Dismantle the FBI

[struth]

This is fake news/a lie contrived by the right

The truth is that the FBI notified Facebook that reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop were part of a Russian misinformation campaign.

It was perfectly appropriate and warranted that the FBI make such a notification.
I
Zuckerberg, on his own accord, not ‘forced’ by the FBI, took the necessary action to check the Russian misinformation campaign on the platform.

That the FBI is ‘covering up’ the Hunter Biden laptop non-issue is a lie.

But it was a lie...so no it wasn't warranted. The reality as far as Hunter's laptop is that the FBI did not specifically say anything about it....Tweeter and Zuckerberg did that all on their own

Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

In an interview with Joe Rogan, Mark Zuckerberg says the story was flagged after an FBI warning.

www.bbc.com

"
Zuckerberg told Rogan: "The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like 'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'."
He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".

 

[Marener]

it’s 100 percent true. Flynn, Trump, Bob McDonnel, to name a few people simply prosecuted or harassed by the demafasict for simply not being part of the party

The fascinating thing about Bob McDonnell is that what he didn’t wasn’t illegal (in the end based on a SCOTUS case) but everyone thinks it should be illegal.

It’s also similar but worse than what the right is so loudly claiming Biden should go to jail for (despite having no evidence for it).

 

[struth]

The fascinating thing about Bob McDonnell is that what he didn’t wasn’t illegal (in the end based on a SCOTUS case) but everyone thinks it should be illegal.

It’s also similar but worse than what the right is so loudly claiming Biden should go to jail for (despite having no evidence for it).

1) it wasn’t illegal…he was prosecuted by obama doj cause he was one of the front runners to replace him
2) xiden accepted foreign money, the evidence is in his sons emails…Bob never took 10 percent kickbacks from foreign nations

 

[Marener]

1) it wasn’t illegal…he was prosecuted by obama doj cause he was one of the front runners to replace him
2) xiden accepted foreign money, the evidence is in his sons emails…Bob never took 10 percent kickbacks from foreign nations

McDonnell took a bunch of money from a wealthy “friend” and McDonnell helped him out with influence from his political position.

Normal people don’t think that’s okay.

I can tell you’re trying to figure out how to explain this away by the insertion of “foreign” as if it has anything to do with it.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Did Hillary break the law by crushing her government phone? Did Hillary keep top secret material on her private server? Did James Comey knowing that the Russian Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign give it to a FISA court saying it was legit?

A stupid fuck like you, no you are worse than that, you are a typical Joe Biden voter(Marxist), who just cant pull his/her/its head out of their ass.

View attachment 731704

Hillary didn't have any classified info silly, Obama declassified them all with a thought.

Try to keep up.

 

[struth]

McDonnell took a bunch of money from a wealthy “friend” and McDonnell helped him out with influence from his political position.

Normal people don’t think that’s okay.

I can tell you’re trying to figure out how to explain this away by the insertion of “foreign” as if it has anything to do with it.

I agree normal people don’t like that, but that’s what xiden did with foreign nations…and you are cool with that Bob never did that, but was targeted by the demafasict in the obama admin because he was a threat to his re-election

 

[Marener]

I agree normal people don’t like that, but that’s what xiden did with foreign nations…and you are cool with that Bob never did that, but was targeted by the demafasict in the obama admin because he was a threat to his re-election

You have no evidence Biden did anything of the sort with foreign nations.

It’s also irrelevant. Selling your office is illegal regardless of whether they’re foreign or not.

McDonnell was targeted because he was selling his political power and that is bad. No one made McDonnell accept gifts from his buddy and return the favors in government.

 

[struth]

You have no evidence Biden did anything of the sort with foreign nations.

It’s also irrelevant. Selling your office is illegal regardless of whether they’re foreign or not.

McDonnell was targeted because he was selling his political power and that is bad. No one made McDonnell accept gifts from his buddy and return the favors in government.

1) that's a lie...https://nypost.com/2022/07/27/hunter-bidens-biz-partner-called-joe-biden-the-big-guy-in-panic-over-laptop/

Gilliar was asked if “Hunter and/or Joe or Joe’s campaign [would] try to make it ‘Oh, we were never involved’ … and try to basically make us collateral damage?”

“I don’t see how that would work for them…,” Gilliar responded in the 6:07 p.m. message reviewed by The Post.

...

Gilliar had referenced the “big guy” as he acted as the driving force behind Hunter and his uncle Jim Biden’s planned multimillion-dollar deal with Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC

2) McDonnell was targeted because he was threat to the re-election of Obama. There was literally no evidence that he sold any "political power" - heck even Obama's DOJ realized that, that's why they never retried him. They only wanted to get him out of the way.

 

[Marener]

1) that's a lie...https://nypost.com/2022/07/27/hunter-bidens-biz-partner-called-joe-biden-the-big-guy-in-panic-over-laptop/

Gilliar was asked if “Hunter and/or Joe or Joe’s campaign [would] try to make it ‘Oh, we were never involved’ … and try to basically make us collateral damage?”

“I don’t see how that would work for them…,” Gilliar responded in the 6:07 p.m. message reviewed by The Post.

...

Gilliar had referenced the “big guy” as he acted as the driving force behind Hunter and his uncle Jim Biden’s planned multimillion-dollar deal with Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC

2) McDonnell was targeted because he was threat to the re-election of Obama. There was literally no evidence that he sold any "political power" - heck even Obama's DOJ realized that, that's why they never retried him. They only wanted to get him out of the way.

1. Your email about “big guy” is in 2017, after he left office. Ignoring the fact that the email does not demonstrate that any favors were given for the deal, any such favor would be impossible given he had no government office.

2. McDonnell was targeted because of his actions. There’s way more evidence that he sold political power than there is with Biden. The evidence was presented to a jury who decided he was guilty. McDonnell didn’t deny his actions. The argument is that it was legal to take money and provide access.

 

[struth]

1. Your email about “big guy” is in 2017, after he left office. Ignoring the fact that the email does not demonstrate that any favors were given for the deal, any such favor would be impossible given he had no government office.

2. McDonnell was targeted because of his actions. There’s way more evidence that he sold political power than there is with Biden. The evidence was presented to a jury who decided he was guilty. McDonnell didn’t deny his actions. The argument is that it was legal to take money and provide access.

1) The Big Guy is currently in office
2) I agree, he was targeted because of his actions, that lead to him being very popular and a threat to Obama. The evidence was presented, but the Obama DOJ used an illegal jury instruction, that's the only reason he was found guilty....an illegal jury instruction, the case was overturned based on that, and they were given leave to refile, but obviously by then they met their goal and that was to neutralize the threat of running against him., Very Stalinist

 

[Marener]

1) The Big Guy is currently in office
2) I agree, he was targeted because of his actions, that lead to him being very popular and a threat to Obama. The evidence was presented, but the Obama DOJ used an illegal jury instruction, that's the only reason he was found guilty....an illegal jury instruction, the case was overturned based on that, and they were given leave to refile, but obviously by then they met their goal and that was to neutralize the threat of running against him., Very Stalinist

1. He wasn’t in 2017. Private citizens have the right to engage in private business. You still have only half of your fake allegation. You still need something given in return.

2. The case against McDonnell was legitimate. SCOTUS is helping corrupt politicians by narrowing the definition of official acts. This is very relevant because the right is trying to use the “illegal” definition of bribery against Biden. According to SCOTUS, it’s not illegal to sell access, which is one of the most common allegation from the right.

 

[struth]

1. He wasn’t in 2017. Private citizens have the right to engage in private business. You still have only half of your fake allegation. You still need something given in return.

2. The case against McDonnell was legitimate. SCOTUS is helping corrupt politicians by narrowing the definition of official acts. This is very relevant because the right is trying to use the “illegal” definition of bribery against Biden. According to SCOTUS, it’s not illegal to sell access, which is one of the most common allegation from the right.

1) he is now, the money just doesn't go away....obviously he knew he did something wrong, that's why he lied about being involved in his son's deals. That alone, highlights the need to investigate...clearly he had a guilty mind.
2) If it was legit they wouldn't of used an illegal jury instruction. The Court followed the law, it was the Obama Admin that violated it. No, nobody said Xiden took any sort of bride....yet....and no the SCOTUS didn't say it wasn't illegal to sell access.

 

[Marener]

1) he is now, the money just doesn't go away....obviously he knew he did something wrong, that's why he lied about being involved in his son's deals. That alone, highlights the need to investigate...clearly he had a guilty mind.
2) If it was legit they wouldn't of used an illegal jury instruction. The Court followed the law, it was the Obama Admin that violated it. No, nobody said Xiden took any sort of bride....yet....and no the SCOTUS didn't say it wasn't illegal to sell access.

1. It’s proves it’s politically motivated. You don’t have anything really. You’re just out to hurt Biden.

2. The jury instruction is decided by the judge. Apparently you are the world’s dumbest lawyer. SCOTUS indeed said that it was legal to sell access. That’s what McDonnell was giving to his friend. Access. SCOTUS determined that access is not an “official act”, so the law doesn’t apply.

 

[struth]

1. It’s proves it’s politically motivated. You don’t have anything really. You’re just out to hurt Biden.

2. The jury instruction is decided by the judge. Apparently you are the world’s dumbest lawyer. SCOTUS indeed said that it was legal to sell access. That’s what McDonnell was giving to his friend. Access. SCOTUS determined that access is not an “official act”, so the law doesn’t apply.

1) what proves its political? that his agents
want to bring charges??
2) actually the State or Feds attorney writes the instruction…the defense properly objected, but you write the judge shouldn’t of allowed it

no that’s not what the court ruled. The court ruled the Obama DOJ instruction was illegal as it was way to broad…they literally tried to make the Gov going to a party an official act…

 

[dudmuck]

An agency that should investigate crime now being used as a political tool.

The Case for Dismantling the FBI | National Review

The bureau is a violent, expansionist, self-aggrandizing, and careless outfit that sits awkwardly within the American constitutional order.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Marener]

1) what proves its political? that his agents
want to bring charges??
2) actually the State or Feds attorney writes the instruction…the defense properly objected, but you write the judge shouldn’t of allowed it

no that’s not what the court ruled. The court ruled the Obama DOJ instruction was illegal as it was way to broad…they literally tried to make the Gov going to a party an official act…

1. We are talking about Joe Biden, not Hunter. It’s political because you don’t have anything even close to a reasonable suspicion. You want to investigate merely to hurt Biden.

2. Thanks for admitting you were wrong. You are the world’s dumbest lawyer (if you still are claiming to be a lawyer, which I mean, you should stop doing).

The court held:
An “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” That question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.” Pp. 13–24.

So yes, the court did say you can sell access because access (such as setting up meetings) is not an official act.

 

[struth]

1. We are talking about Joe Biden, not Hunter. It’s political because you don’t have anything even close to a reasonable suspicion. You want to investigate merely to hurt Biden.

2. Thanks for admitting you were wrong. You are the world’s dumbest lawyer (if you still are claiming to be a lawyer, which I mean, you should stop doing).

The court held:
An “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” That question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.” Pp. 13–24.

So yes, the court did say you can sell access because access (such as setting up meetings) is not an official act.

1) Congressional oversight isn’t a criminal probe that’s not needed. We do however have enough for reasonable suspension
2) i know what the court held, like i said “official act” nothing about selling influence or access as you suggested

another fail for you

 

[Marener]

1) Congressional oversight isn’t a criminal probe that’s not needed. We do however have enough for reasonable suspension
2) i know what the court held, like i said “official act” nothing about selling influence or access as you suggested

another fail for you

1. The Mazars case showed that Congressional oversight is quite limited. There’s no reasonable suspicion if you aren’t a rabid partisan. The idea that people were giving Biden money in 2017 in exchange for favors for an office he didn’t have and that he wasn’t even running for is absurd.

2. Meetings and calling officials is called access. There is no law that makes selling access illegal after this SCOTUS decision.

 

[struth]

1. The Mazars case showed that Congressional oversight is quite limited. There’s no reasonable suspicion if you aren’t a rabid partisan. The idea that people were giving Biden money in 2017 in exchange for favors for an office he didn’t have and that he wasn’t even running for is absurd.

2. Meetings and calling officials is called access. There is no law that makes selling access illegal after this SCOTUS decision.

1) reasonable suspension doesn’t matter…this isn’t a criminal probe…it’s oversight…all that’s needed is a legit legislative propose. Congress has absolute oversight of the doj
2) why didn’t the obama doj decline to prosecute again rhen? they clearly know the case more then you. Elected officials can go to their friends party and irs not an official event

 

[Marener]

1) reasonable suspension doesn’t matter…this isn’t a criminal probe…it’s oversight…all that’s needed is a legit legislative propose. Congress has absolute oversight of the doj
2) why didn’t the obama doj decline to prosecute again rhen? they clearly know the case more then you. Elected officials can go to their friends party and irs not an official event

1. The target keeps shifting. First it’s Joe Biden. Then it’s Hunter Biden. Now it’s the DoJ. Here’s a hint. There is no investigation into Joe Biden at the DoJ. Congress doesn’t even have absolute oversight into DoJ.

2. The DoJ was told by SCOTUS that selling access is legal, so there was no point in prosecuting again. That seems bad to everyone, but it’s supposed the law. That’s a problem for the lunatics that want Biden prosecuted for selling access. Instead of recognizing that SCOTUS declared selling access to be legal, they’ll blame corruption instead.