BOBULINSKI: “The FBI alone altered history in the 2020 election”

I do

I do Originally Posted by 1blackman1

we'll wait. what ya got?

Still awaiting you to prove anything you said. But I know better. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. So just keep on keeping on.

A


Just like Winter "it's coming, it's coming". Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Isn't that what we've heard for 2 years regarding election fraud in the 2020 election?

Nor should you but then you openly admit that you haven't seen and heard what I have.


You didn't answer my question. If the Republican House holds hearings on President Biden's connections to Hunter's business deals, will you watch or wait for analysis from others? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I might watch parts of it, just as I've watched parts of the January 6th investigation. Then I will read or listen to the analysis of people on both sides as to the accuracy of the testimony. I don't recall any of the testimony given at the January 6th investigation being criticized by many. I would hpe the same would be true of any Hunter Biden investigation.

It is easy to listen to one-sided arguments and be swayed. A perfect example is the movie "2,000 Mules". If one was to just watch the movie it would be easy to come away with the opinion that the movie presented valid information. I knew nothing about geotracking so the conclusions reached made possible sense until experts refuted the use of the data as being totally misleading.

Isn't that what we've heard for 2 years regarding election fraud in the 2020 election? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'll see your 2 years and raise you 4 for the Trump, Russia conspiracy.

I might watch parts of it, just as I've watched parts of the January 6th investigation. Then I will read or listen to the analysis of people on both sides as to the accuracy of the testimony. I don't recall any of the testimony given at the January 6th investigation being criticized by many. I would hpe the same would be true of any Hunter Biden investigation.

It is easy to listen to one-sided arguments and be swayed. A perfect example is the movie "2,000 Mules". If one was to just watch the movie it would be easy to come away with the opinion that the movie presented valid information. I knew nothing about geotracking so the conclusions reached made possible sense until experts refuted the use of the data as being totally misleading. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Might I inquire as to who the Conservative sources where you got analysis from on the Hunter Laptop, Joe Biden connection?


You don't remember hearing any criticism of the Jan. 6th hearing? That tells me right there that you never heard a single Conservative voice on this issue. It was a constant in Conservative media like when the Chairman said "without objection, we'll move on". Who the hell was there to object, Kinzinger and Liz Chaney? Why wasn't a real Conservative voice on the panel? Why was there no real cross examination of the witnesses, not a single word contested. And the answer, "this isn't a trial you know".


On the 2,000 Mules story, I did hear the the other side of the story and it went something like this "just because this one phone was pinged passing by 12 ballot boxes doesn't mean there was anything nefarious going on" and "just because the video of one box being monitored 24 hours a day showed 100 people dropping off ballots and there were 300 ballots counted from that box, doesn't mean a thing".


And the data was so "misleading" that it has been used by law enforcement to catch many a perp by proving their cell phone was within 20 feet of the murder. So it can effectively be used to catch criminals but we can't draw any conclusions because one car passing by multiple boxes, doesn't mean a thing. I wonder if there was any further investigation of the owners of those cars OH! and the fact that some of those cars were tracked coming and going from a Stacy Abrams campaign center. Nothing to see here folks, move along.


https://www.wired.com/story/creepy-g...r-crime-scene/


Creepy ‘Geofence’ Finds Anyone Who Went Near a Crime Scene



IN 2018, 23-YEAR-OLD Jorge Molina was arrested and jailed for six days on suspicion of killing another man. Police in Avondale, Arizona, about 20 miles from Phoenix, held Molina for questioning. According to a police report, officers told him they knew “one hundred percent, without a doubt” his phone was at the scene of the crime, based on data from Google. In fact, Molina wasn’t there. He’d simply lent an old phone to the man police later arrested. The phone was still signed in to his Google account.


The information about Molina’s phone came from a geofence warrant, a relatively new and increasingly popular investigative technique police use to track suspects’ locations. Traditionally, police identify a suspect, then issue a warrant to search the person’s home or belongings.


Geofence warrants work in reverse: Police start with a time and location, then request data from Google or another tech company about any devices in the area at the time. The companies then typically supply anonymous data on the devices in the area. Police use their own investigative tools to narrow down this list. Then they may ask for more specific information—often an email address or a name of the account holder—for a phone on the narrower list.




https://www.ranker.com/list/criminal...ps/jordan-love


Criminal Masterminds Who Were Caught by GPS



GPS trackers are everywhere nowadays. Most new cars, phones, and even high-end watches are equipped with the technology. It has become incredibly useful for police and investigators who are tracking down criminals. From thieve and murders to sexually abusive cops, GPS technology has been used to put wrongdoers of all sorts away.

What FBI whistleblowers? I've read about FBI agents bypassing the official whistleblower process but nothing about agents following that process.
Anybody have a link to an article that proves there are any real whistleblowers? The 2 mentioned in this article didn't use the official process and have been proven to be distorting the truth.
Regardless, they haven't followed the procedure to "whistleblow" the allegations.


"A self-styled FBI whistleblower effectively blew the whistle on himself and other FBI agents who like him are responsible for investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, but are sympathetic to the suspects they are ordered to investigate and arrest.

As many as 14 FBI employees have chosen to challenge valid assignments or question domestic terrorism strategy by running to Trump-adoring Congress members.
Special agent Steve Friend of the FBI’s Daytona Beach satellite office, a 12-year bureau veteran and a SWAT team member, refused an assignment last month to help arrest a man suspected of a Jan. 6 offense and was considered absent without leave. Friend reported his suspension to Sens. Ron Johnson, R- Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who included the details of his complaint in a letter that demanded answers from the FBI by Oct. 10.
If polarizing extremism in society has crept into the very agency charged with ferreting out violent threats to democracy, then the FBI must simultaneously police itself while it works to protect us.

We already know that at least 19 current or former law enforcement officers were charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, including some for assaulting police officers. We also know that the names of hundreds of officers were among leaked lists of Oath Keepers members. Yet recent highly politicized proclamations that as many as 14 FBI employees have chosen to challenge valid assignments or question domestic terrorism strategy by running to Trump-adoring Congress members offers a public sign that the bureau isn’t immune from society’s polarization.

"General Merrick Garland issued a memo to all Justice Department employees, including those at the FBI, reminding them that are legitimate processes in place to report concerns — but back channel communications with law makers isn’t one of them. It’s a sad sign of our times that the institutions responsible for identifying those among us who reject the rule of law must also determine whether such people walk the halls of those same institutions. The FBI has been scrutinizing its workforce and suspending or terminating employees who violate policies. While Rep. Jim Jordan R-Ohio, may call this a “purge,” it’s actually preservation of the FBI’s mission to protect against all threats — internal or external.
Sept. 21 opinion column in the New York Post describes Friend as “an FBI hero” who was suspended because he objected to an “overzealous” investigation of the assault on the U.S. Capitol. But there’s nothing heroic about what this agent has done; in fact, what he’s done is dangerously disturbing — and a media outlet painting these actions as valiant speaks to the threat we all face as a society.
In the complaint attached to the senators' letter, Friend said he told a supervisor that he thought it “inappropriate to use an FBI SWAT team to arrest a subject for misdemeanor offenses and opined that the subject would likely face extended detainment and biased jury pools in Washington, D.C.”
Days later, he said, he met with two higher-level supervisors and when they asked if he believed “any J6 rioters committed crimes,” he responded that he believed some were innocent and “had been unjustly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.”
In their letter, Grassley and Johnson say that it’s important that the Justice Department and the FBI do things by the book but that “based on allegations, the Department and FBI have come up short and instead of listening to its employees to shore up its process and procedure, the Department and FBI have chosen to retaliate against them.”

But it doesn’t appear the senators have done their due diligence.
Using the details provided by Friend, NBC News reporter Ryan J. Reilly concluded that Friend could have only been objecting to sending in a SWAT team to arrest Tyler Bensch. Photos taken at the U.S. Capitol that Jan. 6 show Bensch dressed in full tactical gear, including a helmet, goggles and a gas mask, spraying someone in the face with a what appears to be a chemical irritant. Bensch was also wearing a GoPro camera. As Reilly points out, it’s clear why the FBI would want to physically obtain “a copy of the critical GoPro footage rather than issuing a summons and giving him and an opportunity to delete the incriminating evidence.”
It’s also clear that arresting a militia member who wears full tactical gear and sprays chemicals at adversaries might be best accomplished with a SWAT team standing by. Anything less than a well-planned arrest of such a suspect would endanger the arresting agents.
Friend claimed that other agents feel the same way he does about what he calls unjust treatment of Jan. 6 suspects. Indeed, Agent Kyle Seraphin recently told the Washington Times that FBI counterterrorism investigations of far-right extremists and white supremacists are “mostly entrapment,” and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and a loud critic of the FBI’s investigation of Trump and the Jan. 6 insurrection, claims to have heard from more than a dozen agents he describes as whistleblowers.
The people who claim they’re concerned about the FBI becoming political sure have taken a partisan path to raise those concerns. Throughout every FBI field office, from employee break rooms to the agency’s internal intranet, there are well-posted options to reporting misconduct, ethical or integrity concerns.
Running to politicians such as Jordan or even Grassley or Johnson as they seek re-election feels much more like an attempt to avoid accountability than to protect society from harm."

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...nduct-n1299211

Might I inquire as to who the Conservative sources where you got analysis from on the Hunter Laptop, Joe Biden connection?


You don't remember hearing any criticism of the Jan. 6th hearing? That tells me right there that you never heard a single Conservative voice on this issue. It was a constant in Conservative media like when the Chairman said "without objection, we'll move on". Who the hell was there to object, Kinzinger and Liz Chaney? Why wasn't a real Conservative voice on the panel? Why was there no real cross examination of the witnesses, not a single word contested. And the answer, "this isn't a trial you know".


On the 2,000 Mules story, I did hear the the other side of the story and it went something like this "just because this one phone was pinged passing by 12 ballot boxes doesn't mean there was anything nefarious going on" and "just because the video of one box being monitored 24 hours a day showed 100 people dropping off ballots and there were 300 ballots counted from that box, doesn't mean a thing".


And the data was so "misleading" that it has been used by law enforcement to catch many a perp by proving their cell phone was within 20 feet of the murder. So it can effectively be used to catch criminals but we can't draw any conclusions because one car passing by multiple boxes, doesn't mean a thing. I wonder if there was any further investigation of the owners of those cars OH! and the fact that some of those cars were tracked coming and going from a Stacy Abrams campaign center. Nothing to see here folks, move along.


https://www.wired.com/story/creepy-g...r-crime-scene/


Creepy ‘Geofence’ Finds Anyone Who Went Near a Crime Scene



IN 2018, 23-YEAR-OLD Jorge Molina was arrested and jailed for six days on suspicion of killing another man. Police in Avondale, Arizona, about 20 miles from Phoenix, held Molina for questioning. According to a police report, officers told him they knew “one hundred percent, without a doubt” his phone was at the scene of the crime, based on data from Google. In fact, Molina wasn’t there. He’d simply lent an old phone to the man police later arrested. The phone was still signed in to his Google account.


The information about Molina’s phone came from a geofence warrant, a relatively new and increasingly popular investigative technique police use to track suspects’ locations. Traditionally, police identify a suspect, then issue a warrant to search the person’s home or belongings.


Geofence warrants work in reverse: Police start with a time and location, then request data from Google or another tech company about any devices in the area at the time. The companies then typically supply anonymous data on the devices in the area. Police use their own investigative tools to narrow down this list. Then they may ask for more specific information—often an email address or a name of the account holder—for a phone on the narrower list.




https://www.ranker.com/list/criminal...ps/jordan-love


Criminal Masterminds Who Were Caught by GPS



GPS trackers are everywhere nowadays. Most new cars, phones, and even high-end watches are equipped with the technology. It has become incredibly useful for police and investigators who are tracking down criminals. From thieve and murders to sexually abusive cops, GPS technology has been used to put wrongdoers of all sorts away.



Originally Posted by HedonistForever

It comes down to valid criticism. When Banks and Jordan weren't allowed on the panel (both were election deniers) McCarthy declined to add members. Plus the majority of the witnesses were Republicans.
No matter what you claim, Liz Cheney is one of the few national level Republicans that is still respected. She didn't buy into trump's bullshit. Many Republicans wanted trump to resign/condemned his actions but backed down when trump promised retaliation.

2000 mules has been shot down by many factchecks.

The book version has been recalled.

"NPR contacted organizations named in the book for comment about some of D'Souza's written claims. They referred to passages in the book as "malarkey," "inaccurate," and "trash."

One group, whose data are cited in the book, said it would request a correction. Another raised the possibility of legal action."

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/08/11216...-npr-got-a-cop

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/ev...in-2000-mules/

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/ev...in-2000-mules/

I find it rich that republicans complain about the Jan 6 committee because there’s no republicans they want being allowed to question people that worked in the Trump administration about their experience in the trump administration on and up to January 6. These were Trumpys, some through years of being in the administration. Were Trump innocent of the complaints about him, these people Barr, Cipilone etc would just say under questioning that Trump didn’t do anything that’s being said he did or didn’t do.

What questions could a cross examining republican come up with that the Trumpy witnesses wouldn’t have just said themselves were their legitimate rationales for Trumps actions/inactions. The only thing republicans on the committee could do is try to confuse the issues and present alternative facts which aren’t based in any facts. Which they do all the time on Fox and conservative radio.

Further, if there were facts that bear on the findings of the Jan 6 committee the republicans could have come forth with them, if they existed. Trump could testify. Bannon could have testified. Stone could have testified. McCarthy could have testified. Jordan could have testified. Of course it’d be under oath and that is the rub isn’t it. None of them wanted to get under oath and make any statements.

All having Trumplicans on the committee would have done was allowed them to make loud false statements over and over as an obfuscation of the actual facts being presented. Maybe they should have all agreed to go under oath even as questioners such that they couldn’t present false facts and assertions while they got to speak, that’d be interesting.

https://www.yahoo.com/video/fbi-offi...124942196.html


FBI Officials Told Agents Not to Investigate Hunter Biden Laptop ahead of 2020 Election, Whistleblower Says



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...whistleblowers


Jim Jordan says 14 FBI whistleblowers have come forward



That number is now over 20 according to Senator Grassley

I find it rich that republicans complain about the Jan 6 committee because there’s no republicans they want being allowed to question people that worked in the Trump administration about their experience in the trump administration on and up to January 6. These were Trumpys, some through years of being in the administration. Were Trump innocent of the complaints about him, these people Barr, Cipilone etc would just say under questioning that Trump didn’t do anything that’s being said he did or didn’t do.

What questions could a cross examining republican come up with that the Trumpy witnesses wouldn’t have just said themselves were their legitimate rationales for Trumps actions/inactions. The only thing republicans on the committee could do is try to confuse the issues and present alternative facts which aren’t based in any facts. Which they do all the time on Fox and conservative radio.

Further, if there were facts that bear on the findings of the Jan 6 committee the republicans could have come forth with them, if they existed. Trump could testify. Bannon could have testified. Stone could have testified. McCarthy could have testified. Jordan could have testified. Of course it’d be under oath and that is the rub isn’t it. None of them wanted to get under oath and make any statements.

All having Trumplicans on the committee would have done was allowed them to make loud false statements over and over as an obfuscation of the actual facts being presented. Maybe they should have all agreed to go under oath even as questioners such that they couldn’t present false facts and assertions while they got to speak, that’d be interesting. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I hope Jim Jordon takes those words of yours to heart and not allow any Democrats on the committee to investigate Joe Biden's connections to Hunters deals with China. Why should he, they will just, how did you put it "try and confuse the issue, present alternative facts which aren't facts and make false statements" like they have done for 6 years now and like we are finding out in the Durham trial, see the Durham thread for reference.


New rule starting with the new House members and Senate members. The party in power will not have to put a single Democrat on any investigative committee for the reasons stated above.

Lol. There ya go again. Just silly. Jim Jordan coulda testified and had all the people that he thought with “other facts” testify as well. He didn’t. He can still testify under oath. Or they can bring forth whomever knows some other facts under oath as well. Grab a court reporter and take whatever testimony they want. Nope, not done.

We will get 2 years of Benghazi 2.0 or is this 10.0. Who will care except the Fox crowd. They’ll call folks on Fox who won’t be under oath to repeat lie after lie. Have fun.

Durham’s trial and investigation haven’t proved anything. Well nothing like what the folks banking on Durham thought was gonna be proved. The current guy that’s on trial is being charged with two counts of lying to the FBI.

1. They claim he didn’t receive a call he claims he received. They rely on his phone records which don’t show the received call. The guy stands by receiving the call and said maybe it was through an app that hid the call. Ok. Whatever.

2. The claim he said he didn’t speak to someone that he did. He said they had an email exchange and that he didn’t actually talk to the guy. Ok. Technically I suppose that depends on what was asked.

Do either of these prove anything of interest to anyone not glued to Fox. Nope. No one will care. Otherwise Durham’s investigation is closing down and over.

I hope Jim Jordon takes those words of yours to heart and not allow any Democrats on the committee to investigate Joe Biden's connections to Hunters deals with China. Why should he, they will just, how did you put it "try and confuse the issue, present alternative facts which aren't facts and make false statements" like they have done for 6 years now and like we are finding out in the Durham trial, see the Durham thread Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The Durham investigation!

How many convictions came from that? Was it one?

Might I inquire as to who the Conservative sources where you got analysis from on the Hunter Laptop, Joe Biden connection?


You don't remember hearing any criticism of the Jan. 6th hearing? That tells me right there that you never heard a single Conservative voice on this issue. It was a constant in Conservative media like when the Chairman said "without objection, we'll move on". Who the hell was there to object, Kinzinger and Liz Chaney? Why wasn't a real Conservative voice on the panel? Why was there no real cross examination of the witnesses, not a single word contested. And the answer, "this isn't a trial you know".


On the 2,000 Mules story, I did hear the the other side of the story and it went something like this "just because this one phone was pinged passing by 12 ballot boxes doesn't mean there was anything nefarious going on" and "just because the video of one box being monitored 24 hours a day showed 100 people dropping off ballots and there were 300 ballots counted from that box, doesn't mean a thing".


And the data was so "misleading" that it has been used by law enforcement to catch many a perp by proving their cell phone was within 20 feet of the murder. So it can effectively be used to catch criminals but we can't draw any conclusions because one car passing by multiple boxes, doesn't mean a thing. I wonder if there was any further investigation of the owners of those cars OH! and the fact that some of those cars were tracked coming and going from a Stacy Abrams campaign center. Nothing to see here folks, move along.


https://www.wired.com/story/creepy-g...r-crime-scene/


Creepy ‘Geofence’ Finds Anyone Who Went Near a Crime Scene



IN 2018, 23-YEAR-OLD Jorge Molina was arrested and jailed for six days on suspicion of killing another man. Police in Avondale, Arizona, about 20 miles from Phoenix, held Molina for questioning. According to a police report, officers told him they knew “one hundred percent, without a doubt” his phone was at the scene of the crime, based on data from Google. In fact, Molina wasn’t there. He’d simply lent an old phone to the man police later arrested. The phone was still signed in to his Google account.


The information about Molina’s phone came from a geofence warrant, a relatively new and increasingly popular investigative technique police use to track suspects’ locations. Traditionally, police identify a suspect, then issue a warrant to search the person’s home or belongings.


Geofence warrants work in reverse: Police start with a time and location, then request data from Google or another tech company about any devices in the area at the time. The companies then typically supply anonymous data on the devices in the area. Police use their own investigative tools to narrow down this list. Then they may ask for more specific information—often an email address or a name of the account holder—for a phone on the narrower list.

https://www.ranker.com/list/criminal...ps/jordan-love

Criminal Masterminds Who Were Caught by GPS

GPS trackers are everywhere nowadays. Most new cars, phones, and even high-end watches are equipped with the technology. It has become incredibly useful for police and investigators who are tracking down criminals. From thieve and murders to sexually abusive cops, GPS technology has been used to put wrongdoers of all sorts away.



Originally Posted by HedonistForever

There has been criticism of the January 6th investigation as far as it being one-sided. I have read nothing about the information laid out in the investigation being criticized, although I'm sure there has been some criticism. Much of the testimony is by Republicans. Tell me what has been presented that is not factual.

Yes, geotracking has been used and is being used but it must be used correctly, and the critics of 2000 Mules cast doubt on its use.

“The entirety of the claim rests on cell phone location data, which doesn’t remotely show that people were actually using the drop boxes (it doesn’t have the granularity to show that, as opposed to just walking or even driving by),” said Kenneth R Mayer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who spoke to Reuters via email."

Let's assume for a moment that the information in the movie 2000 Mules is correct. It is virtually impossible to get illegal votes into the system. In the state of Texas, I can request a mail-in ballot due to my age. I will receive it in the mail with a unique code on it. I fill out the ballot and return it. It is opened and verified and the signature is checked by 2 people, sometimes a third. Only then is the ballot accepted. There is no possible way an extra 200 ballots could be entered into the system.