I'll Never Be The Same After This

[Edgetho]

That's what Asst FBI Director Dan Bongino just posted on his Officialist of Official Twitter Account.

FBI Deputy Director Bongino vows to reveal 'truth' in cryptic social media post

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino wrote in a cryptic social media post that he will "never be the same" after what he has learned during his tenure with the bureau. He did not give any specifics.

www.foxnews.com

I have no clue what he's talking about. Not sure anybody else does either. I also have no idea when he's going to tell us.

Not even sure this is deserving of a thread right now. But I saw it, thought it was intriguing and wanted to get some other people's thoughts on it.

I suspect it's going to be a blockbuster reveal. One that might not please a lot of people. Maybe even including me. Bongino has proven to be something of a maverick so we're just going to have to wait and see. Maybe he'll be 'talked down'. We shall see

 

[mudwhistle]

That's what Asst FBI Director Dan Bongino just posted on his Officialist of Official Twitter Account.

FBI Deputy Director Bongino vows to reveal 'truth' in cryptic social media post

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino wrote in a cryptic social media post that he will "never be the same" after what he has learned during his tenure with the bureau. He did not give any specifics.

www.foxnews.com

I have no clue what he's talking about. Not sure anybody else does either. I also have no idea when he's going to tell us.

Not even sure this is deserving of a thread right now. But I saw it, thought it was intriguing and wanted to get some other people's thoughts on it.

I suspect it's going to be a blockbuster reveal. One that might not please a lot of people. Maybe even including me. Bongino has proven to be something of a maverick so we're just going to have to wait and see. Maybe he'll be 'talked down'. We shall see

Try imagining the worst thing possible and you'll understand what Bongino has seen.

Shit has been going on that is literally beyond belief.

I think what bothers Bongino the most is he thinks these degenerate bastards will never see one day in a court of law.

 

[Oddball]

 

[DGS49]

I believe that Bongino is a straight shooter, and wouldn't publish something like this unless there was a serious basis for the comment.

Could it be the large number of high profile movers and shakers who spent time with Epstein? Some people that no one would ever expect?

Or maybe he is just dangling fruit for the tell-all book he hopes to publish shortly after he leaves government service. He wouldn't be the first to do that.

 

[Edgetho]

Try imagining the worst thing possible and you'll understand what Bongino has seen.

Shit has been going on that is literally beyond belief.

I think what bothers Bongino the most is he thinks these degenerate bastards will never see one day in a court of law.

So you believe, as do I, that it's more than One Thing. That he has a whole list of things that dimocraps are doing to bring down our Republic?

And more than few Republicans as well. I think that's what has him depressed and angry. We expect scumbaggery from dimocraps. That's who they are. But when it's Republicans too, then it starts to get to you.

 

[percysunshine]

View attachment 1141222

Brenan and Comey's actions we already know about could easily explain that post.

 

[MisterBeale]

If it ain't related to this;

Post in thread 'Whitney Webb: No Epstein release because'

Jul 26, 2025

Whitney Webb DROPS Damning Report​

Jul 24, 2025

First Friends: How “Italy’s Donald Trump” Introduced Naomi Campbell to Jeffrey Epstein​

byWhitney Webb
July 21, 2025
29 minute read

How "Italy's Donald Trump" Introduced Naomi Campbell to Jeffrey Epstein

With the Trump administration having mismanaged the release of new information about the Jeffrey Epstein case, Unlimited Hangout investigates some important yet largely unknown players in the Epstein network whose close ties to Donald Trump may explain the government’s reticence to “release...

unlimitedhangout.com

". . . Epstein’s black book of contacts, arguably now one of the most infamous contact books in the world, contains many names...

• MisterBeale

• 

It is more than likely bullshit.

 

[MisterBeale]

Brenan and Comey's actions we already know about could easily explain that post.

The SCOTUS has already ruled that type of shit is legal.

W. did that to lie us into war with Iraq. While loathsome, it ain't nothing new.

Lawyers would have to prove "intent" in order to convict, which would be impossible.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I believe that Bongino is a straight shooter, and wouldn't publish something like this unless there was a serious basis for the comment.

Could it be the large number of high profile movers and shakers who spent time with Epstein? Some people that no one would ever expect?

Or maybe he is just dangling fruit for the tell-all book he hopes to publish shortly after he leaves government service. He wouldn't be the first to do that.

if his words were to be taken as being transparent and honest, I suspect that he is aware of real, legitimate abuses by powerful people of the young and vulnerable, and, having it covered up or worse.

One can see a list of 200 names and ascertain that "well, 80 of these are just throw in names, people he tried to set up for compromising photos for blackmail purposes etc". However, from the directness of his posting he is probably alluding to some people who did FAR worse.

There will many wealthy people who Epstein went after who didn't go to an island or pursue pedophelia. This is what people should expect. Him just being in peoples orbit was to build credibility for him while hopefully bearing real fruit for his operation.

Then there are the willing and eager powerful and wealthy whom he recorded in their sick acts for serious profiteering in the future. That is probably related to this post if I were to guess.

 

[percysunshine]

The SCOTUS has already ruled that type of shit is legal.

W. did that to lie us into war with Iraq. While loathsome, it ain't nothing new.

Lawyers would have to prove "intent" in order to convict, which would be impossible.

So, they are going to get away with it....hence the post.

 

[mudwhistle]

So you believe, as do I, that it's more than One Thing. That he has a whole list of things that dimocraps are doing to bring down our Republic?

And more than few Republicans as well. I think that's what has him depressed and angry. We expect scumbaggery from dimocraps. That's who they are. But when it's Republicans too, then it starts to get to you.

I'm suspicious of anyone who spends more than 6 years in Washington.

 

[Donald H]

View attachment 1141222

That's really the only clue to what he's talking about.

I'm pretty sure that his words have to be suggesting that there are going to be arrests.

A guess on who? Those who are the most involved in the Epstein controversy.

You? Any idea?

(admittedly, my guess is a very big step for a fascist regime in its infancy.)

 

[mudwhistle]

So, they are going to get away with it....hence the post.

The reason he feels they're going to get away with is because the courts in Washington D.C. are so corrupt that judges won't allow them to be punished.

 

[Edgetho]

The SCOTUS has already ruled that type of shit is legal.

Cite the case, Please.

W. did that to lie us into war with Iraq. While loathsome, it ain't nothing new.

That is a not even close to the truth. Bush got fooled by Saddam just like Iran did. After we kicked Iraq's ass the first time, their Military was degraded to the point that Iran could have easily invaded and conquered them. Saddam wasn't worried about the US, he knew we had no intentions of staying. Saddam was worried about Iran. So he invented his "I have WMDs and if you **** with me, I'll use them!"

It worked. He got the whole world, including our vaunted "Intelligence" Agencies to believe him. NOT only did the CIA believe him, so did Mossad, so did MI6, so did Pakistan's ISI (definitely the best Intel Agency in the Region. BY FAR) so did Russia, so did everybody.

Y'know, 20-20 hindsight gets really tedious after a while

Lawyers would have to prove "intent" in order to convict, which would be impossible.

Another misrepresentation. Boy, you're getting a reputation.

Intent doesn't have to be proven, "Reckless Disregard" is more than enough to send you to prison for life. As is "Should have known".

Stop watching crime dramas on TV

 

[mudwhistle]

The SCOTUS has already ruled that type of shit is legal.

W. did that to lie us into war with Iraq. While loathsome, it ain't nothing new.

Lawyers would have to prove "intent" in order to convict, which would be impossible.

Intent is never a proper consideration when prosecuting a crime.
If intent was a good enough excuse then every cop that pulls you over has to ask for your intent why you broke traffic laws. "Oh....I didn't know that speeding was against the law!"
The same goes for any other law that is broken.
The intent is only considered in in murder cases where they decide the level of criminality, and in sentencing. Say deciding if a murder is murder in the first or second degree.

 

[MisterBeale]

Cite the case, Please.


That is a not even close to the truth. Bush got fooled by Saddam just like Iran did. After we kicked Iraq's ass the first time, their Military was degraded to the point that Iran could have easily invaded and conquered them. Saddam wasn't worried about the US, he knew we had no intentions of staying. Saddam was worried about Iran. So he invented his "I have WMDs and if you **** with me, I'll use them!"

It worked. He got the whole world, including our vaunted "Intelligence" Agencies to believe him. NOT only did the CIA believe him, so did Mossad, so did MI6, so did Pakistan's ISI (definitely the best Intel Agency in the Region. BY FAR) so did Russia, so did everybody.

Y'know, 20-20 hindsight gets really tedious after a while


Another misrepresentation. Boy, you're getting a reputation.

Intent doesn't have to be proven, "Reckless Disregard" is more than enough to send you to prison for life. As is "Should have known".

Stop watching crime dramas on TV

Intent is never a proper consideration when prosecuting a crime.
If intent was a good enough excuse then every cop that pulls you over has to ask for your intent why you broke traffic laws. "Oh....I didn't know that speeding was against the law!"
The same goes for any other law that is broken.
The intent is only considered in in murder cases where they decide the level of criminality, and in sentencing. Say deciding if a murder is murder in the first or second degree.

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution

This article was updated on July 1 at 3:32 p.m. In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions […]

www.scotusblog.com

"Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.

But when it comes to the president’s other official acts, Roberts continued, there is on one hand the concern that allowing criminal charges against a former president for his official acts would affect his decision-making while in office. “A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts posited. On the other hand, Roberts noted, the public has an interest in “fair and effective” enforcement of criminal laws. Weighing those two sets of interests, Roberts concluded, a president should have immunity from criminal prosecution for his official – but not his unofficial – acts unless, at the very least, prosecutors can show that bringing such charges would not threaten the power and functioning of the executive branch.

Determining which acts are official and which are unofficial “can be difficult,” Roberts conceded. He emphasized that the immunity that the court recognizes in its ruling on Monday takes a broad view of what constitutes a president’s “official responsibilities,” “covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” In conducting the official/unofficial inquiry, Roberts added, courts cannot consider the president’s motives, nor can they designate an act as unofficial simply because it allegedly violates the law. . . . "

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Edgetho]

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution

This article was updated on July 1 at 3:32 p.m. In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions […]

www.scotusblog.com

"Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.

But when it comes to the president’s other official acts, Roberts continued, there is on one hand the concern that allowing criminal charges against a former president for his official acts would affect his decision-making while in office. “A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts posited. On the other hand, Roberts noted, the public has an interest in “fair and effective” enforcement of criminal laws. Weighing those two sets of interests, Roberts concluded, a president should have immunity from criminal prosecution for his official – but not his unofficial – acts unless, at the very least, prosecutors can show that bringing such charges would not threaten the power and functioning of the executive branch.

Determining which acts are official and which are unofficial “can be difficult,” Roberts conceded. He emphasized that the immunity that the court recognizes in its ruling on Monday takes a broad view of what constitutes a president’s “official responsibilities,” “covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” In conducting the official/unofficial inquiry, Roberts added, courts cannot consider the president’s motives, nor can they designate an act as unofficial simply because it allegedly violates the law. . . . "

The Process Is The Punishment needs to be applied here.

It can be argued that the Bastard Son of Frank Marshall Davis acted outside of Official Duties and stepped into the criminal world by hiding FACTS from The People and by acting implicitly ON HIS OWN BEHALF. That he set aside his rights and duties as POTUS in order to THWART THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Process Is The Punishment needs to be applied here.

It can be argued that the Bastard Son of Frank Marshall Davis acted outside of Official Duties and stepped into the criminal world by hiding FACTS from The People and by acting implicitly ON HIS OWN BEHALF. That he set aside his rights and duties as POTUS in order to THWART THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Yep, it certainly could be argued that.


But as the SCOTUS has so ruled, it can't be proved. . . so in the end, this is just a distraction and nothing will come of it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution

This article was updated on July 1 at 3:32 p.m. In a historic decision, a divided Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions […]

www.scotusblog.com

"Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.

But when it comes to the president’s other official acts, Roberts continued, there is on one hand the concern that allowing criminal charges against a former president for his official acts would affect his decision-making while in office. “A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts posited. On the other hand, Roberts noted, the public has an interest in “fair and effective” enforcement of criminal laws. Weighing those two sets of interests, Roberts concluded, a president should have immunity from criminal prosecution for his official – but not his unofficial – acts unless, at the very least, prosecutors can show that bringing such charges would not threaten the power and functioning of the executive branch.

Determining which acts are official and which are unofficial “can be difficult,” Roberts conceded. He emphasized that the immunity that the court recognizes in its ruling on Monday takes a broad view of what constitutes a president’s “official responsibilities,” “covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” In conducting the official/unofficial inquiry, Roberts added, courts cannot consider the president’s motives, nor can they designate an act as unofficial simply because it allegedly violates the law. . . . "

Your explanation has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

You're talking about executive privilege, not whether or not a criminal had the intent to break the law.