SectionC3

I don’t like the term, but it does seem like you’re gaslighting a bit there. I don’t think anyone is challenging the validity of his election in 2016. Unless it’s a Freudian thing on your part, which would be weird. So again, I return to the point that, in the olden days (per-2015), when we all worked from iPhone 4 models and Razor phones, we as a society would let this kind of thing play out, assess the facts, and take it from there. Instead, now, the MAGA crowd basically tries to destroy any institution that doesn’t give it its way (e.g., the Constitution, the Electoral College, numerous Boards of Election, and now the FBI). This is not a good approach to preserving the republic.

Ahh the gestapo. Nice reference. Analogizing the FBI to Nazis. A bit hyperbolic, and a bit of a tip of the cap to some OG fascists. Maybe, just maybe, the FBI did the right thing here and we should all just *gasp* shut up and let it play out. (I’d note that Trump also should shut up because he’s in it deep and it would be a good plan for him to shut his cheeseburger hole.)

Hoax. You brought up Waco, right? That occurred, I don’t know, 29 years ago. Seems like you’re taking on the agency as a whole when there’s a strong possibility that the vast majority of the agents involved in that mess have retired. Now, later, you’re all twisted up in knots trying to say that your focus is just on McCabe and the removal of bad agents. Which, I note, was not an articulated concern prior to the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at the Mar a Lago compound. So it seems that your concern with respect to the efficacy of the FBI is driven by fealty, rather than objectivity. That is troubling.

It’s not a hoax. Your first post in this thread suggests that you wish to defund the FBI. If you’re simply attacking the FBI, that’s fine. (I guess. I actually think it’s kind of screwed up but, then again, a lot of MAGA positions are shifty and incomprehensible.) But you should clarify your position so that there’s no confusion. We need to know whether you wish only to attack, rather than back, the blue, or if you wish to defund (that is, in this context, shutter) the FBI. It’s nice that you want to be like me. Imitation is the best form of flattery. Thank you!

I don’t see a quote there. Looks like another one of your hoaxes. Anyhow, you’re arguing over a small point. Or maybe it’s that you want to defund the FBI because of what Andrew McCabe allegedly said (or didn’t say). I think protecting Americans from international terror is more important than feeding a spiteful MAGA agenda. You don’t. Looks like we disagree. And, I’ll add, by your logic, any time a cop lies (assuming McCabe did here), we necessary should destroy the institution. If that’s the rule of thumb, get ready for anarchy. If a judge suppresses evidence based on a cop’s bogus story (it happens with some frequency), then Aristocrat would destroy that law enforcement institution. That seems like a good plan. Hoax.

Hoax. Merrick Garland did not reject a report with respect to the matter prepared, to my recollection, during a prior adminsitration. Different kettle of fish.

Hoax. I admitted no such thing. I noted that some people at the FBI concluded there was perjury. The problem, for them and for you, is that it was never proven. Instead, the DOJ concluded McCabe was wrongfully terminated. So, it looks like we didn’t get anywhere. Sorry.

An FBI team concluded that there was perjury. The issue never went to trial, and the point was never established in a court of law. In significant part because it would have been extremely difficult to prove the case. And then a different DOJ team determined that McCabe was fired in an act of unlawful retaliation. So, once again, hoax. For what it’s worth, I’ll bet donuts to donuts that you never gave the FBI a second thought until it executed a search warrant on a home of FPOTUS. Then, suddenly, you bought into the far-right’s hoaxes about defunding the FBI and investigatory overreach. Basically the kind of thing that pops up when a guy like Chris Collins gets pinched and looks to blame somebody else for what he did wrong. So, enough of the hoaxes already. Let the investigation run its course. I’ll close with the point that Merrick Garland is not a guy that I’d want to eff with. Smart and careful. Trump is way up ess creek with this guy on the job. Sigh. Hoax. A few violent actions do not support your characterization of the whole of the protests. It would be like saying that everyone who wears a red hat is a traitor because of what a few hundred or thousand people did on January 6. Are the Capitol invaders traitors? Damn straight they are. But not everyone who supports MAGA or who wears a MAGA hat is a traitor. I hope that you also have a pleasant day.

Hoax. Although I sometimes disagree with you, I respect you and I think you’re an intelligent person. So please don’t think I’m trying to be a jerk when I say I don’t follow this post. Sigh. Another hoax. The DOJ settled. No liability for McCabe.

Your original hoax was that McCabe was fired for a reason other than retaliation. I think we can all agree that is a fake news. I don’t have time to deal with your new hoax, other than to point out that McCabe has never been charged with such misconduct. I suppose, however, that based on your view that the mere allegations that McCabe perjured himself somehow establish his commission of a crime that you necessarily also believe that Trump obstructed justice with respect to the FBI’s Russia probe. Otherwise your views in this area would be illogical. So that is interesting to learn.

Do you think you two could knock it off with all of the hoaxes this morning? It is becoming exhausting to deal with all of these hoaxes and all of your fake news. Thank you in advance.

Hoax. Nope. I’m referring to his desire to bring the 82nd Airborne to DC. Hoax. He sued (was represented by Arnold & Porter, which is far from a liberal law firm), and the case was settled in his favor. He got his pension, back pay, and was deemed to have retired in good standing. You got snookered and bought into another hoax.

Not necessarily. You could have suggested termination for poor performance. Hoax as to the rest of your post. McCabe was fired as retaliation for refusing to declare loyalty to Trump.

Hoax. You’re casting all of the BLM protests as riots. In point of fact most of them were peaceful. Also, the FPOTUS wanted to militarize instead of allowing local law enforcement to do its job where protests became violent (and, by extension, were properly characterized as riots). As it happens, there was no need to deploy the military to handle what frankly was a relatively minor domestic law enforcement issue. So, yeah, he was a bad guy for trying to politicize the military and trying to put the military to domestic use in that circumstance. Ask Mark Milley how he feels about that BS.

Sounds like they got on the hop with the execution of the search warrant at Mar A Lago. And, to your point about improving performance, we also will never know how many similar such incidents the FBI has prevented through its work. I can’t help it if you’re in favor of defunding the FBI. But I am not. If my stuff was intertwined with items that the law does not allow me to possess (such as top secret information), and the FBI came through and cast a wide net, I think the last thing I’d do is complain about temporary overreach. (Items that should not have been seized will eventually be returned once inventory and review is complete.) Hoax.

Hoax.

I’ve heard that a fair bit myself.

There’s a big difference between saying that we shouldn’t stock the police with military grade equipment given the rash of police brutality cases and saying that the FBI should be undermined because in following the law it did something you don’t like. If I had SCI docs I think the first thing I would do is apologize profusely.

Apparently he’s miffed that the G men took what he believes to be some of his stuff. Of course, had he not had it in the first place, we wouldn’t have a problem.

Maybe meadows would do it, too. But that would require that he tell the truth about January 6. An elusive concept for him.

I think you’re probably right about that.

Thank you for the compliment. Also, I’m the one who asks the questions here. I don’t believe you answered the question whether Republicans are pro-terror. You also didn’t deny the point, so readers can take from that what they wish.

Wanting him to leave and reluctantly voting for him later are two different things. I’m not sure the election will be the tale of the tape in that respect. But they all want him gone.

The Beast guys are going to (at best) contradict a hearsay statement made by Cassidy Hutchinson. If they are willing to go public. (I disagree on whether they wish to do so.) Meadows can shed a lot of light on what did or did not happen. Why he won’t put country first is simply beyond me. Especially if he had “good” things to say.

It’s the only explanation that makes any sense. Donald Trump flout the law? Can’t be.