ADVERTISEMENT

FBI Crime Report Ouy Today

I can think of three rather substantial ones that turned out to be true just in the last few years.

1. Hilary’s campaign funded the Steele dossier.
2. There were people within the FBI who wanted to influence the 2016 election.
3. Hunter Biden’s laptop.
1. What is the big conspiracy theory? It was opposition research which every campaign does. Most people knew that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded it early on after it was publicly released AFTER THE ELECTION in 2017. Did nothing to change the election.
2. One person in the FBI and one in the DOJ does not a conspiracy make. You do realize that Trump won in 2016?
3. What about it? I said it should have been covered in the media by more than the NYP and Fox. We all knew it existed before the election. I'm still not sure why some of you think this is such a huge deal. The MAGA Republicans in Congress have had its contents for four years and still haven't found any actual evidence of criminality tied to Joe Biden. It exposes/confirms that Hunter was a scumbag and addict.

Those don't seem very substantial to me and I'm not sure any actually qualify as a conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
1. What is the big conspiracy theory? It was opposition research which every campaign does. Most people knew that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded it early on after it was publicly released AFTER THE ELECTION in 2017. Did nothing to change the election.
2. One person in the FBI and one in the DOJ does not a conspiracy make.
3. What about it? I said it should be covered in the media by more than the NYP and Fox. We all knew it existed before the election. I'm still not sure why some of you think this is such a huge deal. The MAGA Republicans in Congress have had its contents for four years and still haven't found any actual evidence of criminality tied to Joe Biden. It exposes/confirms that Hunter was a scumbag and addict.

Those don't seem very substantial to me and I'm not sure any actually qualify as a conspiracy.
I didn’t say anything about any of these being “substantial”, whatever that means.

I said they were conspiracy theories that turned out to be true and they absolutely were.
 
I didn’t say anything about any of these being “substantial”, whatever that means.

I said they were conspiracy theories that turned out to be true and they absolutely were.
You used "substantial" in your opening sentence. You'll need to explain what the conspiracies were. Who was involved, how many, what was the exact purpose, and were they successful.

I'd guess the first one is easy. The HRC and DNC hoped to find something in their opposition research to use against Trump (which every campaign does). The trouble is, I don't recall them using anything from that research in ads before the election. I don't think they believed the pee tapes either. I know what has upset the MAGAs is that you feel it led to "unfair" investigation of Trump. Not really. It wasn't unfair and the primary extent of the dossier's impact was it was used as part of the reason for a FISA warrant against Carter Page. The Mueller investigation's findings (which aren't flattering - and there were crimes and convictions coming out of it). The Report only includes passing references and were not the basis of any of the findings whatsoever. So failed in gathering any useable dirt on Trump before the election. Failed conspiracy (if standard opposition research IS a conspiracy, which I'd say is not). Trump's campaign did their opposition research against HRC and actually used some of it (to include DNC emails which happened to fall in their laps).

Second one - don't see any conspiracy at all there. Couple of people who were having an affair (you have quotes of theirs in your signature) didn't like Trump and said they'd make sure he wasn't elected. But what did they do? Nothing of note AND Trump won the election. Not much of a conspiracy and a total failure.

Last one - you could say that the guy in the Biden administration who led the effort to get 51 former intelligence officials (again, including very significant Republicans) to say it had the earmarks of a Russian influence operation, which it did. I don't think they should have done it, and I said at the time the media should report about it. At least more than the NYP and Fox. I honestly don't think it would have meant much for the results of the election, but it's at least feasible it might have changed a few votes here and there. Of course, we don't know that. However, overall, the Hunter Laptop hasn't amounted to very much. It never tied Joe Biden to any criminal behavior. If it did, they could have impeached him and they didn't, or they could have prosecuted him after he's no longer President. That's not going to happen either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
You used "substantial" in your opening sentence. You'll need to explain what the conspiracies were. Who was involved, how many, what was the exact purpose, and were they successful.

I'd guess the first one is easy. The HRC and DNC hoped to find something in their opposition research to use against Trump (which every campaign does). The trouble is, I don't recall them using anything from that research in ads before the election. I don't think they believed the pee tapes either. I know what has upset the MAGAs is that you feel it led to "unfair" investigation of Trump. Not really. It wasn't unfair and the primary extent of the dossier's impact was it was used as part of the reason for a FISA warrant against Carter Page. The Mueller investigation's findings (which aren't flattering - and there were crimes and convictions coming out of it). The Report only includes passing references and were not the basis of any of the findings whatsoever. So failed in gathering any useable dirt on Trump before the election. Failed conspiracy (if standard opposition research IS a conspiracy, which I'd say is not). Trump's campaign did their opposition research against HRC and actually used some of it (to include DNC emails which happened to fall in their laps).

Second one - don't see any conspiracy at all there. Couple of people who were having an affair (you have quotes of theirs in your signature) didn't like Trump and said they'd make sure he wasn't elected. But what did they do? Nothing of note AND Trump won the election. Not much of a conspiracy and a total failure.

Last one - you could say that the guy in the Biden administration who led the effort to get 51 former intelligence officials (again, including very significant Republicans) to say it had the earmarks of a Russian influence operation, which it did. I don't think they should have done it, and I said at the time the media should report about it. At least more than the NYP and Fox. I honestly don't think it would have meant much for the results of the election, but it's at least feasible it might have changed a few votes here and there. Of course, we don't know that. However, overall, the Hunter Laptop hasn't amounted to very much. It never tied Joe Biden to any criminal behavior. If it did, they could have impeached him and they didn't, or they could have prosecuted him after he's no longer President. That's not going to happen either.
By substantial I meant well known. As in they were popularly believed to be conspiracy theories and they turned out to be true. Your whole diatribe there has nothing to do with my point, which was countering your argument that conspiracy theories rarely turn out to be real.
 
-I didn't say that!
--Yes you did!
-oops, I guess I did, well... I didn't mean it!

giphy-downsized-large.gif
 
By substantial I meant well known. As in they were popularly believed to be conspiracy theories and they turned out to be true. Your whole diatribe there has nothing to do with my point, which was countering your argument that conspiracy theories rarely turn out to be real.
How are they conspiracy theories? They're just things that have happened. They weren't grand conspiracies. If you think they are, explain them.
 
Duuuu-uuuuh. The fact you have to explain this is bizarre.
You are the most dishonest poster on the board. I honestly don’t care what you think. I have no respect for serial liars and that’s exactly what you are.
 
That is absolutely unbelievable. How do you “miss” that many murders, then change the stats without SAYING A WORD TO ANYONE ABOUT IT and expect to be trusted AT ALL?

Maybe Trump really does need to clean house. That’s unbelievable.

 
That’s a pretty crazy read, especially the part about crime committed by illegals.

Sharyl: Based on the numbers you've seen. What would you say is the true crime trend in this country, and it may be different for violent crimes and nonviolent crimes, but what do you see in the numbers?

Lott: Well, I think it's gone up tremendously violent crime during the Biden administration. I think it's gone up by about 43% since he's been president. And I think there are two reasons why the media wants to go and and kind of claim that it's going down. One is just unfortunately, I think probably just to help the Democrats on this. But I think the other thing, and a number of Democrats have made this explicit is they say, “Look, we’ve had many millions of illegals coming into the country and violent crime is falling.” And so they say “it can't be illegals causing more crime because crime is dropping over this period of time.”

Which brings us to another statistical trick, a flood of studies imply illegal immigrants are more law abiding than U.S. citizens.

The Marshall Project video clip: Our study found that immigrants are less likely to break the law than people born in the U.S.

But the studies often group legal immigrants in with illegal immigrants.

Lott: Now, what I've found, I did some work for the county prosecutors in Arizona a few years ago, is on their state prison system, is that you have big differences between legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants seem to commit crimes at very low rates. Their share of the prison population was well below their share of the state population. Illegal immigrants though had a very high rate of crime, particularly very violent crime. Everything from kidnappings to murders compared to the general population that are there. Usually what happens in discussions is they mix the two together and so then they'll get a rate that could be roughly similar or maybe even slightly below what it is for native born Americans. And I think that's very misleading to lump those two groups together.

In fact, illegal immigrants have made up a disproportionately high number of prison inmates in America, indicating they commit far more serious crimes.

A decade ago, when illegal immigrants made up about one in thirty of the U.S. population, they accounted for a shocking one in four or five U.S. prison inmates, according to GAO. That included 4.9 million arrests for 7.5 million offenses including allegations of more than a million drug crimes, a half-million assaults, 133,800 sex offenses, 24,200 kidnappings, 33,300 homicide-related offenses, and 1,500 terrorism-related crimes. Nobody has tracked or updated the numbers since.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT