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

[Marener]

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.

lol, no. That’s your spin on it, but it’s hardly factual. Just more narrative.

1. The source was found to be a non-credible crank without legitimacy.

2. Election interference was and is taken very seriously.

3. The people raising the alarm are partisans trying to pitch a false narrative to the American people because they’re hacks.

There’s no evidence to support your version of events.

 

[TimFitz]

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.

All non sequiters.

Tony Bubolinski is a crank. He has been walking around hawking this BS for years.

He never once produced a shred of evidence.

No matter how hard Trumpsters wish to believe.

 

[Marener]

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

It’s ironic, because republicans were saying that the tip about Papadopolous talking to the Russian agents wasn’t credible enough to investigate but some wacky conspiracy theory from a tin foil hat lunatic has to be taken seriously.

 

[TimFitz]

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.

The source was dismissed because he had no facts.

The people "raising the alarm" are just trying to keep this ancient meme alive.

 

[Seth]

lol, no. That’s your spin on it, but it’s hardly factual. Just more narrative.

You keep calling it a “crank” without ever addressing what the actual tip was about: foreign interference in a U.S. election. That’s not a fringe claim—that’s a national security issue.

You're trying to draw a line between “taking interference seriously” and this specific case... without acknowledging that it was buried before the content was ever evaluated. That’s the concern. Not the source. The process.

The review was filtered through political optics, not investigative procedure. That’s not credibility—it’s selective attention with a badge.

If the goal is to assess threats, not reputations, then burying tips based on who said it—not what was said—feels less like national security and more like HR playing favorites.

But hey, if “who you are” matters more than “what you report,” I guess the new policy is: whistleblowers welcome—as long as they come pre-approved.

 

[Marener]

You keep calling it a “crank” without ever addressing what the actual tip was about: foreign interference in a U.S. election. That’s not a fringe claim—that’s a national security issue.

You're trying to draw a line between “taking interference seriously” and this specific case... without acknowledging that it was buried before the content was ever evaluated. That’s the concern. Not the source. The process.

The review was filtered through political optics, not investigative procedure. That’s not credibility—it’s selective attention with a badge.

If the goal is to assess threats, not reputations, then burying tips based on who said it—not what was said—feels less like national security and more like HR playing favorites.

But hey, if “who you are” matters more than “what you report,” I guess the new policy is: whistleblowers welcome—as long as they come pre-approved.

China building secret underground bunkers to spread COVID is also a "national security issue", is it not. You dismissed it because it's ridiculous. We don't have to take every fringe claim seriously because it is a "national security issue".

Your accusation that it was "buried" is outlandish. The report was broadcast to the entire country before it was ever evaluated. That's not the appropriate process, which is why it was retracted. The FBI Albany office should have been embarrassed that they were disseminating the report without having done anything to confirm it. Once they had a look at the report and the source, it was clear that it was bogus and demanded no further investigation.

 

[Seth]

The source was dismissed because he had no facts.

The people "raising the alarm" are just trying to keep this ancient meme alive.

You’re welcome to think Bobulinski’s a crank—I don’t particularly care about him either way. But pretending the FBI didn’t shelve a foreign interference tip in an election year because of optics is just historical revision.

We’re not talking about whether Bobulinski is charming at dinner parties. We’re talking about process: A potentially serious tip was disregarded before review, not because it lacked merit, but because of how it might look. Credibility assessments aren’t supposed to be shaped by polling data or press conferences.

If this were a tip about Russian collusion, half of this thread would be calling it “deeply troubling.” But change the country of origin and the political target, and suddenly it’s crankery and memes. You can’t demand rigorous standards one day and wave them off the next depending on whose jersey the source is wearing.

Let’s at least be honest about the double standard.

 

[Seth]

China building secret underground bunkers to spread COVID is also a "national security issue", is it not. You dismissed it because it's ridiculous. We don't have to take every fringe claim seriously because it is a "national security issue".

Your accusation that it was "buried" is outlandish. The report was broadcast to the entire country before it was ever evaluated. That's not the appropriate process, which is why it was retracted. The FBI Albany office should have been embarrassed that they were disseminating the report without having done anything to confirm it. Once they had a look at the report and the source, it was clear that it was bogus and demanded no further investigation.

Sure—if someone says there’s a secret underground bunker full of bats and Wuhan labs under every Walmart, I’m not expecting the FBI to scramble jets. But that’s not what this tip was.

This wasn’t some guy shouting about microchips in vaccines. This was a national security concern in the middle of an election year, and it was pushed aside without a proper assessment—not because the content had been debunked, but because someone up the chain didn’t like the political implications.

And that’s the issue. Not whether the theory sounds “ridiculous” to you. Not whether someone later said “eh, never mind.” It’s that the content was never independently evaluated before being dismissed. A security agency deciding not to follow up because of embarrassment or optics is not a demonstration of due diligence—it’s a demonstration of political filtering.

The process should protect the country, not the reputations of the people deciding what counts as serious.

 

[Marener]

Sure—if someone says there’s a secret underground bunker full of bats and Wuhan labs under every Walmart, I’m not expecting the FBI to scramble jets. But that’s not what this tip was.

This wasn’t some guy shouting about microchips in vaccines. This was a national security concern in the middle of an election year, and it was pushed aside without a proper assessment—not because the content had been debunked, but because someone up the chain didn’t like the political implications.

And that’s the issue. Not whether the theory sounds “ridiculous” to you. Not whether someone later said “eh, never mind.” It’s that the content was never independently evaluated before being dismissed. A security agency deciding not to follow up because of embarrassment or optics is not a demonstration of due diligence—it’s a demonstration of political filtering.

The process should protect the country, not the reputations of the people deciding what counts as serious.

It was given a proper assessment. The claim itself had no provable aspects and the source was someone who was previously pitching outlandish crap who lacked credibility.

Nothing more needs to be done. What did you expect them to do that they didn't do?

 

[Seth]

It was given a proper assessment. The claim itself had no provable aspects and the source was someone who was previously pitching outlandish crap who lacked credibility.

Nothing more needs to be done. What did you expect them to do that they didn't do?

Wait—so now it was given a proper assessment?

That’s a bit of a shift from “it was dismissed because the guy was a crank.” If the process was truly followed, then the tip’s content would have been the focus—not just the source’s past reputation. But by your own description, they looked at who raised the concern, not what the concern was. That’s not a proper assessment—that’s a pre-screen.

You’re essentially saying, “We didn’t investigate because we assumed it wasn’t worth investigating”—and calling that good process.

This is the core issue I’ve been pointing out. If credibility is determined by who’s speaking, rather than what’s being said and what risk it carries, then serious concerns can and do get buried. That’s not just hypothetical—we’ve seen it happen before, and with tragic consequences.

Would you like to double-check that the FBI didn't quietly admit they handled this one poorly?

 

[Marener]

Wait—so now it was given a proper assessment?

That’s a bit of a shift from “it was dismissed because the guy was a crank.” If the process was truly followed, then the tip’s content would have been the focus—not just the source’s past reputation. But by your own description, they looked at who raised the concern, not what the concern was. That’s not a proper assessment—that’s a pre-screen.

You’re essentially saying, “We didn’t investigate because we assumed it wasn’t worth investigating”—and calling that good process.

This is the core issue I’ve been pointing out. If credibility is determined by who’s speaking, rather than what’s being said and what risk it carries, then serious concerns can and do get buried. That’s not just hypothetical—we’ve seen it happen before, and with tragic consequences.

Would you like to double-check that the FBI didn't quietly admit they handled this one poorly?

I've always said it was given a proper assessment. It was given enough assessment to determine it lacked any modicum of credibility and therefore was disregarded.

The characteristics of the person who is talking is always essential to determining credibility. That's obvious. As to what's being said, it also lacked any credibility. The elements of the accusation were far fetched on their face and it seemed apparent they were merely drawing on right wing conspiracies that were circulating around social media at the same time.

I wouldn't trust extremists like Kash Patel to fairly analyze the process. As we can see from the right wing coverage of the issue, they're muddying the waters so that lots of right wing media consumers don't see this as a problem with the process but they see it as a plot that any actual evidence. Right wing media consumers actually believe this happened.

 

[Seth]

I've always said it was given a proper assessment. It was given enough assessment to determine it lacked any modicum of credibility and therefore was disregarded.

The characteristics of the person who is talking is always essential to determining credibility. That's obvious. As to what's being said, it also lacked any credibility. The elements of the accusation were far fetched on their face and it seemed apparent they were merely drawing on right wing conspiracies that were circulating around social media at the same time.

I wouldn't trust extremists like Kash Patel to fairly analyze the process. As we can see from the right wing coverage of the issue, they're muddying the waters so that lots of right wing media consumers don't see this as a problem with the process but they see it as a plot that any actual evidence. Right wing media consumers actually believe this happened.

So just to recap:
• The tip was “dismissed because the guy was a crank.”
• But also “given a proper assessment.”
• Which consisted of… noticing the guy was a crank.

That’s a bit like calling someone a terrible chef and then declaring the meal inedible—without ever taking the lid off the pot.

You’re defending the process by pointing to the person instead of the content. That’s the whole concern: credibility was treated as a social credential, not a procedural result. If the material was thin, let that be the reason. But if it wasn’t even reviewed because the source lacked polish or had the wrong political odor, that’s not an assessment—that’s a sniff test.

As for Kash Patel, this isn’t about trusting him. It’s about whether the tip was evaluated on its own merits or dismissed through a filter of partisan heuristics. Repeating “crank, crank, crank” doesn’t answer that—it just shows that the label replaced the review.

The goal isn’t to defend the tip—it’s to defend the process. Because once you normalize pre-screening intelligence by political vibes, you don’t just miss bad tips from people you dislike—you train the system to ignore them.

 

[Marener]

So just to recap:
• The tip was “dismissed because the guy was a crank.”
• But also “given a proper assessment.”
• Which consisted of… noticing the guy was a crank.

That’s a bit like calling someone a terrible chef and then declaring the meal inedible—without ever taking the lid off the pot.

You’re defending the process by pointing to the person instead of the content. That’s the whole concern: credibility was treated as a social credential, not a procedural result. If the material was thin, let that be the reason. But if it wasn’t even reviewed because the source lacked polish or had the wrong political odor, that’s not an assessment—that’s a sniff test.

As for Kash Patel, this isn’t about trusting him. It’s about whether the tip was evaluated on its own merits or dismissed through a filter of partisan heuristics. Repeating “crank, crank, crank” doesn’t answer that—it just shows that the label replaced the review.

The goal isn’t to defend the tip—it’s to defend the process. Because once you normalize pre-screening intelligence by political vibes, you don’t just miss bad tips from people you dislike—you train the system to ignore them.

It's like calling someone a terrible chef when they have been fired from every restaurant in the city and show you a plate of moldy mac and cheese.

Did you need to try the moldy mac and cheese to determine he's a bad chef?

 

[Seth]

It's like calling someone a terrible chef when they have been fired from every restaurant in the city and show you a plate of moldy mac and cheese.

Did you need to try the moldy mac and cheese to determine he's a bad chef?

We may just be at an impasse here. You seem comfortable with a system that filters information based on the speaker’s reputation. I think concerns—especially national security ones—deserve to be evaluated on substance, not optics.

For me, the issue isn’t the claim itself. It’s how quickly it was sidelined without serious engagement. A process that screens out a warning without checking what it actually says isn’t doing its job—it’s skipping it.

I’ve said my piece. Thanks for the exchange

 

[Marener]

We may just be at an impasse here. You seem comfortable with a system that filters information based on the speaker’s reputation. I think concerns—especially national security ones—deserve to be evaluated on substance, not optics.

For me, the issue isn’t the claim itself. It’s how quickly it was sidelined without serious engagement. A process that screens out a warning without checking what it actually says isn’t doing its job—it’s skipping it.

I’ve said my piece. Thanks for the exchange

You, like Kash Patel, will believe anything to further your narrative. You're distorting the truth and reality to suit your own purposes.

We are at an impasse because you are so dedicated to your narrative that you will blind yourself to anything outside of it.