.

Now…back to your original point…what do I win for defending a conk in Hutchinson rather than your undeserved accusation of partisanship?

And by doing everything they can to retain power it NEVER will be investigated. Starting to get it now?

[kalm]

Perhaps they should. If unwarranted surveillance occurred it should be investigated. Then again, Trump’s administration had 4 years to crack it open but were unable to. Cover up…worse than the crime?

If there were truly Russians sniffing around at the edges of US elections, that also needs to be investigated.

If we’re going to investigate Hunter, shouldn’t we also be investigating Kushner and his Saudi deal?

Corruption and grift is one better instance of how both sides do it.

Now…back to your original point…what do I win for defending a conk in Hutchinson rather than your undeserved accusation of partisanship?

And by doing everything they can to retain power it NEVER will be investigated. Starting to get it now?

Clearly most of them will. So prosecute Hunter if he committed a crime. Very few people have a problem with that.

[kalm]

Having a bad day? Not as bad as Trump losing Ann Coulter.

[UNI88]

And by doing everything they can to retain power it NEVER will be investigated. Starting to get it now?

Clearly most of them will. So prosecute Hunter if he committed a crime. Very few people have a problem with that.

You're not this dense so you much be intentionally avoiding the point. The problem isn't prosecuting Hunter, it's that the FBI intentionally delayed looking at the laptop so that whatever they found wouldn't impact the election. They chose to not do their jobs and tried to justify it by saying they didn't want to impact the election. The problem is that the laptop might have contained information relevant to the election so by not looking at it they may have impacted the election.

That along with the trump campaign surveillance authorized by the Obama administration is very damning toward the impartiality of the FBI. It makes me suspect systematic bias at high levels of the Bureau which is more concerning than a handful of potentially biased Secret Service officers in the President's protection detail.

[GannonFan]

Clearly most of them will. So prosecute Hunter if he committed a crime. Very few people have a problem with that.

You're not this dense so you much be intentionally avoiding the point. The problem isn't prosecuting Hunter, it's that the FBI intentionally delayed looking at the laptop so that whatever they found wouldn't impact the election. They chose to not do their jobs and tried to justify it by saying they didn't want to impact the election. The problem is that the laptop might have contained information relevant to the election so by not looking at it they may have impacted the election.

That along with the trump campaign surveillance authorized by the Obama administration is very damning toward the impartiality of the FBI. It makes me suspect systematic bias at high levels of the Bureau which is more concerning than a handful of potentially biased Secret Service officers in the President's protection detail.

Indeed, well said. It was bad enough you had that political commentator in that other thread say that anything or any action could be justified if it was done to stop Trump from being elected in 2020, but to think the FBI, or some folks in it, were operating under the same premise is concerning beyond belief. And again, we know they did because they've already said they blocked the story. You can both dislike/hate Trump and at the same time be upset that the FBI lied repeatedly about a real story.

[BDKJMU]

Having a bad day? Not as bad as Trump losing Ann Coulter.

A little slow today reporting 3-4 year old news out of the blue..

[AZGrizFan]

Clearly most of them will. So prosecute Hunter if he committed a crime. Very few people have a problem with that.

You're not this dense so you much be intentionally avoiding the point. The problem isn't prosecuting Hunter, it's that the FBI intentionally delayed looking at the laptop so that whatever they found wouldn't impact the election. They chose to not do their jobs and tried to justify it by saying they didn't want to impact the election. The problem is that the laptop might have contained information relevant to the election so by not looking at it they may have impacted the election.

That along with the trump campaign surveillance authorized by the Obama administration is very damning toward the impartiality of the FBI. It makes me suspect systematic bias at high levels of the Bureau which is more concerning than a handful of potentially biased Secret Service officers in the President's protection detail.

Precisely. And one has to ask the 64,000 dollar question: What does the FBI have to gain by opening supporting the Dem party and openly being biased against the Republican Party? What is the end game that would cause them to be so openly partial to one over the other?

[kalm]

Clearly most of them will. So prosecute Hunter if he committed a crime. Very few people have a problem with that.

You're not this dense so you much be intentionally avoiding the point. The problem isn't prosecuting Hunter, it's that the FBI intentionally delayed looking at the laptop so that whatever they found wouldn't impact the election. They chose to not do their jobs and tried to justify it by saying they didn't want to impact the election. The problem is that the laptop might have contained information relevant to the election so by not looking at it they may have impacted the election.

That along with the trump campaign surveillance authorized by the Obama administration is very damning toward the impartiality of the FBI. It makes me suspect systematic bias at high levels of the Bureau which is more concerning than a handful of potentially biased Secret Service officers in the President's protection detail.

Than someone should have/still should investigate the FBI as well. And the Obama administration participants right on up to the big man himself.

[Skjellyfetti]

[GannonFan]

You're not this dense so you much be intentionally avoiding the point. The problem isn't prosecuting Hunter, it's that the FBI intentionally delayed looking at the laptop so that whatever they found wouldn't impact the election. They chose to not do their jobs and tried to justify it by saying they didn't want to impact the election. The problem is that the laptop might have contained information relevant to the election so by not looking at it they may have impacted the election.

That along with the trump campaign surveillance authorized by the Obama administration is very damning toward the impartiality of the FBI. It makes me suspect systematic bias at high levels of the Bureau which is more concerning than a handful of potentially biased Secret Service officers in the President's protection detail.

Than someone should have/still should investigate the FBI as well. And the Obama administration participants right on up to the big man himself.

We have enough trouble just trying to deal with one former President with papers strewn around his residence with "confidential" and "top secret" written on them. I don't think we have the bandwidth to do just that investigation, let alone one that would take real work to do.

[houndawg]

I do but I also have issues with trump over January 6 and absconding with documents so declaring him the winner or a new election isn't the answer either.

All of this needs to be fully investigated.

Do you acknowledge that the FBI’s decision (most probably directed by some Trump hater within the dept) affected the outcome of the election?

He has the FBI to thank for taking office. He owes Jimmy C big for the October boost.

[houndawg]

Clearly most of them will. So prosecute Hunter if he committed a crime. Very few people have a problem with that.

You're not this dense so you much be intentionally avoiding the point. The problem isn't prosecuting Hunter, it's that the FBI intentionally delayed looking at the laptop so that whatever they found wouldn't impact the election. They chose to not do their jobs and tried to justify it by saying they didn't want to impact the election. The problem is that the laptop might have contained information relevant to the election so by not looking at it they may have impacted the election.

That along with the trump campaign surveillance authorized by the Obama administration is very damning toward the impartiality of the FBI. It makes me suspect systematic bias at high levels of the Bureau which is more concerning than a handful of potentially biased Secret Service officers in the President's protection detail.

FFS, they threw the '16 election to Trump ! You can't be serious.

And everybody has known the FBI is crooked since Viet Nam at least.