How dare they have internet in federal prison. It shouldn't even be outside of prison. It's all about conspiracies . . . sort of like the one you concocted in this post.

Geeze . . . this was in response to my saying that most Republicans took the vaccine. Phew!

you’re not a liberal, therefore you’re not allowed to ever make a valid point.

You don’t have a clue what’s in the laptop, but you conclude it can’t be anything.

and the issue for many isn’t so much what’s on the laptop. It’s what the FBI and the media did to bury it right before the election. if you’re ok with the federal government and the media conspiring to bury a story in an effort to help a democrat, don’t complain if they eventually do the same thing to help a republican.

Nebe, it was a legit story, and they knew it was legit, but because they didn’t like the politics, they said that those who talked about it were spreading russian disinformation. you’re ok with that?

and the issue for many isn’t so much what’s on the laptop. It’s what the FBI and the media did to bury it right before the election

Jim keep moving the goal posts . That’s how a conspiracies works


1st it was the evidence is on the laptop. And it Would sink Biden’s campaign .. and no one took the bait.

Now it’s the the FBI hiding a story everyone read and was covered in multiple new sources .. helping a Democratic.. more deep state fantasy

Along party lines, however, the breakdown was 92% of Democrats, 68% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans.

There is no reason to believe that these gaps in vaccination rates will disappear anytime soon. According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats. In response to a more sharply worded KFF question, 23% of Republicans report that they will “definitely not” get vaccinated, compared to 11% of Independents and just 4% of Democrats.

Wouldn’t say 56% is most Republicans … But the group still has the lowest vaccination rate of any major American subgroup,

Why not? And why does it matter? The vaccine doesn't prevent you from getting Covid, and it doesn't prevent you from transmitting it.

I'm not moving the goalposts. I've said the media can be biased if they want, but the federal government can't be, or nothing works. Been saying that since day 1 on this.

It's worth knowing what's in the laptop, how much is true, if any laws were broken. You disagree that's worth knowing?

But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing compared to the FBI trying to influence the results of an election

That's not moving goal posts, nor is it whatabout-ism. It's common sense.

Jim you can’t just find a laptop and suddenly accuse it’s owner of a crime. That may be how Republicans operate but that’s not how our legal systems operate to the dismay of your universe

But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing

Just this statement shows you don’t care about due process . You’re willing to investigate people and have them prove their innocence

Sorry not how it works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim you can’t just find a laptop and suddenly accuse it’s owner of a crime. "

You accused Santos of a crime because someone you never heard of, accused him.

If someone's laptop has evidence of a crime, why can't you investigate them for that crime?

I'm not saying the Bidens committed a crime. But IF there's evidence of that on the laptop, why not investigate?

And how can it not bother you, that the FBI lied to all of us about it being Russian disinfomation? The FBI had the laptop in their possession, they'd have known in a day if it was phony or legit.

I'm not saying charge anyone with anything. But we should know what's on that laptop, and we should know what the FBI did, and why.

I wanted the Trump Russia investigation. I wanted to know what happened.

Similarly, I want to know what happened here. You seem afraid of finding out what happened. Gee, I wonder why?

The author I posted here, is someone who is respected by TIME magazine and Foxnews. So he's not a rabid partisan for either side. And he saw the documents that you and I haven't seen. And he said it's disturbing.

Let's have the hearings and find out the truth. If it's a nothingburger (and I hope it is), lets' declare that. If the Bidens or the FBI did anything wrong, let's find that out, too.

How long did we spend on the Trump Russia hoax? We can afford to spend a little energy here.

"But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing "

You're again exposed as a big fat liar. Because what I said was this:

"But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing compared to the FBI trying to influence the results of an election"

I didn't say the Bidens actions are "nothing". I said if they sold influence for money, that's nothing compared to our FBI working as operatives for the Democrat party. And it is, in fact, nothing compared to the federal government trying to influence an election.

"you don’t care about due process . You’re willing to investigate people and have them prove their innocence "

You've been eating low-IQ vitamins again, haven't you?

I want a hearing to find out the truth. That's exactly in keeping with due process.

YOU want to punish Santos based only on an allegation. THAT is contrary to due process. You wanted to punish Brett Kavanaugh based solely on an accusation (a ridiculous accusation). With Republicans, accused=guilty to you. You have shown us repeatedly that you believe exactly that.

You really, really stink at this.

You really humiliated yourself with that post. You deliberately cut off part of my sentence to make it look like I said something I never came close to saying, and people only do that when they know they can not respond to what was actually said. Then, you said that wanting an investigation is contrary to due process? That's exactly what due process is.

Shellenberger is a lifelong liberal. And he thinks we need to investigate the FBIs actions here.

But you know better. You, who are incapable of a nanosecond of impartiality.

Republican=bad, democrat=good, we get it already. And you call me a broken horse.

"not how it works"

Apparently it is how it works, because the hearings are coming.

Democrats HATE it when republicans play by the left's rules. You think only democrats are allowed to launch congressional hearings to attack their opponents? In what world does that make sense.

Nancy Pelosi kicked Republicans off house committees who she didn't like. That wasn't the way things were normally done, but that's what she did. And that was fine. So McCarthy did the same exact thing, and the left is going berserk, saying it's not fair.

To the left, "fair" means democrats fight with brass knuckles, republicans have to wear gloves. Trump put a stop to that.

Just by you trying to use santos as a victim of liberals attacks and this peach of a statement To the left, "fair" means democrats fight with brass knuckles, republicans have to wear gloves. Trump put a stop to that. shows how much of a ultra MAGA cult member we all knew you to be :1poke:

Jim thinks that the Democrats invented dirty tricks.
He’s missing Ken Clawson, Rod Shelly, Harry Dent, Lee Atwater, George Bush, the Brooks Brother riot, Cambridge Analytica.
Just ask Roger Stone.

He also thinks the Republican Party of Nassau County are liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

keep posting doctored quotes from
me wayne. stick with that. and keep
saying hat investigations of accusations, are contrary to due process. we should go right from accusation to sentencing, at least when the accused is a republican…

So let me understand the argument from the right. A warning about potentially erroneous information in a laptop of potentially questionable authenticity by the FBI, which potentially may have influence in an election is weaponizing the FBI for political reasons.

Yet in 2026 the FBI announces it will reopen the Hillary email investigation just ahead of the election, but I’m certain in the Jim and crappie man’s view that isn’t also weaponizing the FBI for the same political reasons by the timing of that announcement which did impact that election.

What’s the word for that, oh yeah hypocrisy.

The FBI was in possession of Hunter's laptop. They had the laptop.
It's the FBI. They knew it was legit, they knew it wasn't Russian disinformation. They lied to big tech, in order to suppress the story, and it's hard to believe the timing (right before the election) is a coincidence.

Here's another hypocrisy...the left spent a lot of time end energy, investigating the Trump Russia hoax. But they don't want to spend 2 seconds to see if the Bidens broke any laws, or if the FBI acted as agents of the democrat party.

"et in 2026 the FBI announces it will reopen the Hillary email investigation just ahead of the election"

Hilary mishandled the emails. Had she not chosen to do that, we wouldn't be talking about this. Her email handling should have been investigated right away, and thoroughly.

I'm not saying politics didn't play into that. And to whatever extent it did, that was wrong. But the FBI didn't fabricate the idea that she mishandled emails. The FBI did fabricate the idea that the laptop was russian disinformation. There was never any reason to believe that's what the laptop was. The obvious conclusion is that they did it to help the Biden campaign.

Elections have consequences Bob. You guys launched a politically-motivated investigation into Trump and Russia, based partly on the debunked Steele dossier. Now it's the right's turn. The laptop is legit. Only radicals liberals blind to truth are still denying that.

Democrats hate it when the republicans turn the tables and use their own tactics against them.

Senator Biden says the US Senate should refuse to allow a republican president to nominate a supreme court justice late in his second term, nobody questions it. When McConnell invokes the Biden Rule, it's a national horror.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi kicks Republicans she doesn't like, off their committees, breaking longstanding tradition that each side gets to pick who is on what committee. Kevin McCarthy does the same exact thing, and he's a weasel for doing so.

The democrats launch a massive investigation into Trump and Russia, that was their civic duty. The GOP wants to do the same exact thing to Biden, and they're awful for doing so.

It's only OK when democrats do it!!

The Special Counsel indicted 34 people—seven U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations. Now that's a hoax for sure Jim, keep that foil hat tight, otherwise your going to loose brain matter you can ill afford to loose.

nothings doctored your entire quote is still here .. and your meaning hasn't changed either .

you want Hunter and Biden investigated because you were lead to and believe they COMMITTED A CRIME but have no evidence to prove it what crimes were committed

you've got a feeling .. that seems to be Republicans evidence where was this feeling when Trump Had his children in his inner circle when They got their fast track pattens in china or Jareds 2 Billion dollar deal or In 2019, Donald Jr. and Guilfoyle jointly toured campuses, invited by venues such as the University of Florida, where they were paid $50,000 from student fees for their appearance.

All making money off Daddy but But hunter can't do that

They knew it was legit, they knew it wasn't Russian disinformation. They lied to big tech, in order to suppress the story, and it's hard to believe the timing (right before the election) is a coincidence.

Jims evidence stuff released by MUSK in tweets which have character limits of 280 and a Tucker carlson regular who speciality is environmental issues

You guys launched a politically-motivated investigation into Trump and Russia, based partly on the debunked Steele dossier.

one of jim's favorite hills to stand on

Jim ignores Trump trying to extort information from ukraine to use against Biden .. the 2nd time Trump asked a foreign country for assistance in an election

Ignorers Jan6th and all its testimonies and video evidence trump sitting on his hands for 3 plus hours and everything after with the orbit of pluto ..


Jims waiting with great enthusiasm For kevin to release all the hours of footage of Jan 6th .. so he can find show us all they were let in and it was antifa

this goes back to Jim and others logic since they didn't tie Trump directly it never happened

and they always leave this statement out

Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

There’s no real evidence the FBI misled anyone. Hunter had already been under investigation for several years which wasn’t disclosed. From the sworn testimony it looks like the FBI’s interest in a Russian hack and leak was 1) they did it en masse to help trump in 2016 and 2) they believed that Russia hacked Burisma when Hunter was there and they would use that in a similar manner. #dupedagain

Also, common sense. You have hundreds of right wing sites you know are going to run with the story. There’s no way the FBI could put a lid on it.

What Mueller wrote should indicate to you, that the purpose of the investigation is to make a conclusion. In order to make a conclusion, there must be substantial unequivocal evidence. If there is not such evidence, there is, at least in law, a presumption of innocence. If there is not sufficient evidence to indict, the matter is over for the counsel. There is no need for any comment on exoneration. That merely muddies the investigation and its purpose.

When there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy, that was not "exoneration". It was the CONCLUSION that Trump was not indictable. He might, in reality, have committed the crime, but if that can't be proven, the matter is over. By law, Trump is presumed innocent. But if you want to feel, or think, or have the opinion, that he is guilty, that's your prerogative.

As for obstruction, the duty and process for Mueller is the same. He could not find unequivocal evidence that Trump could be indicted for obstruction. It wasn't his duty to "exonerate," it was his job to CONCLUDE if Trump was indictable. He couldn't.

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

THe FBI had the laptop in its possession. The FBI knew whether or not it was a Russian hoax. What evidence did the FBI have, that it was russian disinformation.

getting fritter and facebook to bam something, is putting a lid on it. That’s where people are, his help them.

Der ich previously posted testimony from the Roth guy from twitter, he claims the fbi specifically mentioned the laptop. So if the FBI had no reason to believe the laptop was russian disinformation, but they told twitter and facebook it was, that’s misleading.

common sense

The author i posted is respected by both TIME magazine ( who called him “a hero of the environment”) and Foxnews. He saw the twitter files and says it’s disturbing.

You’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan who hasn’t seen what he has seen. Tell me why you’re more reliable than he is on this.

Because you’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\

Not really. If the special counsel cannot indict a sitting president, then there would be no reason to appoint one. And if there were unequivocal evidence to indict or prosecute, that could be stated so in the report as it was stated in vol. 1 regarding conspiracy where it was stated that there was insufficient evidence. The examples of possible obstruction in vol. 2 were not unequivocal, but could mean other than obstruction, as, I believe, Mueller stated. Therefor they could not be grounds for indictment.

If the Counsel can state insufficient, he can state sufficient, even if the DOJ policy denies him the ability to indict. Otherwise, what's the point of investigating obstruction. He can conclude, that is the point of a special counsel investigation. Leaving it up in the air is the same as saying it wasn't the responsibility of the special counsel to begin with. And throwing in the "cannot exonerate" bit is not only inconclusive, it is irresponsible, it is an example of creating an air of guilt without having to actually demonstrate guilt--which can, rightly, be perceived as a political "conclusion" rather than a legal one. Or, as another incidence of "deep state" influence or interference on government policy and or on public perception.

You’re not paying attention, and Roth said no such thing that I’ve seen.

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

The real story about Hunter Biden is that the current president hasn't fired the FBI director, called it a hoax, or tried to obstruct the investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device