Looks like Democrats had no problem with China Election interference in 2020.

[Marener]

If the FBI had investigated the guy and said, “We ran this down—no merit, let’s close it,” I’d agree with you. But that’s not what happened.

They didn’t debunk the claim. They didn’t validate it. They shelved it because the optics might be bad. That’s not filtering noise—that’s ducking heat.

Even if a tip comes from someone wearing a tinfoil hat and humming the X-Files theme, you don’t skip triage—especially not when the words foreign interference and election year are in the same sentence.

In other words: yeah, don’t chase every whack job. But maybe give the possibly-not-whack ones more than a Post-It note and a shredder.

The FBI looked at the source, decided he was a lunatic, and decided rightfully not to spend resources disproving his crazy stories.

Triage is assessing the credibility of the source. That’s what they did.

 

[Seth]

The FBI looked at the source, decided he was a lunatic, and decided rightfully not to spend resources disproving his crazy stories.

Triage is assessing the credibility of the source. That’s what they did.

If “he seemed like a whack job” was enough to shut down tips, we’d still be looking for the Unabomber, Larry Nassar might still be treating gymnasts, and Zacarias Moussaoui would’ve just been “that odd guy who didn’t want to learn how to land the plane.”

Examples:

• Unabomber – The tip that nailed him came from his brother with nothing but a hunch and a creepy writing style. No lab coat. No badge. Just vibes.
• Larry Nassar – Victims spoke up for years, but because they were “emotional” or “lacked proof,” no one listened. The FBI eventually acted—far too late.
• Flight School Tips pre-9/11 – “Hey, these guys want to fly but not land.” Odd? Yes. Dismissed? Tragically, yes. Investigated seriously? Not until we all knew their names.

So yeah—sometimes the tinfoil hat crowd is just crazy. But every now and then, they’re just early.

If the FBI’s new standard is “don’t investigate anything until it trends on Twitter,” we might as well replace field agents with PR interns.

 

[Marener]

So yeah—sometimes the tinfoil hat crowd is just crazy. But every now and then, they’re just early.

The tipsters from your examples were not tinfoil hat crackpots. Try again.

 

[LeftofLeft]

And you think they should spend time investigating non-credible and incoherent theories?

What /who is validating “non-credible” theories? What is the data to support that?

 

[Marener]

What /who is validating “non-credible” theories? What is the data to support that?

The FBI does. Clearly it’s part of their job to assess credibility of source before starting investigations.

 

[Seth]

The tipsters from your examples were not tinfoil hat crackpots. Try again.

You’re right—they weren’t tinfoil-hat crackpots. That’s actually the point.

None of them were “crazy”—but they were treated like their tips weren’t credible enough to prioritize.
--David Kaczynski had no evidence—just a gut feeling about his brother’s writing.
--Victims of Larry Nassar were dismissed as too emotional or attention-seeking.
--The agent warning about Zacarias Moussaoui was viewed as overreacting.
--And the Cruz tip? Ignored because it came from someone online.

The problem isn’t that these people were unreliable—it’s that the system treated them like they were and shelved serious leads because of it.

You don’t have to chase every UFO report, but if someone points to smoke, the first move shouldn’t be “check their vibes” and walk away.

Sometimes the weird-sounding tip isn’t the problem. It’s the excuse not to listen.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The FBI does. Clearly it’s part of their job to assess credibility of source before starting investigations.

looks like it depends on who or which party is overseeing the FBI to be the ultimate determinant on credibility.

 

[Seth]

looks like it depends on who or which party is overseeing the FBI to be the ultimate determinant on credibility.

That’s the irony, right? “Credibility” starts to look less like an objective standard and more like a mood ring that changes based on who's holding the oversight gavel.

Today’s “unreliable crank” is tomorrow’s whistleblower… if the right press conference says so.

 

[Marener]

You’re right—they weren’t tinfoil-hat crackpots. That’s actually the point.

None of them were “crazy”—but they were treated like their tips weren’t credible enough to prioritize.
--David Kaczynski had no evidence—just a gut feeling about his brother’s writing.
--Victims of Larry Nassar were dismissed as too emotional or attention-seeking.
--The agent warning about Zacarias Moussaoui was viewed as overreacting.
--And the Cruz tip? Ignored because it came from someone online.

The problem isn’t that these people were unreliable—it’s that the system treated them like they were and shelved serious leads because of it.

You don’t have to chase every UFO report, but if someone points to smoke, the first move shouldn’t be “check their vibes” and walk away.

Sometimes the weird-sounding tip isn’t the problem. It’s the excuse not to listen.

The difference being the source for the China election interference is a tin foil hat lunatic.

It’s not “checking vibes”, it’s assessing credibility.

 

[Marener]

That’s the irony, right? “Credibility” starts to look less like an objective standard and more like a mood ring that changes based on who's holding the oversight gavel.

Today’s “unreliable crank” is tomorrow’s whistleblower… if the right press conference says so.

Do you think the guy saying that China has underground bunkers to spread COVID is credible?

 

[Seth]

Do you think the guy saying that China has underground bunkers to spread COVID is credible?

Nope—I don’t think “COVID bunkers” is credible. But I also don’t think that tip was ever the one being seriously considered for follow-up.

What was on the table was a foreign interference lead during an election year—and it got buried because of optics, not facts. That’s not an assessment of credibility. That’s bureaucratic damage control.

You don’t investigate because someone says something crazy.
You investigate in case there’s something crazy underneath worth uncovering.

And that’s the danger: when the system decides credibility based on how much heat an investigation might draw, we’re not doing national security—we’re doing public relations.

Besides… we’ve all seen enough history to know that some of the wildest stories start with a “nutjob” nobody wanted to take seriously.

 

[Marener]

Nope—I don’t think “COVID bunkers” is credible. But I also don’t think that tip was ever the one being seriously considered for follow-up.

What was on the table was a foreign interference lead during an election year—and it got buried because of optics, not facts. That’s not an assessment of credibility. That’s bureaucratic damage control.

You don’t investigate because someone says something crazy.
You investigate in case there’s something crazy underneath worth uncovering.

And that’s the danger: when the system decides credibility based on how much heat an investigation might draw, we’re not doing national security—we’re doing public relations.

Besides… we’ve all seen enough history to know that some of the wildest stories start with a “nutjob” nobody wanted to take seriously.

So you think the guy pitching non-credible theories like Chinese bunkers deserves to be taken seriously with a theory about drivers licenses from China?

That is assessing credibility whether you like it or not.

 

[TimFitz]

Prove it

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/tony-bobulinski-impeachment-investigation/index.html

 

[TimFitz]

Why would the FBI waste time chasing crazy ideas?

Simple: because it’s their job to check if it’s crazy.
Skipping that step isn’t efficiency—it’s wishful thinking in a badge-shaped suit.

Even mythbusters run experiments before saying “busted.” Seems fair to expect the feds to do at least that much before shelving a national security tip.

"Why would the FBI waste time chasing crazy ideas?"

Because that's one of the reasons Trump installed lickspittle Trash Patel in the job for.

This is the Comer "investigation" nonsense being kept alive by the right wing noise machine, and promoted to entertain the Trump know nothing audience.

 

[Seth]

So you think the guy pitching non-credible theories like Chinese bunkers deserves to be taken seriously with a theory about drivers licenses from China?

That is assessing credibility whether you like it or not.

No, I don’t think the COVID bunker theory should be taken seriously.

But that wasn’t the lead in question.

The concern raised was about Chinese election interference in 2020—and that part was shut down before it could even be reviewed, apparently because someone at the top didn’t want the political optics. That’s not how credibility should be evaluated.

It’s one thing to ignore claims that are clearly detached from reality. But when a tip touches on foreign influence in a federal election, the source’s quirks shouldn’t be the only thing on the scale. The content matters too.

Credibility doesn’t begin and end with how normal someone sounds. The stakes are too high for that kind of shortcut.

 

[Marener]

No, I don’t think the COVID bunker theory should be taken seriously.

But that wasn’t the lead in question.

The concern raised was about Chinese election interference in 2020—and that part was shut down before it could even be reviewed, apparently because someone at the top didn’t want the political optics. That’s not how credibility should be evaluated.

It’s one thing to ignore claims that are clearly detached from reality. But when a tip touches on foreign influence in a federal election, the source’s quirks shouldn’t be the only thing on the scale. The content matters too.

If we only chase leads from people who sound polished and normal, we’re betting national security on tone and presentation. That’s not risk management—it’s wishful thinking in a suit.

Both “tips” came from the same person.

It has nothing to do with tone and presentation. It has to do with credibility.

 

[Seth]

Both “tips” came from the same person.

It has nothing to do with tone and presentation. It has to do with credibility.

Right, and that's why the process matters. If credibility is the goal, then the review should focus on the content of each tip
—not just who’s saying it. Otherwise, it’s a coin toss based on presentation and internal politics, not risk assessment.

Let's see if we can agree on that much before we dig any deeper.

 

[Marener]

Right, and that's why the process matters. If credibility is the goal, then the review should focus on the content of each tip
—not just who’s saying it. Otherwise, it’s a coin toss based on presentation and internal politics, not risk assessment.

Let's see if we can agree on that much before we dig any deeper.

The content of the tip didn’t make it any more credible.

The problem here is that the right wing has a narrative and are desperately searching for anything to corroborate the narrative. You think it should be taken seriously because you want there to have been interference.

 

[LeftofLeft]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/tony-bobulinski-impeachment-investigation/index.html

This is the best you’ve got? House Republicans believing him and Democrats and their lapdog media not believing him?

 

[Seth]

The content of the tip didn’t make it any more credible.

The problem here is that the right wing has a narrative and are desperately searching for anything to corroborate the narrative. You think it should be taken seriously because you want there to have been interference.

So to recap:

1. The source was dismissed outright, not because of the facts, but because of optics.
2. The actual concern—foreign election interference—was buried without a proper review.
3. And now you’re saying it still doesn’t matter, because the people raising the alarm might be politically inconvenient?
   

That’s not how credibility works. That’s how selective hearing works.

If the goal is truth, you don’t disqualify a fire alarm just because you don’t like who pulled it.