Jump to content

Why Did the FBI Want JoeBama to Become President?


Reagan

Recommended Posts

From the article:  

"Just imagine for a moment that Donald Trump, Jr. (or Eric) sat on the board of directors for a foreign company and “earned” millions of dollars for literally doing nothing. He didn’t know the industry and didn’t speak the language. The only thing Junior brought to the table was his last name. He made deals with foreign agents and foreign corporations to acquire rare materials like cobalt (used in electric cars) that was sold to Chinese interests for profit. While on an extended drug binge, he took a computer with lots of incriminating evidence to a repair shop and forgot or didn't care what he’d done with it. Then he ignored all the calls from the shop telling him to come pick up his computer. That would be huge news, wouldn’t it?

Of course, Donald Trump, Sr. would be crucified. The media coverage would be nonstop. After years of witch hunts, they would finally have legitimate criminal behavior to investigate. The thousands of hours of airtime devoted to fake scandals would finally have paid off.

But change the name from Donald Trump, Jr. to Hunter Biden and the political party that stands to suffer from the revelations from Republican to Democrat, and the media becomes curiously uninterested in doing their job, which is to report the truth: That Hunter Biden is the bagman for the Biden family crime syndicate. The latest Twitter Files information drop proves it. Not only has Hunter’s corrupt and criminal business deals been exposed, the extraordinary lengths to which the FBI acted to suppress a true story have been exposed, too. 

FBI agents swear to an oath of office..."

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reagan changed the title to Why Did the FBI Want JoeBama to Become President?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...