Here’s what so-called FBI agents really think of you

[Zander]

Ironically, FBI employees are middle class government drones. Working in cubicles for $60k a year while paying down massive student loans. No wonder they are so angry!

They should invest in mirrors.

 

[BluesLegend]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican who comes and eats there?

We the people are their boss you dimwit. If those are their opinions then we'll fire them and they can go stand in line at the unemployment office.

 

[Norman]

We’ve been telling you for years that law enforcement is full of bias. Welcome to Black Lives Matter!

Oh I forgot . Cons are fine wh jackboots so long as they target brown people .

FBI is law enforcement?

But yes, they seem to have been biased towards the black president, just like law enforcement is more willing to look away on the crimes of the blacks.

 

[hadit]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

Foolishly expressing said opinions when you are in a position of power and expected to maintain some semblance of impartiality undermines the authority of your actions.

Depends to whom you are expressing them. If you express them in a public place like Facebook or a newspaper or a forum you might have a point. This seems to be a personal conversation.

If it was conducted on official government hardware using official channels, not so much. I would want the people with a lot of influence over something like this to be held to the same kind of standard we hold jurors, namely, that any opinions are kept totally to themselves. At the very least, it brings into question their authority.

Thought experiment. Let's say the coroner in the Ferguson case had a conversation with his lover in which he expressed his desire to find evidence that Brown gave the cop no choice but to shoot him? Further suppose that he stated that he would do what he could to clear the cop. Do you think his conclusion exonerating the cop would be accepted by a public anxious to find evidence supporting their anti-cop animus?

He could be just as impartial and meticulous in his work as is humanly possible, and that conversation would make his conclusion meaningless. Likewise, this "private" conversation calls into question everything the agents, and by extension, the agency, did.

 

[forkup]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

Foolishly expressing said opinions when you are in a position of power and expected to maintain some semblance of impartiality undermines the authority of your actions.

Depends to whom you are expressing them. If you express them in a public place like Facebook or a newspaper or a forum you might have a point. This seems to be a personal conversation.

If it was conducted on official government hardware using official channels, not so much. I would want the people with a lot of influence over something like this to be held to the same kind of standard we hold jurors, namely, that any opinions are kept totally to themselves. At the very least, it brings into question their authority.

Thought experiment. Let's say the coroner in the Ferguson case had a conversation with his lover in which he expressed his desire to find evidence that Brown gave the cop no choice but to shoot him? Further suppose that he stated that he would do what he could to clear the cop. Do you think his conclusion exonerating the cop would be accepted by a public anxious to find evidence supporting their anti-cop animus?

He could be just as impartial and meticulous in his work as is humanly possible, and that conversation would make his conclusion meaningless. Likewise, this "private" conversation calls into question everything the agents, and by extension, the agency, did.

-Nobody keeps their opinions just to themselves. They used government hardware, but as the conversation clearly indicates it wasn't used to proclaim policy or even to be read by anyone but the 2 people holding the conversation. If I use my work e-mail to talk about politics to a friend, does that say anything about my ability to do my job? I'm sure that all cops hate pedophiles, do you therefor accept a claim of bias by a child molester? I'm betting you wouldn't accept that defense.
As to your thought experiment. It seems to be a not equivalent analogy. Because nothing in the conversation in the OP suggests they were tampering with evidence, or doing anything wrong even. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong in the Strozk case, which you are referring wasn't he immediately removed from the probe by Mueller the moment he, not the public learned about the affair. In other words if the public, and with the public I mean the right's only defense is that the FBI is biased so therefore Mueller is tainted, shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance were Mueller acted in any biased manner, or show a clear link between the FBI and the probe?
- What I find greatly disturbing about this entire thing is the sheer gall of it all. The president of the United States knows Mueller is going to eventually release his findings. His only defense will be if he can convince enough of the populace that those findings are part of huge conspiracy thereby giving congress the opportunity to ignore those findings. This OP as so many others are a part of that ploy and it frankly disgusts me. After Trump the US will have to pick up the pieces. It will have to trust that the agencies are capable and trustworthy to do their assigned jobs. The GOP and POTUS seem to not care about any of it as long as they keep power. It is telling that you see more and more people on this forum asking for dictatorial powers for Trump, something I didn't see by any person on the left during the Obama era. it is telling POTUS is suggesting self pardon.I don't know,what does that tell you?

 

[Timmy]

We’ve been telling you for years that law enforcement is full of bias. Welcome to Black Lives Matter!

Oh I forgot . Cons are fine wh jackboots so long as they target brown people .

FBI is law enforcement?

But yes, they seem to have been biased towards the black president, just like law enforcement is more willing to look away on the crimes of the blacks.

FBI is the pinnacle of law enforcement .

In what bizzaro world does law enforcement “look the other way” when it comes to blacks !?

 

[Norman]

We’ve been telling you for years that law enforcement is full of bias. Welcome to Black Lives Matter!

Oh I forgot . Cons are fine wh jackboots so long as they target brown people .

FBI is law enforcement?

But yes, they seem to have been biased towards the black president, just like law enforcement is more willing to look away on the crimes of the blacks.

FBI is the pinnacle of law enforcement .

In what bizzaro world does law enforcement “look the other way” when it comes to blacks !?

There were several reports released documenting that the police do not discriminate.

Rather, it's the blacks that do to the order of 10x more crime. Police don't discriminate on catching any criminals.

This couldn't possibly have nothing to do with the 70%+ fatherless homes that are the "big success", according to leftists.

 

[hadit]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

Foolishly expressing said opinions when you are in a position of power and expected to maintain some semblance of impartiality undermines the authority of your actions.

Depends to whom you are expressing them. If you express them in a public place like Facebook or a newspaper or a forum you might have a point. This seems to be a personal conversation.

If it was conducted on official government hardware using official channels, not so much. I would want the people with a lot of influence over something like this to be held to the same kind of standard we hold jurors, namely, that any opinions are kept totally to themselves. At the very least, it brings into question their authority.

Thought experiment. Let's say the coroner in the Ferguson case had a conversation with his lover in which he expressed his desire to find evidence that Brown gave the cop no choice but to shoot him? Further suppose that he stated that he would do what he could to clear the cop. Do you think his conclusion exonerating the cop would be accepted by a public anxious to find evidence supporting their anti-cop animus?

He could be just as impartial and meticulous in his work as is humanly possible, and that conversation would make his conclusion meaningless. Likewise, this "private" conversation calls into question everything the agents, and by extension, the agency, did.

-Nobody keeps their opinions just to themselves. They used government hardware, but as the conversation clearly indicates it wasn't used to proclaim policy or even to be read by anyone but the 2 people holding the conversation. If I use my work e-mail to talk about politics to a friend, does that say anything about my ability to do my job? I'm sure that all cops hate pedophiles, do you therefor accept a claim of bias by a child molester? I'm betting you wouldn't accept that defense.
As to your thought experiment. It seems to be a not equivalent analogy. Because nothing in the conversation in the OP suggests they were tampering with evidence, or doing anything wrong even. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong in the Strozk case, which you are referring wasn't he immediately removed from the probe by Mueller the moment he, not the public learned about the affair. In other words if the public, and with the public I mean the right's only defense is that the FBI is biased so therefore Mueller is tainted, shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance were Mueller acted in any biased manner, or show a clear link between the FBI and the probe?
- What I find greatly disturbing about this entire thing is the sheer gall of it all. The president of the United States knows Mueller is going to eventually release his findings. His only defense will be if he can convince enough of the populace that those findings are part of huge conspiracy thereby giving congress the opportunity to ignore those findings. This OP as so many others are a part of that ploy and it frankly disgusts me. After Trump the US will have to pick up the pieces. It will have to trust that the agencies are capable and trustworthy to do their assigned jobs. The GOP and POTUS seem to not care about any of it as long as they keep power. It is telling that you see more and more people on this forum asking for dictatorial powers for Trump, something I didn't see by any person on the left during the Obama era. it is telling POTUS is suggesting self pardon.I don't know,what does that tell you?

The thought experiment is sound. Remember, I said that the coroner could be as meticulous as possible and produce no bias, but the perception would destroy his credibility.

Even if the FBI and the investigators did everything proper to mitigate any damage, it can't be ignored.

Finally, Trump is not a dictator and never will be one. There are just too many roadblocks set up in our system of government.

 

[forkup]

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

Foolishly expressing said opinions when you are in a position of power and expected to maintain some semblance of impartiality undermines the authority of your actions.

Depends to whom you are expressing them. If you express them in a public place like Facebook or a newspaper or a forum you might have a point. This seems to be a personal conversation.

If it was conducted on official government hardware using official channels, not so much. I would want the people with a lot of influence over something like this to be held to the same kind of standard we hold jurors, namely, that any opinions are kept totally to themselves. At the very least, it brings into question their authority.

Thought experiment. Let's say the coroner in the Ferguson case had a conversation with his lover in which he expressed his desire to find evidence that Brown gave the cop no choice but to shoot him? Further suppose that he stated that he would do what he could to clear the cop. Do you think his conclusion exonerating the cop would be accepted by a public anxious to find evidence supporting their anti-cop animus?

He could be just as impartial and meticulous in his work as is humanly possible, and that conversation would make his conclusion meaningless. Likewise, this "private" conversation calls into question everything the agents, and by extension, the agency, did.

-Nobody keeps their opinions just to themselves. They used government hardware, but as the conversation clearly indicates it wasn't used to proclaim policy or even to be read by anyone but the 2 people holding the conversation. If I use my work e-mail to talk about politics to a friend, does that say anything about my ability to do my job? I'm sure that all cops hate pedophiles, do you therefor accept a claim of bias by a child molester? I'm betting you wouldn't accept that defense.
As to your thought experiment. It seems to be a not equivalent analogy. Because nothing in the conversation in the OP suggests they were tampering with evidence, or doing anything wrong even. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong in the Strozk case, which you are referring wasn't he immediately removed from the probe by Mueller the moment he, not the public learned about the affair. In other words if the public, and with the public I mean the right's only defense is that the FBI is biased so therefore Mueller is tainted, shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance were Mueller acted in any biased manner, or show a clear link between the FBI and the probe?
- What I find greatly disturbing about this entire thing is the sheer gall of it all. The president of the United States knows Mueller is going to eventually release his findings. His only defense will be if he can convince enough of the populace that those findings are part of huge conspiracy thereby giving congress the opportunity to ignore those findings. This OP as so many others are a part of that ploy and it frankly disgusts me. After Trump the US will have to pick up the pieces. It will have to trust that the agencies are capable and trustworthy to do their assigned jobs. The GOP and POTUS seem to not care about any of it as long as they keep power. It is telling that you see more and more people on this forum asking for dictatorial powers for Trump, something I didn't see by any person on the left during the Obama era. it is telling POTUS is suggesting self pardon.I don't know,what does that tell you?

The thought experiment is sound. Remember, I said that the coroner could be as meticulous as possible and produce no bias, but the perception would destroy his credibility.

Even if the FBI and the investigators did everything proper to mitigate any damage, it can't be ignored.

Finally, Trump is not a dictator and never will be one. There are just too many roadblocks set up in our system of government.

First in your example the coroner is expressing a desire to find evidence.Give me one example were someone investigating a crime doesn't want to find evidence. Isn't that the whole point of investigating? I'm pretty sure someone trying to convict a murderer wants to find evidence to prove it by example. What is wrong with that?
Secondly the rights claim goes further then that even. It's suggesting that because of the coroner expressing the desire to find evidence. All cop shooting investigations are by
definition invalid because one person expressed the desire to find evidence.
Thirdly unless you have been living under a rock Trump is at least attempting to remove those roadblocks. Congress usually the first of those roadblocks is all in with Trump, including attacking the FBI. The judiciary besides being led by conservatives is also under a constant barrage of Trump citing the Russian "witchhunt". They rely on congress to protect them, something they as stated before have no interest in doing. The press has been another one of those checks that has been under attack from the get go. It's come so far that those on the right are perfectly willing to cite fake news even when confronted by tape confirming the reporting. The only actual roadblock I can see is the military. Although I don't know if they would be willing to go against orders if the Commander in chief would issue them. What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

 

[hadit]

Foolishly expressing said opinions when you are in a position of power and expected to maintain some semblance of impartiality undermines the authority of your actions.

Depends to whom you are expressing them. If you express them in a public place like Facebook or a newspaper or a forum you might have a point. This seems to be a personal conversation.

If it was conducted on official government hardware using official channels, not so much. I would want the people with a lot of influence over something like this to be held to the same kind of standard we hold jurors, namely, that any opinions are kept totally to themselves. At the very least, it brings into question their authority.

Thought experiment. Let's say the coroner in the Ferguson case had a conversation with his lover in which he expressed his desire to find evidence that Brown gave the cop no choice but to shoot him? Further suppose that he stated that he would do what he could to clear the cop. Do you think his conclusion exonerating the cop would be accepted by a public anxious to find evidence supporting their anti-cop animus?

He could be just as impartial and meticulous in his work as is humanly possible, and that conversation would make his conclusion meaningless. Likewise, this "private" conversation calls into question everything the agents, and by extension, the agency, did.

-Nobody keeps their opinions just to themselves. They used government hardware, but as the conversation clearly indicates it wasn't used to proclaim policy or even to be read by anyone but the 2 people holding the conversation. If I use my work e-mail to talk about politics to a friend, does that say anything about my ability to do my job? I'm sure that all cops hate pedophiles, do you therefor accept a claim of bias by a child molester? I'm betting you wouldn't accept that defense.
As to your thought experiment. It seems to be a not equivalent analogy. Because nothing in the conversation in the OP suggests they were tampering with evidence, or doing anything wrong even. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong in the Strozk case, which you are referring wasn't he immediately removed from the probe by Mueller the moment he, not the public learned about the affair. In other words if the public, and with the public I mean the right's only defense is that the FBI is biased so therefore Mueller is tainted, shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance were Mueller acted in any biased manner, or show a clear link between the FBI and the probe?
- What I find greatly disturbing about this entire thing is the sheer gall of it all. The president of the United States knows Mueller is going to eventually release his findings. His only defense will be if he can convince enough of the populace that those findings are part of huge conspiracy thereby giving congress the opportunity to ignore those findings. This OP as so many others are a part of that ploy and it frankly disgusts me. After Trump the US will have to pick up the pieces. It will have to trust that the agencies are capable and trustworthy to do their assigned jobs. The GOP and POTUS seem to not care about any of it as long as they keep power. It is telling that you see more and more people on this forum asking for dictatorial powers for Trump, something I didn't see by any person on the left during the Obama era. it is telling POTUS is suggesting self pardon.I don't know,what does that tell you?

The thought experiment is sound. Remember, I said that the coroner could be as meticulous as possible and produce no bias, but the perception would destroy his credibility.

Even if the FBI and the investigators did everything proper to mitigate any damage, it can't be ignored.

Finally, Trump is not a dictator and never will be one. There are just too many roadblocks set up in our system of government.

First in your example the coroner is expressing a desire to find evidence.Give me one example were someone investigating a crime doesn't want to find evidence. Isn't that the whole point of investigating? I'm pretty sure someone trying to convict a murderer wants to find evidence to prove it by example. What is wrong with that?
Secondly the rights claim goes further then that even. It's suggesting that because of the coroner expressing the desire to find evidence. All cop shooting investigations are by
definition invalid because one person expressed the desire to find evidence.
Thirdly unless you have been living under a rock Trump is at least attempting to remove those roadblocks. Congress usually the first of those roadblocks is all in with Trump, including attacking the FBI. The judiciary besides being led by conservatives is also under a constant barrage of Trump citing the Russian "witchhunt". They rely on congress to protect them, something they as stated before have no interest in doing. The press has been another one of those checks that has been under attack from the get go. It's come so far that those on the right are perfectly willing to cite fake news even when confronted by tape confirming the reporting. The only actual roadblock I can see is the military. Although I don't know if they would be willing to go against orders if the Commander in chief would issue them. What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

First, the desire to find evidence is not the problem, because I specified that the coroner is looking for exculpatory evidence, which means he wants to clear the cop, not find out what really happened.

Second, of course bad apples make the whole batch suspect. When you find one, you have to check the others to see if they are effected too. Same in this case. If two influential agents are determined to prevent Trump from becoming president, it calls into question all of the others.

Third, Trump naturally protests the way media outlets treat him. They make no pretense of impartiality when they spew their hate. Obama did the same thing, if you will recall, attacking FOX News because they weren't sufficiently fawning towards him. Relax, he's never going to be a dictator.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

From what I can see they didn't say a single word about me.

 

[forkup]

Depends to whom you are expressing them. If you express them in a public place like Facebook or a newspaper or a forum you might have a point. This seems to be a personal conversation.

If it was conducted on official government hardware using official channels, not so much. I would want the people with a lot of influence over something like this to be held to the same kind of standard we hold jurors, namely, that any opinions are kept totally to themselves. At the very least, it brings into question their authority.

Thought experiment. Let's say the coroner in the Ferguson case had a conversation with his lover in which he expressed his desire to find evidence that Brown gave the cop no choice but to shoot him? Further suppose that he stated that he would do what he could to clear the cop. Do you think his conclusion exonerating the cop would be accepted by a public anxious to find evidence supporting their anti-cop animus?

He could be just as impartial and meticulous in his work as is humanly possible, and that conversation would make his conclusion meaningless. Likewise, this "private" conversation calls into question everything the agents, and by extension, the agency, did.

-Nobody keeps their opinions just to themselves. They used government hardware, but as the conversation clearly indicates it wasn't used to proclaim policy or even to be read by anyone but the 2 people holding the conversation. If I use my work e-mail to talk about politics to a friend, does that say anything about my ability to do my job? I'm sure that all cops hate pedophiles, do you therefor accept a claim of bias by a child molester? I'm betting you wouldn't accept that defense.
As to your thought experiment. It seems to be a not equivalent analogy. Because nothing in the conversation in the OP suggests they were tampering with evidence, or doing anything wrong even. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong in the Strozk case, which you are referring wasn't he immediately removed from the probe by Mueller the moment he, not the public learned about the affair. In other words if the public, and with the public I mean the right's only defense is that the FBI is biased so therefore Mueller is tainted, shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance were Mueller acted in any biased manner, or show a clear link between the FBI and the probe?
- What I find greatly disturbing about this entire thing is the sheer gall of it all. The president of the United States knows Mueller is going to eventually release his findings. His only defense will be if he can convince enough of the populace that those findings are part of huge conspiracy thereby giving congress the opportunity to ignore those findings. This OP as so many others are a part of that ploy and it frankly disgusts me. After Trump the US will have to pick up the pieces. It will have to trust that the agencies are capable and trustworthy to do their assigned jobs. The GOP and POTUS seem to not care about any of it as long as they keep power. It is telling that you see more and more people on this forum asking for dictatorial powers for Trump, something I didn't see by any person on the left during the Obama era. it is telling POTUS is suggesting self pardon.I don't know,what does that tell you?

The thought experiment is sound. Remember, I said that the coroner could be as meticulous as possible and produce no bias, but the perception would destroy his credibility.

Even if the FBI and the investigators did everything proper to mitigate any damage, it can't be ignored.

Finally, Trump is not a dictator and never will be one. There are just too many roadblocks set up in our system of government.

First in your example the coroner is expressing a desire to find evidence.Give me one example were someone investigating a crime doesn't want to find evidence. Isn't that the whole point of investigating? I'm pretty sure someone trying to convict a murderer wants to find evidence to prove it by example. What is wrong with that?
Secondly the rights claim goes further then that even. It's suggesting that because of the coroner expressing the desire to find evidence. All cop shooting investigations are by
definition invalid because one person expressed the desire to find evidence.
Thirdly unless you have been living under a rock Trump is at least attempting to remove those roadblocks. Congress usually the first of those roadblocks is all in with Trump, including attacking the FBI. The judiciary besides being led by conservatives is also under a constant barrage of Trump citing the Russian "witchhunt". They rely on congress to protect them, something they as stated before have no interest in doing. The press has been another one of those checks that has been under attack from the get go. It's come so far that those on the right are perfectly willing to cite fake news even when confronted by tape confirming the reporting. The only actual roadblock I can see is the military. Although I don't know if they would be willing to go against orders if the Commander in chief would issue them. What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

First, the desire to find evidence is not the problem, because I specified that the coroner is looking for exculpatory evidence, which means he wants to clear the cop, not find out what really happened.

Second, of course bad apples make the whole batch suspect. When you find one, you have to check the others to see if they are effected too. Same in this case. If two influential agents are determined to prevent Trump from becoming president, it calls into question all of the others.

Third, Trump naturally protests the way media outlets treat him. They make no pretense of impartiality when they spew their hate. Obama did the same thing, if you will recall, attacking FOX News because they weren't sufficiently fawning towards him. Relax, he's never going to be a dictator.

-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.

What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.

 

[Siete]

Trump should love the Feds - they have hooker parties too.

 

[busybee01]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

Roseanne isn't allowed an opinion, so neither are investigating agents in the FBI that were responsible for both the Hillary email scandal matter and the Russian Collusion investigation.

Yes they are. Everyone has a bias and anyone who says they don't is a liar. The question is whether their bias prevents them from conducting a unbiased investigation. There is no evidence of bias in the investigation.

 

[busybee01]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

That FBI agent is mostly right. The masses stupidly think that Trump is going to bring back jobs that are not coming back. The stupid vote went for Trump and it is amazing how stupid smart people sound when defending Trump.

 

[mudwhistle]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

Roseanne isn't allowed an opinion, so neither are investigating agents in the FBI that were responsible for both the Hillary email scandal matter and the Russian Collusion investigation.

Yes they are. Everyone has a bias and anyone who says they don't is a liar. The question is whether their bias prevents them from conducting a unbiased investigation. There is no evidence of bias in the investigation.

Bullshit.
The simple fact that Hillary was allowed to protect evidence from discovery, i.e., cell phones, laptops, tablets, because the FBI was afraid of finding other crimes.
The fact that she was allowed to be questioned with other witnesses present, which is never done.
The fact that Comey was allowed to make recommendations not to indict, and that is as far as it went.
James Comey's job is to lead the investigation and hand over any evidence to the AG to allow them to decide whether or not to press charges. He's not entitled to voice his opinion on whether or not to bring indictments.

This was all spelled out in the I.G. Report.

 

[Siete]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

That FBI agent is mostly right. The masses stupidly think that Trump is going to bring back jobs that are not coming back. The stupid vote went for Trump and it is amazing how stupid smart people sound when defending Trump.

Hillary can do everything - shes the most powerful person on the planet - in fact, she owns every simpleton RW in the country and they cant stop her, NEVER ,EVER,EVER.

SNICK~

 

[Moonglow]

The Framers warned us about a standing army.

That is all.

Give them seats.

 

[Moonglow]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

That FBI agent is mostly right. The masses stupidly think that Trump is going to bring back jobs that are not coming back. The stupid vote went for Trump and it is amazing how stupid smart people sound when defending Trump.

Hillary can do everything - shes the most powerful person on the planet - in fact, she owns every simpleton RW in the country and they cant stop her, NEVER ,EVER,EVER.

SNICK~

Shhh, she beams her mind control ray 24/7. Even Trump obeys..

 

[Natural Citizen]

Give them seats.

Did you snitch on my cartoon the other day?