Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source? (1 Viewer)

[Snarky Sack]

Even if the name of source is redacted?



This is from the FBI itself, not wild speculation. Providing evidence against the Biden family means risking death. Anyone care to connect the dots, there?

By saying that, do you think the FBI makes it less likely or more likely that people with knowledge of crimes by senior officials (of any political stripe) will come forward?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Ted Cruz attempts to get information about Biden's bribery.



These guys never learn. They stonewalled about whether the FD 1023 existed, and then had to finally admit it did.

Now they are stonewalling about some recordings. When some whistle blower does get it to congress, the FBI will have to admit to it again, and likely will want to play the recording for congress instead of giving them a copy.

It will be a mercy for them if Trump or DeSantis is elected and fires all senior FBI officials because then they won't have these miserable sessions of stonewalling the representatives of the people.

It is getting worse and not better for the Bidens. If the Democrats want 2024 to be anything other than "my scumbag is not as scummy as your scumbag," they need to find somebody else and dang quick.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

First - for clarification, did you replace another word with "arse?" If you did that is fine, I just want to verify we're talking abot the same quote.

The board has an autofilter for certain words. It's the same quote that should have a word beginning with 'p'.

As to getting permission or not getting permission, I respectfully disagree. "When you're a star, they let you do it." They is exactly getting permission.

Yet you admitted that a boss taking someone's donut from them is done without permission even if the person doesn't say anything.

Not saying that he is correct in his assertion. I'm saying that, true or false, this statement in the polar opposite of "not getting permission."

In my opinion.

Your opinions have proven time and again to be uninformed and misguided.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Yet you admitted that a boss taking someone's donut from them is done without permission even if the person doesn't say anything.

I believe the analogy breaks down over the "boss" angle. Trump said "when you're a star," not "when you're their boss." Implying that women he knows are willing to be touched intimately and roughly because he is a star, is different from if he had said, "when I'm their boss."

You may not remember, but Bill Clinton did not ask when he pushed his cigar into his subordinate's private part to flavor it. Is your distaste for Clinton as strong as your distaste for Trump?

 

[LA - L.A.]

You may not remember, but Bill Clinton did not ask when he pushed his cigar into his subordinate's private part to flavor it. Is your distaste for Clinton as strong as your distaste for Trump?

Answering only for myself, yes, my distaste for Bill Clinton is equal to my distaste for Trump. I wouldn't let either man be alone in a room with any woman if it was my decision to make.

When it comes to the level of threat that they pose to our society, Trump is the biggest threat by far.

When it comes to the amount of chaos and destabilization that they create, again Trump is the biggest problem by far.

 

[MT15]

First - for clarification, did you replace another word with "arse?" If you did that is fine, I just want to verify we're talking abot the same quote.

As to getting permission or not getting permission, I respectfully disagree. "When you're a star, they let you do it." They is exactly getting permission.

Not saying that he is correct in his assertion. I'm saying that, true or false, this statement in the polar opposite of "not getting permission."

In my opinion.

You are wrong. Walking up to a person and grabbing their privates without waiting is sexual assault. It‘s very telling about your opinion of women that you (and Trump) think that if the woman doesn’t immediately scream and run they have given permission.

Generally permission is requested and received BEFORE the touching takes place. To assume that a woman who doesn’t react in the way you want her to after the fact had somehow retroactively given permission to the sexual assault that actually happened is revolting. My opinion of you couldn’t get any lower.

Also, your assumption that I would think any better of Bill Clinton‘s behavior is just laughable. Bill was a creep, he used his position to take advantage of a younger woman. The power imbalance makes it creepy. The only difference is it wasn’t actually assault, in a legal sense.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I believe the analogy breaks down over the "boss" angle. Trump said "when you're a star," not "when you're their boss." Implying that women he knows are willing to be touched intimately and roughly because he is a star, is different from if he had said, "when I'm their boss."

You keep finding ways to defend Trump bragging about sexual assault. That's pathetic.

You may not remember, but Bill Clinton did not ask when he pushed his cigar into his subordinate's private part to flavor it. Is your distaste for Clinton as strong as your distaste for Trump?

Bill Clinton is a womanizing, power-abusing butt crevasse. fork him all the way to Arkansas and back.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Answering only for myself, yes, my distaste for Bill Clinton is equal to my distaste for Trump. I wouldn't let either man be alone in a room with any woman if it was my decision to make.

When it comes to the level of threat that they pose to our society, Trump is the biggest threat by far.

When it comes to the amount of chaos and destabilization that they create, again Trump is the biggest problem by far.

My own fault for using a former Democratic person in power as the example.

I understand that you disagree with, and dislike Trump strongly, and I thank you for the reminder.

 

[Incumbent]

Here is Trump's full comment:

"I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait," Trump said. "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the arse. You can do anything."

That's not getting permission. That's sexual assault and your attempt to minimize it is disgusting.

He’s a self-professed predator and it’s very apparent that doesn’t dissuade his supporters, many of them “Christians” worried about “morality.”

 

[Snarky Sack]

You are wrong. Walking up to a person and grabbing their privates without waiting is sexual assault. It‘s very telling about your opinion of women that you (and Trump) think that if the woman doesn’t immediately scream and run they have given permission.

Generally permission is requested and received BEFORE the touching takes place. To assume that a woman who doesn’t react in the way you want her to after the fact had somehow retroactively given permission to the sexual assault that actually happened is revolting. My opinion of you couldn’t get any lower.

Also, your assumption that I would think any better of Bill Clinton‘s behavior is just laughable. Bill was a creep, he used his position to take advantage of a younger woman. The power imbalance makes it creepy. The only difference is it wasn’t actually assault, in a legal sense.

Agree to disagree about the meaning of Trump's words.

Glad to hear that we agree about Clinton. I don't know if you remember those times very well. If you do, how angrily you must look back at HRC's "vast right wing conspiracy" defense, attacking of his victims, and enablement of the creepiness and misuse of position.

Your vote is your business, so I will simply wonder aloud whether you held your nose and voted for such a woman, or took a stand with some write in candidate.

 

[brandon]

Agree to disagree about the meaning of Trump's words.

Glad to hear that we agree about Clinton.

As has been pointed out before, you are bending over backwards to excuse Trump while deriding a Democrat for a similar situation.

You’ll notice the Dems here did no such thing for Clinton.

 

[Snarky Sack]

As has been pointed out before, you are bending over backwards to excuse Trump while deriding a Democrat for a similar situation.

You’ll notice the Dems here did no such thing for Clinton.

You must not have been around at the time the Clinton scandals were happening. Hillary blamed it all on a "vast right wing conspiracy," and Democrats dutifully accepted that explanation. They later voted for her in numbers large enough to almost give her the White House.

Bill Clinton remains one of the most popular of all former presidents.

I've already said I made a mistake bringing up a Democrat no longer in power. Of course Dems will kick them to the curb, since they are no longer useful. I'll try again later with a more current name and see the reaction.

 

[brandon]

You must not have been around at the time the Clinton scandals were happening.

I’m 39. I watched the news every day while it happened.

I also don’t blame Hillary for her husband’s indiscretions. Do you blame Melanie for Trump assaulting women? Of course not.

 

[MT15]

Defending the indefensible is certainly a hallmark of a Trump supporter. Smearing a woman for her husband’s actions tracks as well. There’s nothing that can wash the moral stench off of a person once they have defended sexual predation, IMO. The only way to deal with such a person is to keep correcting factual errors as they occur, although that becomes difficult and tiresome when they come with great volume and frequency.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I’m 39. I watched the news every day while it happened.

I also don’t blame Hillary for her husband’s indiscretions. Do you blame Melanie for Trump assaulting women? Of course not.

Convenient.

Melania is a gold-digger, like so many of the women wealthy men consort with. A prostitute who happened upon a whale of a client. Whatever Trump may be guilty of, she fully condones by enjoying his money.

Not defending anything about her. I disagree with much of Trump's personal lifestyle.

Love of him personally is not my reason for supporting his candidacy, nor of anyone I know. Something many struggle to understand.

 

[brandon]

Convenient

I don’t follow.

Melania is a gold-digger, like so many of the women wealthy men consort with. A prostitute who happened upon a whale of a client. Whatever Trump may be guilty of, she fully condones by enjoying his money.

Are you making an argument for your consistency by proving you’re a misogynist to all presidential wives?

Love of him personally is not my reason for supporting his candidacy, nor of anyone I know. Something many struggle to understand.

Help me understand. Why do you support his candidacy?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I don’t follow.

Nothing important.

Are you making an argument for your consistency by proving you’re a misogynist to all presidential wives?

Absolutely not. An unfortunate impression, if I gave it.

Help me understand. Why do you support his candidacy?

Thank you for asking! A breath of fresh air from being told repeatedly and incorrectly why I support him.

May I defer that explanation until this afternoon or evening? I've sworn to be as polite and non-confrontational as possible until 4:15, as an experiment. I believe that saying positive things about Trump will prompt a fury of personal attacks that I will find difficult not to respond to. Not meaning from you.

 

[brandon]

May I defer that explanation until this afternoon or evening? I've sworn to be as polite and non-confrontational as possible until 4:15, as an experiment. I believe that saying positive things about Trump will prompt a fury of personal attacks that I will find difficult not to respond to. Not meaning from you.

I’ll set my alarm.

 

[Incumbent]

Comer admits nobody has heard from alleged Biden informant for three years

The Kentucky Republican gives another update on the House Oversight Committee's bribery and corruption probe into the Biden family.

www.newsweek.com