Bongino illustrates how deep state inures that FISA "mistakes" won't change
 

Probably too long for JohnR, but this guy is good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHkofqzPsnk

You lost me at deep state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence, when Whitey Bulger essentially took over the Boston FBI office, everyone knew it was happening, but the DOJ leadership there was impotent to stop it. So they sent US Attorney Durham
there to clean it up. The US attorney for that office was Robert Mueller. When someone is that bad at their job, but instead of getting fired they get promoted all the way to Attorney General, how does that happen? could
that happen where you work? not at any place I’ve worked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You've been lost since Trump got elected. Deep state is just a label for the conglomeration of existing intel, criminal, and other, federal agencies. It's not some mysterious, unknown, secret cabal. Bongino was actually a part of "the deep state" for a while. The "deep state" actually is populated by mostly good, dedicated, patriotic employees who do important work to make the country secure. When a few at the top take it on themselves to decide who should be the President, they are a danger to the security of the nation, and they should be exposed, removed, prosecuted, and steps should be taken that it never happens again.

Bongino shows how the correction that is supposed to occur as a result of the Horowitz investigation may well be sabotaged. I wouldn't expect you to care about that because the Progressive media that you rely on didn't tell you about it. You know, the media that mislead you about who would 100% win in 2016, and who insisted that Trump was in Putin's pocket and "colluded" with Russia, and who consistently tie Trump to Nazis, racists, homophobes, mysogenists, etc., which supposedly makes him all of those things.

Bongino, and other non-Progressive alternative media predicted the Trump victory, as well as being nearly 100% correct about the "collusion" nonsense, pointing out many of the details that Horowitz found before Horowitz found them. He has been spot on re this stuff all the while the Progressive media were spouting nonsense.

So yeah, you're lost . . . led astray by biased reporting, commentating, and bad "deep state" actors.

Bongino was criticized by former colleagues at the Secret Service for using his Secret Service background as part of his run for political office and for his claim of having secret information based on conversations he overheard in the Obama White House.[5][6][1] A former colleague criticized him for trying to use his proximity to President Obama in his political career: "He's trying to draw attention to himself and he's hijacking the Secret Service brand.
Bongino has frequently appeared on Fox News' opinion programming and InfoWars.

Its comical to see what you see as fake and factual.

OK, so you turn to your usual ad hominem attack on the messenger rather than discussing the message. You usually go to Wickipedia (which has a leftward slant) to find info on someone you don't know anything about (which is a testament to your usual ignorance of anything outside of the MSM that you depend on) and pick whatever seems to be a negative and report it as if that's all we need to know and therefor his message is not worth hearing or commenting on.

Oh . . . some former colleagues don't like him. Whoopie. That's true of about anybody who has strong views. Nor does that little, marginally significant factoid diminish what he is saying in this video (as well neither his many other opinions, statements, books, and articles). And the rest of the Wickipedia article doesn't paint him as unreliable or untrustworthy.

There are former colleagues in the service that don't dislike him, and probably feed him some of the info that allows him to CORRECTLY analyze "deep state" activities while others in the MSM get it wrong.

But you can't ever discuss these videos. You can only and pitifully try to discredit the messenger. You can't show how what he says is not factual. You can only, somehow, try to indirectly, and ignorantly, cast some picayune aspersions that you think takes the place of rational and factual conversation. Typical strategy of losers who can't win or even engage in an honest discussion.

did you really expect anything different?

Antidote to PeteF:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qylGK8PqQM

I apparently have some influence around here, and need to be beaten back with disinformation.
Cool
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope, everything he says is verified data that, when put together, creates narratives that are antidotes to your narratives of conjecture.

Dream on
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, I don't remember my dreams when I wake. There is a dreamlike, often nightmarish, quality to many of your rants.

YouTube when no one else will give you any air time on regular TV

And the only people who watch already believe what you believe

You make these guys sound like they have proof the earth is flat

Conservatives live in a world of conspiracy and conjecture they demand 1st had knowledge from everyone but not from themselves why is that

Bongino is on "regular" TV a lot. You are not only ignorant of that, but the rest of your post is idiotic as well.

A regular on fox arguing with Geraldo trust me I have seen him



Your source materials expose you for what your not a free thinker a 1 source wonder driven by conspericy and fringe views and when exposed anyone who
Pushes back against your propaganda. We are Ignorant people classic :faga:

once again confirming my point

You haven't exposed anything. You have not commented, examined, disproved any content here as you have not done many other times. You reply to this thread, as in many others, from willful ignorance of what is presented, and make ignorant comments on something you have not examined.

Brief list of people who are always wrong about everything:
-Ben Shapiro
-Dan Bongino
-Dan Scavino Jr
-Jeanine Pirro
-Charlie Kirk
-Mark Levin
-Tucker Carlson
-James Woods
-Ryan Fournier
-Candace Owens
-Lou Dobbs
-Corey Lewandowski
-Eric Bolling
-David A. Clark Jr
-Jack Posobiec

You're wrong.

I'm not but it's Valentine's Day, find someone who looks at you the way Pence looks at Trump.

your brain is broke.

Candace Owens is wrong when she says that fatherlessness and crappy schools, are bigger obstacles for blacks, than white racism? Tell me if you think she’s wrong in that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence should be at the top of that list

His views are not fringe. They reflect and inform the views of many on the "right.

Yea Ok lets see what the Facts show

So what other shows other than Fox has he been on? I forgot he's big on INFO wars a stellar provider of the Truth or conspiracy theorist Mark Levin

I clearly know to only to listen to a snake oil salesman once
no matter how many topics or information they attach themselves to
or what Facts the say the have .. they are still in the end just snake oil salesman

Your wrong.

You have not given any relevant fact. Yes, he has appeared on regular TV other than the one you mentioned even though you implied or stated that no one would give him the time. And yes, they have been on Fox. So what? He may have been on other channels, I don't know. So what? If he had appearances on CNN, would that mean he is not a snake oil salesman? Fox, regardless of your opinion of it, is a major news channel. And they have gotten a whole lot more right than CNN, or NBC, or CBS, or ABC, in regards to the various investigations and impeachment of Trump.

Info Wars is not "regular TV" so I don't know why you added it as a rebuttal to Bongino appearing on "regular" TV. And though it has had some far out conspiracy theories, it has also had relevant commentary.

Mark Levin is not a conspiracy theorist. Above all, he is a constitutional lawyer and knows a hell-of-a lot more about it than you ever will, and way more than most of the talking heads on "regular" TV.

He and Bongino are not in the least "fringe." They are smack dab in the center of Conservative and Constitutionalist ideology. And they have called a lot of the outcomes of the above investigations and impeachment and have given the correct analyses of why.

What you refer to as "regular" television, as if it were somehow superior and filled with truth and wisdom, as well as the Progressive movement (ergo the Dem Party), have demonstrably shown themselves to be the real snake oil salesmen.

And you're a prime example of the mushy minds they produce.

If you opened up your unfree limited source mind to the huge range of information provided on the internet (while it lasts-before the left squeezes the life out of it), you might have a more balanced, real, inclusive, diverse, and accurate view of what, who, and why.

Bongino lays out the evidence that the whole thing was initially about getting rid of Flynn. The argument begins in earnest at just before minute 27:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

The last few days have been truly enlightening

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...l-flynn-224311

Regarding that there is this article in The Federalist by Margot Cleveland that expands on the information revealed by the new documents. Especially interesting and more so than any possible Brady violation is the apparent violation of what's called Giglio disclosures:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/27...ut-to-implode/

the corruption and the weaponization of government agencies for political purposes under obama is very troubling

Gen. Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI not because he was framed but because he got a sweet-ass deal to avoid massive criminal liability for being an unregistered agent of a foreign power while working for a presidential transition. He also avoided his son’s prosecution.
While in the White House, he unequivocally lied to both the Vice President of the United States and to the chief of staff to the President of the United States about his interactions with the Russian ambassador. And he was fired for it.
Nothing that has come out suggests the facts that he admitted to in the context of his plea are untrue or that his plea was coerced in any way. Nothing that was done to Flynn by the FBI isn’t done to criminal suspects all over the country.
If you’re outraged by the FBI’s tactics with Flynn, keep in mind that they do these things every day against drug dealers, gang members, and terrorists. Except those people are black, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern—not “lock ‘er up” lily white.
So yes, Trump* might pardon Flynn. But if you think Flynn is about to be “cleared,” sober up. Because while you might not know much about federal law enforcement and it’s standard practices, Judge Emmet Sullivan does. And he won’t be surprised by these supposed “revelations.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clicked the video again , I love the intro. The Truth About American on a show that's
Not immune to the facts... sweet

Somewhere in Bing Bong's world, the circumstances have gotten missed. Not only did the FBI discover that Mike Flynn had called up a hostile foreign government and told them not to worry about being punished for tampering in our election, but it was also already public that Mike Flynn may have been secretly working for Turkey while he was claiming to represent Trump*s national security interests. Flynn would go on to testify, under oath and before a grand jury, that indeed, he had been knowingly pursuing a secret deal with Turkey at the time he sat in on Trump*s first national security briefing. The entire time, he testified, he knew that he was really working for Turkey even though he and his firm went to some efforts to hide that fact.

The FBI might be excused for believing that Flynn would be treated according to one of two ways: firing or prosecution. Because they had Flynn on tape calling up a country that had just attacked our own and told them not to worry about being punished. And they had good reason to believe he was still hiding details about having worked for a frenemy government during a period he retained security clearance. In a sane world, when there’s clear evidence the National Security Advisor has done those things, firing or prosecution are the most obvious options.

In Trump*s world — in the world of the entire Trump*lican party, it seems — those aren’t the only two options. In Trump*s world, it is totally natural to keep someone in charge of the entire country’s national security even after he had called up a country that had just attacked us and said no big deal while actively hiding his relationship with another foreign country.

And that is why Mike Flynn likely won’t ever go to prison: because in Trump*s world, the guy who helps out the country that just attacked us is a hero, not a national security threat.

If Flynn was the traitor you try to make him out to be with the usual non-specific or generalized "facts," it would not be necessary to go outside of Protocol as Comey admitted, and try to catch him in a perjury trap, and threaten to imprison his son if he didn't "cooperate." He should have been charged and convicted of espionage, or treason, or something other than the sleaze they tried to get him with. I don't think they actually thought that he was a traitor, nor that he even actually lied. Just my opinion derived from, firstly, the FBI interrogaters initially saying they didn't think he was lying, then by the tactics they used. And ultimately because it is becoming more apparent that they knew the whole Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative was politically driven by false information, and continuing the investigation into it long after they knew it was a hoax.

And ultimately because it is becoming more apparent that whatever makes your narrative work is what you assume.
Because people who are interrogating or negotiating never plan their strategy. They just blunder along like Trump*
Flynn plead guilty, and just like Zelensky did when he was asked if he was coerced or pressured, he said no.

Flynn was compromised, because Russia knew he had lied and therefore had leverage over him. As the NSA, he was in a position to make decisions against the interests of the U.S. Sally Yates recommended the WH remove him. The FBI’s goal is to neutralize threats against the U.S.
Russia knew Flynn lied because VP Pence went on national television and said Flynn had personally told him he had no contact with Russia regarding sanctions. Which was not true.

Why is this so complicated?

I should add that ANY REGULAR PERSON would be denied even the lowest-level security clearance if the FBI discovered behavior like that of Flynn’s during a background check. He should have never gotten this job to begin with.

That is being determined. I have heard enough narratives related to the Mueller investigation that turned out not to be true. You had this unshakeable certainty about all facets of the total narrative that were being woven for public consumption. You have always "verified" the accuracy of the narrative by repeating the narrative. In long, detailed, point by point repetition of the narrative.

Better to wait for the final verdict.

Just to be clear

The below is true or false?

Judge Sullivan: “Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by the FBI?”

Michael Flynn: "No, your honor. I was aware that lying to the FBI was a crime.

Judge Sullivan: "Do you believe that you were entrapped by the FBI?"

Michael Flynn: "No."

The below is true or false?

Zelensky: “There was no pressure or blackmail from the U.S. I had no idea the military aid was held up [at the time of his July 25 call with Trump]. When I did find out, I raised it with [Vice President] Pence at a meeting in Warsaw”

Just to be clear, details may be true but the overall picture being portrayed may be false.

And, to complicate the picture, the real and ultimate target of the FBI may not even have been Flynn.

NEWS:The guy who wasn't told he needed to wear a mask, VP Pence tells reporters he's "inclined" to believe Gen. Flynn's lying to him was "unintentional."

Pence: "I’m inclined more than ever to believe that what he communicated to me back during transition was unintentional and that he was not attempting to misrepresent facts."