politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Because ever since Kissinger the national security advisor has been the conduit between the president and intelligence agencies. And Bolton was in that position when the FBI opened the safe at Epstein's place. The one filled with video and electronic files that somehow "disappeared".
If I said a rectangle was a square, would you say that's only possible if every rectangle was a square?
Reality...
Now, one question for you:
Come the fuck on...
If you don't understand still, nothing else I ever say will help you. Best of luck.
The "conduit"? Correct me if I'm wrong but the National Security Advisor isn't out kicking in doors when the FBI go on raids. The FBI is not an intelligence agency (it has an intelligence branch) and being the "conduit" doesn't mean he has the ability, inclination, foresight or skullduggery to gather such "insurance policies."
If you said that on a specific day the sun rose because you had prayed really hard for it to pray the previous day, I would be asking you what about all the other days when it rose without your apparent intervention.
Not good enough.
I'm calling out your conspiracy theory thinking. Target John Bolton with an FBI investigation is a conspiracy, is a fascist abuse of power and is not, in any way, giving Trump "the benefit of the doubt." But it's not conspiracy theory thinking, because there's no super secret bullshit that only a select few are smart enough to work out - it's the regular kind of secret stuff that we can infer based on facts and evidence.
To believe your story I have to believe that there's a high chance John Bolton has "the Epstein list" and has kept it as insurance. You have given me no reason to believe this except that Bolton was head of - not the FBI, not the DoJ, but the National Security Council. So what? On the basis of such weak evidence you'd be saying that thousands of government officials have Epstein related "insurance".
You're not, though, because you're not actually basing this on any thought process which takes evidence into account.
Bro. What do you gain when you investigate? Intelligence, you're being obtuse.
Why are you joining this comment thread to do something other than offer an actual reason to believe that Bolton has an Epstein-based insurance policy, when this investigation is adequately explained the same way all of Trump's other retaliatory abuses of power are explained?
Clearly because you're being obtuse and I wanted to alert you to that fact things like saying the FBI a department under the usint isn't an intelligence agency.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Intelligence_Branch
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community
Your local sheriff thanks to fusion is part of the intelligence community, ie. You're being obtuse.
If OP is saying that the likelihood of John Bolton having snagged a copy of the Epstein files in 2019 and used them as an insurance policy against them one day being released in modified form is in the same region as that of some random sheriff, then there'd be less contention.
It's not obtuse to point out the distance between John Bolton and a particular FBI raid. Indeed, it's being obtuse to say how they're linked in some game of six degrees of Richard Bacon when the point is that the mere fact of their being in slightly overlapping circles doesn't in the slightest way imply that Bolton both was able to and actually did make copies of evidence.