The J6 videos

[CHEEZY17]

The intellectually honest thing is very simple regarding my comment: The FBI would not comment on how many agents were there. Thats it. You can add any other thing you want. Did I ever say the FBI was behind the protest, or are you just throwing more shit at the wall? Go ahead and quote where I said that. All I said was that the director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there. Thats it. Thats factual and intellectually honest. Jeezus you are fucking tedious.

Since you're being intellectually dishonest, I'm going to go ahead and extrapolate that you bring up the FBI director and agents at the capitol the day of the attempted coup because he was questioned by a congressman who wanted to lay blame for the insurrection at the feet of the FBI, that they instigated it. Because you're perpetually intellectually dishonest, I can't depend on you being forthcoming on what else you might have pulled the subject from since it is current and to the point of your own question. But sure, let's go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that you'd ask such a thing and not be thinking of the underlying reason Wray was being asked that question. Let's pretend that Higgins was not ready to go full blown conspiracy theory mode in a public hearing because he sees ghost vans and thinks his abusive past as a police officer gives him insight into "the real story."

Tedious? As always, every accusation from you is a confession. Disingenuous hack.

Its not my fault that you inferred something that wasnt implied, retard. As always, you throw a load of shit against the wall in an effort to cover your stupidity. In essence, you just admitted that you cant back up your claim but youre trying to save face while doing it.

[dot]

Its not my fault that you inferred something that wasnt implied, retard. As always, you throw a load of shit against the wall in an effort to cover your stupidity. In essence, you just admitted that you cant back up your claim but youre trying to save face while doing it.

You're free to give us all your disingenuous true intentions then. This should be a hoot to witness.

[CHEEZY17]

Its not my fault that you inferred something that wasnt implied, retard. As always, you throw a load of shit against the wall in an effort to cover your stupidity. In essence, you just admitted that you cant back up your claim but youre trying to save face while doing it.

You're free to give us all your disingenuous true intentions then. This should be a hoot to witness.

True intentions of what? I posted a factual statement that can simply stand on its own. There is nothing else to add. You made the mistake of inferring something that was not accurate. Thats your stupidity; not mine. Now youre mad.
The Director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there on that day. Thats it. That is a factual statement that you can see it for yourself on youtube. You, or anyone else can take from that what you will. All it means to me personally is that by not saying "none" it means that there were *some* agents there. I dont think thats some crazy hot take, do you? And before you misrepresent what I'm saying, like you like to do, that doesnt mean I'm saying they were "behind the machinations". I dont need to misrepresent anything or be disingenuous because his statement is what it is. He said it and for some reason it gets your little panties twisted.

I love how it really bothers you when you got called out on your disingenuousness, your love of misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. Its your style. You try to turn it around because it clearly DOES bother you.

[saltydog]

Its not my fault that you inferred something that wasnt implied, retard. As always, you throw a load of shit against the wall in an effort to cover your stupidity. In essence, you just admitted that you cant back up your claim but youre trying to save face while doing it.

You're free to give us all your disingenuous true intentions then. This should be a hoot to witness.

True intentions of what? I posted a factual statement that can simply stand on its own. There is nothing else to add. You made the mistake of inferring something that was not accurate. Thats your stupidity; not mine. Now youre mad.
The Director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there on that day. Thats it. That is a factual statement that you can see it for yourself on youtube. You, or anyone else can take from that what you will. All it means to me personally is that by not saying "none" it means that there were *some* agents there. I dont think thats some crazy hot take, do you? And before you misrepresent what I'm saying, like you like to do, that doesnt mean I'm saying they were "behind the machinations". I dont need to misrepresent anything or be disingenuous because his statement is what it is. He said it and for some reason it gets your little panties twisted.

I love how it really bothers you when you got called out on your disingenuousness, your love of misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. Its your style. You try to turn it around because it clearly DOES bother you.

You openly support people that are actively trying to destroy the US government.

You are not only a disingenuous hack, but you're a traitor and I hope your ancestors don't suffer being stuck in the wrong side of history because you couldn't avoid gleefully being part of a cult.

[CHEEZY17]

Its not my fault that you inferred something that wasnt implied, retard. As always, you throw a load of shit against the wall in an effort to cover your stupidity. In essence, you just admitted that you cant back up your claim but youre trying to save face while doing it.

You're free to give us all your disingenuous true intentions then. This should be a hoot to witness.

True intentions of what? I posted a factual statement that can simply stand on its own. There is nothing else to add. You made the mistake of inferring something that was not accurate. Thats your stupidity; not mine. Now youre mad.
The Director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there on that day. Thats it. That is a factual statement that you can see it for yourself on youtube. You, or anyone else can take from that what you will. All it means to me personally is that by not saying "none" it means that there were *some* agents there. I dont think thats some crazy hot take, do you? And before you misrepresent what I'm saying, like you like to do, that doesnt mean I'm saying they were "behind the machinations". I dont need to misrepresent anything or be disingenuous because his statement is what it is. He said it and for some reason it gets your little panties twisted.

I love how it really bothers you when you got called out on your disingenuousness, your love of misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. Its your style. You try to turn it around because it clearly DOES bother you.

You openly support people that are actively trying to destroy the US government.

You are not only a disingenuous hack, but you're a traitor and I hope your ancestors don't suffer being stuck in the wrong side of history because you couldn't avoid gleefully being part of a cult.

Oh shit. Sorry Salty

[dot]

True intentions of what? I posted a factual statement that can simply stand on its own. There is nothing else to add. You made the mistake of inferring something that was not accurate. Thats your stupidity; not mine. Now youre mad.
The Director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there on that day. Thats it. That is a factual statement that you can see it for yourself on youtube. You, or anyone else can take from that what you will. All it means to me personally is that by not saying "none" it means that there were *some* agents there. I dont think thats some crazy hot take, do you? And before you misrepresent what I'm saying, like you like to do, that doesnt mean I'm saying they were "behind the machinations". I dont need to misrepresent anything or be disingenuous because his statement is what it is. He said it and for some reason it gets your little panties twisted.

I love how it really bothers you when you got called out on your disingenuousness, your love of misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. Its your style. You try to turn it around because it clearly DOES bother you.

I know that playing dumb might work for some of the garbage brain forum users here that might believe you, but for the rest of us that follow what's happening from day to day, we're gonna pick up what you're talking about and why. So now that your intellectually honest claim is thoroughly out the window, yes you are talking about the FBI director being questioned by a conspiracy theorist coup apologist idiot in Congress who tried to lay the insurrection at the feet of the FBI. You also again grossly overestimate your value in discourse here. I'm not bothered, peeved, aggravated. What I am is amused at how easy it is to read you like a book. Like I said, every accusation is a confession from you. Notice going back that it's always you getting bent out of shape that someone like me dares to challenge your warped perception of the world. Tedious, disingenuous, hack, every label that you throw out is you getting upset and telling on yourself. Now without rehashing all the history of the forum here, I'll keep it simple for your sensibilities to not get ruffled.

Higgins tried to question Wray, a Republican appointment under a Republican president in a Republican administration, and insinuate that the FBI instigated the attack on the capitol. Wray, because he's smarter than your moronic rep idol of the moment, did not play ball with the line of questioning because to give it air is more value than your conspiracy theories are worth. But it got on the news and reported, and now surprise surprise, you're here parroting the narrative. Said narrative is unravelled because your boy, remember the guy who appointed Wray, was recorded as saying he wanted to go to the capitol when it was being overrun and he would've been greatly received because they were his people. He sent them after all. And now here we are. So like I said, if that isn't the timeline of how this subject came about, feel free to tell us your true intentions. Fiction can be entertaining after all.

[CHEEZY17]

True intentions of what? I posted a factual statement that can simply stand on its own. There is nothing else to add. You made the mistake of inferring something that was not accurate. Thats your stupidity; not mine. Now youre mad.
The Director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there on that day. Thats it. That is a factual statement that you can see it for yourself on youtube. You, or anyone else can take from that what you will. All it means to me personally is that by not saying "none" it means that there were *some* agents there. I dont think thats some crazy hot take, do you? And before you misrepresent what I'm saying, like you like to do, that doesnt mean I'm saying they were "behind the machinations". I dont need to misrepresent anything or be disingenuous because his statement is what it is. He said it and for some reason it gets your little panties twisted.

I love how it really bothers you when you got called out on your disingenuousness, your love of misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. Its your style. You try to turn it around because it clearly DOES bother you.

I know that playing dumb might work for some of the garbage brain forum users here that might believe you, but for the rest of us that follow what's happening from day to day, we're gonna pick up what you're talking about and why. So now that your intellectually honest claim is thoroughly out the window, yes you are talking about the FBI director being questioned by a conspiracy theorist coup apologist idiot in Congress who tried to lay the insurrection at the feet of the FBI. You also again grossly overestimate your value in discourse here. I'm not bothered, peeved, aggravated. What I am is amused at how easy it is to read you like a book. Like I said, every accusation is a confession from you. Notice going back that it's always you getting bent out of shape that someone like me dares to challenge your warped perception of the world. Tedious, disingenuous, hack, every label that you throw out is you getting upset and telling on yourself. Now without rehashing all the history of the forum here, I'll keep it simple for your sensibilities to not get ruffled.

Higgins tried to question Wray, a Republican appointment under a Republican president in a Republican administration, and insinuate that the FBI instigated the attack on the capitol. Wray, because he's smarter than your moronic rep idol of the moment, did not play ball with the line of questioning because to give it air is more value than your conspiracy theories are worth. But it got on the news and reported, and now surprise surprise, you're here parroting the narrative. Said narrative is unravelled because your boy, remember the guy who appointed Wray, was recorded as saying he wanted to go to the capitol when it was being overrun and he would've been greatly received because they were his people. He sent them after all. And now here we are. So like I said, if that isn't the timeline of how this subject came about, feel free to tell us your true intentions. Fiction can be entertaining after all.

Aw, you can always tell when widdle dot has gotten fired up.
So you looked it up? Good for you! Now you see that my post was factually accurate. Sorry, thats the bottom line here. The rest of your ramblings are simply an obvious and transparent attempt at saving face because you inferred the wrong thing from the start.

[dot]

Aw, you can always tell when widdle dot has gotten fired up.
So you looked it up? Good for you! Now you see that my post was factually accurate. Sorry, thats the bottom line here. The rest of your ramblings are simply an obvious and transparent attempt at saving face because you inferred the wrong thing from the start.

Looked it up? I already knew. That's one of the benefits of choosing to be informed and why you look particularly pathetic playing dumb on this, again resorting to transferring your aggravation to someone else. Interestingly, you're still refusing to state why you would bring it up. Surely you're not embarrassed about quoting an idiot congressman, Shirley.

[CHEEZY17]

Aw, you can always tell when widdle dot has gotten fired up.
So you looked it up? Good for you! Now you see that my post was factually accurate. Sorry, thats the bottom line here. The rest of your ramblings are simply an obvious and transparent attempt at saving face because you inferred the wrong thing from the start.

Looked it up? I already knew. That's one of the benefits of choosing to be informed and why you look particularly pathetic playing dumb on this, again resorting to transferring your aggravation to someone else. Interestingly, you're still refusing to state why you would bring it up. Surely you're not embarrassed about quoting an idiot congressman, Shirley.

Holy fuck. You just cant help yourself!
Go ahead and quote the post where I quoted any congressman. Go ahead, I'll wait.
What I did say, you dishonest hack, was that the director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there that day. That is factual and accurate and you know it, which is why you are now backpedaling.
Here are my actual words that triggered your meltdown:

Speaking of words...how about the lack of words from the FBI Director who refused to say how many government agents were there that day? Neat stuff.

The reason I brought it up? This is a January 6th thread and that is relevant testimony from a government official. Its not my fault you stupidly inferred something inaccurately from the start and now youre trying to save face.

[dot]

Holy fuck. You just cant help yourself!
Go ahead and quote the post where I quoted any congressman. Go ahead, I'll wait.
What I did say, you dishonest hack, was that the director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there that day. That is factual and accurate and you know it, which is why you are now backpedaling.
Here are my actual words that triggered your meltdown:

Speaking of words...how about the lack of words from the FBI Director who refused to say how many government agents were there that day? Neat stuff.

The reason I brought it up? This is a January 6th thread and that is relevant testimony from a government official. Its not my fault you stupidly inferred something inaccurately from the start and now youre trying to save face.

Curious, why is it you can't disclose who was doing the questioning of said government official? Clearly I know who it was, and also just as clearly, you won't confirm why you know who it was. Probably cause it goes to directly what I said, you're referencing a conspiracy theorist coup apologist. So please, flail some more. Use some more exclamation points, but claim it's not you having the meltdown. Told you your fiction was gonna be entertaining.

[CHEEZY17]

Holy fuck. You just cant help yourself!
Go ahead and quote the post where I quoted any congressman. Go ahead, I'll wait.
What I did say, you dishonest hack, was that the director of the FBI would not say how many agents were there that day. That is factual and accurate and you know it, which is why you are now backpedaling.
Here are my actual words that triggered your meltdown:

Speaking of words...how about the lack of words from the FBI Director who refused to say how many government agents were there that day? Neat stuff.

The reason I brought it up? This is a January 6th thread and that is relevant testimony from a government official. Its not my fault you stupidly inferred something inaccurately from the start and now youre trying to save face.

Curious, why is it you can't disclose who was doing the questioning of said government official? Clearly I know who it was, and also just as clearly, you won't confirm why you know who it was. Probably cause it goes to directly what I said, you're referencing a conspiracy theorist coup apologist. So please, flail some more. Use some more exclamation points, but claim it's not you having the meltdown. Told you your fiction was gonna be entertaining.

Holy fuck.
Now you want to talk about who asked the question? As if that matters? JFC. I dont CARE who asked the question because the answer is more important.
It doesnt fucking matter who asked the question because we are talking about the answer that was given you fucking clown show. The question was asked and he refused to say how many agents were there.
That is factual and accurate and no amount of your goalpost moving will change that. It doesnt matter if fucking Santa Claus asked the question. Youre having a rough day, hoss. Between this and Bikers thread youre 0-2.

[dot]

Holy fuck.
Now you want to talk about who asked the question? As if that matters? JFC. I dont CARE who asked the question because the answer is more important.
It doesnt fucking matter who asked the question because we are talking about the answer that was given you fucking clown show. The question was asked and he refused to say how many agents were there.
That is factual and accurate and no amount of your goalpost moving will change that. It doesnt matter if fucking Santa Claus asked the question. Youre having a rough day, hoss. Between this and Bikers thread youre 0-2.

If it doesn't matter, then why are you so afraid of disclosing it? Just tell us, what relevant piece of news could possibly make you bring up Wray being questioned about agents on January 6? If it's nothing to be ashamed of, why not just tell us? Now obviously I know why, but you're clearly avoiding it. Do you want to tell the class why that is? Because I can, but you know I'm not going to be dishonest about it so I'm giving you the first chance to paint your fictional rosy picture.

[CHEEZY17]

Holy fuck.
Now you want to talk about who asked the question? As if that matters? JFC. I dont CARE who asked the question because the answer is more important.
It doesnt fucking matter who asked the question because we are talking about the answer that was given you fucking clown show. The question was asked and he refused to say how many agents were there.
That is factual and accurate and no amount of your goalpost moving will change that. It doesnt matter if fucking Santa Claus asked the question. Youre having a rough day, hoss. Between this and Bikers thread youre 0-2.

If it doesn't matter, then why are you so afraid of disclosing it? Just tell us, what relevant piece of news could possibly make you bring up Wray being questioned about agents on January 6? If it's nothing to be ashamed of, why not just tell us? Now obviously I know why, but you're clearly avoiding it. Do you want to tell the class why that is? Because I can, but you know I'm not going to be dishonest about it so I'm giving you the first chance to paint your fictional rosy picture.

Dude, I'm not avoiding it or afraid of it. I honestly dont know who asked it and I simply dont care. I dont care because it doesnt matter. Go ahead and say it because it wont change anything. Wray was asked a direct question and he dodged it. Thats factual and regardless of your goalpost moving or who asked the question that will remain true. As I said, it doesnt matter if Santa Claus asked the question. Stop being a retard.

[saltydog]

Holy fuck.
Now you want to talk about who asked the question? As if that matters? JFC. I dont CARE who asked the question because the answer is more important.
It doesnt fucking matter who asked the question because we are talking about the answer that was given you fucking clown show. The question was asked and he refused to say how many agents were there.
That is factual and accurate and no amount of your goalpost moving will change that. It doesnt matter if fucking Santa Claus asked the question. Youre having a rough day, hoss. Between this and Bikers thread youre 0-2.

If it doesn't matter, then why are you so afraid of disclosing it? Just tell us, what relevant piece of news could possibly make you bring up Wray being questioned about agents on January 6? If it's nothing to be ashamed of, why not just tell us? Now obviously I know why, but you're clearly avoiding it. Do you want to tell the class why that is? Because I can, but you know I'm not going to be dishonest about it so I'm giving you the first chance to paint your fictional rosy picture.

Dude, I'm not avoiding it or afraid of it. I honestly dont know who asked it and I simply dont care. I dont care because it doesnt matter. Go ahead and say it because it wont change anything. Wray was asked a direct question and he dodged it. Thats factual and regardless of your goalpost moving or who asked the question that will remain true. As I said, it doesnt matter if Santa Claus asked the question. Stop being a retard.

The guy who is "reluctant" to vote for Trump telling people to stop being a retard.

Hilarious.

[dot]

Dude, I'm not avoiding it or afraid of it. I honestly dont know who asked it and I simply dont care. I dont care because it doesnt matter. Go ahead and say it because it wont change anything. Wray was asked a direct question and he dodged it. Thats factual and regardless of your goalpost moving or who asked the question that will remain true. As I said, it doesnt matter if Santa Claus asked the question. Stop being a retard.

So you're going with intellectual dishonesty then. Okay, so as I said, Clay Higgins is questioning Chris Wray about agents in the capitol on January 6th.

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-cut ... ry-1844072

Republican Cuts Off Colleague's Speech About Capitol Riot Conspiracy Theory

The Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security cut off his GOP colleague during a Wednesday hearing as Representative Clay Higgins hammered FBI Director Christopher Wray with questions about a Capitol Riot conspiracy theory.

Higgins, a former law enforcement officer, has appeared and spoken at events organized by anti-government militia groups and been a vocal proponent of the theory that federal agencies have attempted to arrest conservatives by provoking events like the Capitol Riot.

Representative Mark Green, who heads the committee, reminded Higgins to wrap up his line of questioning after Representative Glenn Ivey, a Democrat on the panel, pointed out the Louisiana Republican had gone over his allotted time. Green told Ivey he had allowed even some of the Democrats on the committee to go slightly over their time, and would allow Higgins to do the same. However, he still nudged his colleague to finish his remarks.

"I've been very fair in letting people finish their questioning, throughout my tenure as chairman, and I'll continue to be fair on that regard, but I will make a note to the members if you could stay as close within your time as possible, we have a lot of people that want to ask these gentlemen questions," Green told the committee.

When Higgins asked to make a closing statement about his allegations that the FBI orchestrated the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot, Green said to him, "No, I think your time is expired," before allowing Higgins to make a final comment.

Green's office told Newsweek that the chairman has been consistent in applying this approach to all members of the committee and offered a breakdown of how much time he has allowed each member to conclude their remarks. Representative Dan Bishop, a Republican, went over the most, at 1 minute and 15 seconds over the allotted 5 minutes, while Representative Lou Correa, a Democrat, came second at 54 seconds over the allotted time.

Newsweek reached out to Higgins via email for comment.

Before Higgins was interrupted, the Republican was asking Wray about the FBI's involvement in the riot, accusing the bureau of sending "ghost buses" to the Capitol on January 6 that were filled with informants pretending to be supporters of former President Donald Trump.

"These buses are nefarious in nature and were filled with FBI informants dressed as Trump supporters and deployed onto our capitol on January 6th," Higgins told Wray in his final comments. "Your day is coming."

When asked about whether the FBI planted people in the crowd that day, Wray vehemently denied the accusations, saying, "If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents, the answer is emphatically no!"

Higgins asked Wray if he knew what "ghost buses" were, describing them to be "common in law enforcement" and explaining them as "vehicles used for secret purposes."

Wray appeared before the House committee as part of the Wednesday hearing titled, "Worldwide Threats to the Homeland." Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and National Counterterrorism Center Director Christine Abizaid also appeared before the panel.

In case reading isn't gonna be your thing today, here ya go.



That's what a little honesty looks like. Disingenuous. Hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Dude, I'm not avoiding it or afraid of it. I honestly dont know who asked it and I simply dont care. I dont care because it doesnt matter. Go ahead and say it because it wont change anything. Wray was asked a direct question and he dodged it. Thats factual and regardless of your goalpost moving or who asked the question that will remain true. As I said, it doesnt matter if Santa Claus asked the question. Stop being a retard.

So you're going with intellectual dishonesty then. Okay, so as I said, Clay Higgins is questioning Chris Wray about agents in the capitol on January 6th.

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-cut ... ry-1844072

Republican Cuts Off Colleague's Speech About Capitol Riot Conspiracy Theory

The Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security cut off his GOP colleague during a Wednesday hearing as Representative Clay Higgins hammered FBI Director Christopher Wray with questions about a Capitol Riot conspiracy theory.

Higgins, a former law enforcement officer, has appeared and spoken at events organized by anti-government militia groups and been a vocal proponent of the theory that federal agencies have attempted to arrest conservatives by provoking events like the Capitol Riot.

Representative Mark Green, who heads the committee, reminded Higgins to wrap up his line of questioning after Representative Glenn Ivey, a Democrat on the panel, pointed out the Louisiana Republican had gone over his allotted time. Green told Ivey he had allowed even some of the Democrats on the committee to go slightly over their time, and would allow Higgins to do the same. However, he still nudged his colleague to finish his remarks.

"I've been very fair in letting people finish their questioning, throughout my tenure as chairman, and I'll continue to be fair on that regard, but I will make a note to the members if you could stay as close within your time as possible, we have a lot of people that want to ask these gentlemen questions," Green told the committee.

When Higgins asked to make a closing statement about his allegations that the FBI orchestrated the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot, Green said to him, "No, I think your time is expired," before allowing Higgins to make a final comment.

Green's office told Newsweek that the chairman has been consistent in applying this approach to all members of the committee and offered a breakdown of how much time he has allowed each member to conclude their remarks. Representative Dan Bishop, a Republican, went over the most, at 1 minute and 15 seconds over the allotted 5 minutes, while Representative Lou Correa, a Democrat, came second at 54 seconds over the allotted time.

Newsweek reached out to Higgins via email for comment.

Before Higgins was interrupted, the Republican was asking Wray about the FBI's involvement in the riot, accusing the bureau of sending "ghost buses" to the Capitol on January 6 that were filled with informants pretending to be supporters of former President Donald Trump.

"These buses are nefarious in nature and were filled with FBI informants dressed as Trump supporters and deployed onto our capitol on January 6th," Higgins told Wray in his final comments. "Your day is coming."

When asked about whether the FBI planted people in the crowd that day, Wray vehemently denied the accusations, saying, "If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents, the answer is emphatically no!"

Higgins asked Wray if he knew what "ghost buses" were, describing them to be "common in law enforcement" and explaining them as "vehicles used for secret purposes."

Wray appeared before the House committee as part of the Wednesday hearing titled, "Worldwide Threats to the Homeland." Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and National Counterterrorism Center Director Christine Abizaid also appeared before the panel.

In case reading isn't gonna be your thing today, here ya go.



That's what a little honesty looks like. Disingenuous. Hack.

Wow, that is not even what I'm talking about you hack. All that shit youve been blabbering about and its not even the same guy. Holy fuck.
THIS is what I'm talking about you fucking disingenuous fraud. Its a totally different guy asking the question at a totally different time.
You can FF to about 2 minutes where he dodges Biggs direct question about how many agents.


But even in your video he STILL dodges the question. He answers a different question than the one that was asked.
"When asked about whether the FBI planted people in the crowd that day, Wray vehemently denied the accusations, saying, "If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents, the answer is emphatically no!"
Uh, Chris, he asked if the FBI planted people in the crowd NOT if they orchestrated the event.

[dot]

Wow, that is not even what I'm talking about you hack. All that shit youve been blabbering about and its not even the same guy. Holy fuck.
THIS is what I'm talking about you fucking disingenuous fraud. Its a totally different guy asking the question at a totally different time.
You can FF to about 2 minutes where he dodges Biggs direct question about how many agents.

So, let's get this straight. You want us to believe that you're referencing a hearing from four months ago, when similar questioning went down a week and a half ago. That you're going to recall four months ago... now? Remember what I said about your fiction was gonna be entertaining? Called it.

But even in your video he STILL dodges the question. He answers a different question than the one that was asked.
"When asked about whether the FBI planted people in the crowd that day, Wray vehemently denied the accusations, saying, "If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents, the answer is emphatically no!"
Uh, Chris, he asked if the FBI planted people in the crowd NOT if they orchestrated the event.

Which goes to:

Speaking of words...how about the lack of words from the FBI Director who refused to say how many government agents were there that day? Neat stuff.

Not giving air to your revisionist history attempt is pretty neat stuff, makes sense that you'd not get that and go for the conspiracy angle instead.

And as you clearly only want to acknowledge selectively, allow me to point out that which you're ignoring:

Higgins, a former law enforcement officer, has appeared and spoken at events organized by anti-government militia groups and been a vocal proponent of the theory that federal agencies have attempted to arrest conservatives by provoking events like the Capitol Riot.

See, it's wise to not waste time with the coup apologists and traitors that which represent your party. So, wanna stick with your story, that this came about because of a hearing back in July, which you refused to identify? Couldn't possibly be because it actually came up within the last two weeks.

But just in case you do wanna stick with it?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 741383007/

“Representative Biggs was involved in numerous elements of President Trump’s efforts to contest the election results,” the introduction said. “As early as November 6, 2020, Representative Biggs texted (White House Chief of Staff) Mark Meadows, urging him to ‘encourage the state legislatures to appoint [electors].’

“In the following days, Representative Biggs told Meadows not to let President Trump concede his loss. Between then and January 6th, Representative Biggs coordinated with Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem to gather signatures from Arizona lawmakers endorsing fake Trump electors. He also contacted fake Trump electors in at least one State seeking evidence related to voter fraud.”

Another coup apologist. What a shock.

[CHEEZY17]

Wow, that is not even what I'm talking about you hack. All that shit youve been blabbering about and its not even the same guy. Holy fuck.
THIS is what I'm talking about you fucking disingenuous fraud. Its a totally different guy asking the question at a totally different time.
You can FF to about 2 minutes where he dodges Biggs direct question about how many agents.

So, let's get this straight. You want us to believe that you're referencing a hearing from four months ago, when similar questioning went down a week and a half ago. That you're going to recall four months ago... now? Remember what I said about your fiction was gonna be entertaining? Called it.

But even in your video he STILL dodges the question. He answers a different question than the one that was asked.
"When asked about whether the FBI planted people in the crowd that day, Wray vehemently denied the accusations, saying, "If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents, the answer is emphatically no!"
Uh, Chris, he asked if the FBI planted people in the crowd NOT if they orchestrated the event.

Which goes to:

Speaking of words...how about the lack of words from the FBI Director who refused to say how many government agents were there that day? Neat stuff.

Not giving air to your revisionist history attempt is pretty neat stuff, makes sense that you'd not get that and go for the conspiracy angle instead.

And as you clearly only want to acknowledge selectively, allow me to point out that which you're ignoring:

Higgins, a former law enforcement officer, has appeared and spoken at events organized by anti-government militia groups and been a vocal proponent of the theory that federal agencies have attempted to arrest conservatives by provoking events like the Capitol Riot.

See, it's wise to not waste time with the coup apologists and traitors that which represent your party. So, wanna stick with your story, that this came about because of a hearing back in July, which you refused to identify? Couldn't possibly be because it actually came up within the last two weeks.

But just in case you do wanna stick with it?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 741383007/

“Representative Biggs was involved in numerous elements of President Trump’s efforts to contest the election results,” the introduction said. “As early as November 6, 2020, Representative Biggs texted (White House Chief of Staff) Mark Meadows, urging him to ‘encourage the state legislatures to appoint [electors].’

“In the following days, Representative Biggs told Meadows not to let President Trump concede his loss. Between then and January 6th, Representative Biggs coordinated with Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem to gather signatures from Arizona lawmakers endorsing fake Trump electors. He also contacted fake Trump electors in at least one State seeking evidence related to voter fraud.”

Another coup apologist. What a shock.

Yes, I'm talking about the one from 4 months ago because thats the only one that I knew of. Regardless, Wray dodged the question both times. Which was, of course the whole point. And again, it doesnt matter who asks the question because the question is relevant regarding January 6th. It wouldnt matter if a high school drop out with a room temperatrure IQ asked the question. Know why? Because its relevant. Wray doesnt seem to have difficulty answering other questions from Biggs yet this one gets a dodge. Yep, weird. Just Like I said in my original post that got your panties all twisted and led to you erroneously inferring something that twisted your panties even tighter and fomented your whole transparent schtick here trying to save just a tiny bit of face.

[dot]

Yes, I'm talking about the one from 4 months ago because thats the only one that I knew of. Regardless, Wray dodged the question both times. Which was, of course the whole point. And again, it doesnt matter who asks the question because the question is relevant regarding January 6th. It wouldnt matter if a high school drop out with a room temperatrure IQ asked the question. Know why? Because its relevant. Wray doesnt seem to have difficulty answering other questions from Biggs yet this one gets a dodge. Yep, weird. Just Like I said in my original post that got your panties all twisted and led to you erroneously inferring something that twisted your panties even tighter and fomented your whole transparent schtick here trying to save just a tiny bit of face.

Sure you are. But okay, let's play along with your intellectual dishonesty. Why is it weird? If there are ongoing investigations and clearly there are because your boy is embroiled in some of them, you should be used to law enforcement not disclosing one way or the other about aspects of their investigations especially in public forums. This is no different, because as has been established, rightwing terrorism is a high level threat in this country. The January 6 attack featured such terrorist groups. If you don't like that, I'd suggest not aligning your views with theirs. In both cases, Wray toes the line between legalese and professional offense. Biggs is a coup planner, but isn't outright in committee accusing the FBI of orchestrating the insurrection. Higgins has no such filter and deserves no such professionalism, especially with his past of being an abusive cop. So again, I don't believe you, but you will never admit to being dishonest. I'll leave that to the audience to determine as to the plausibility of your story. Ask yourself though, how are you going to work the narrative of the FBI orchestrating the insurrection due to being in the pocket for Democrats when Wray was appointed and served and the attack all occurred under Donald Trump's administration? I know you already worked up one act of fiction. Let's see the next one. Hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Yes, I'm talking about the one from 4 months ago because thats the only one that I knew of. Regardless, Wray dodged the question both times. Which was, of course the whole point. And again, it doesnt matter who asks the question because the question is relevant regarding January 6th. It wouldnt matter if a high school drop out with a room temperatrure IQ asked the question. Know why? Because its relevant. Wray doesnt seem to have difficulty answering other questions from Biggs yet this one gets a dodge. Yep, weird. Just Like I said in my original post that got your panties all twisted and led to you erroneously inferring something that twisted your panties even tighter and fomented your whole transparent schtick here trying to save just a tiny bit of face.

Sure you are. But okay, let's play along with your intellectual dishonesty. Why is it weird? If there are ongoing investigations and clearly there are because your boy is embroiled in some of them, you should be used to law enforcement not disclosing one way or the other about aspects of their investigations especially in public forums. This is no different, because as has been established, rightwing terrorism is a high level threat in this country. The January 6 attack featured such terrorist groups. If you don't like that, I'd suggest not aligning your views with theirs. In both cases, Wray toes the line between legalese and professional offense. Biggs is a coup planner, but isn't outright in committee accusing the FBI of orchestrating the insurrection. Higgins has no such filter and deserves no such professionalism, especially with his past of being an abusive cop. So again, I don't believe you, but you will never admit to being dishonest. I'll leave that to the audience to determine as to the plausibility of your story. Ask yourself though, how are you going to work the narrative of the FBI orchestrating the insurrection due to being in the pocket for Democrats when Wray was appointed and served and the attack all occurred under Donald Trump's administration? I know you already worked up one act of fiction. Let's see the next one. Hack.

You can believe whatever you want but youd be wrong as usual. If you look through my posts Ive been saying that for a long time. And heres the best part...get ready you fucking lying disingenuous hack. Check the date: Tuesday, November 15th 2022

FBI Director Wray wont answer if they had agents dressed as Trump supporters at the Jan 6th protest

Dot proven wrong yet again! You are really having a tough time lately.

[dot]

You can believe whatever you want but youd be wrong as usual. If you look through my posts Ive been saying that for a long time. And heres the best part...get ready you fucking lying disingenuous hack. Check the date

FBI Director Wray wont answer if they had agents dressed as Trump supporters at the Jan 6th protest

Dot proven wrong yet again! You are really having a tough time lately.

How is that proving me wrong? If anything, it further proves me right because Wray clearly already knew from prior experience that Higgins is a coup apologist traitor. It further proves he was justified to not give any air to Higgins's recent questioning because he goes to blaming the FBI for Trump's insurrection. See, this is how actual intellectual honesty works, instead of trying to rework a narrative that a Republican appointed and serving FBI director orchestrated an attack by his administration's voter base against the seat of our government. So again, how does that help your case at all? It still comes down to Higgins being a coup apologist and trying to blame the FBI for Trump's attack. Unless you're now going to claim that you were referencing a year ago instead of two weeks ago, but either hearing with Higgins shows Wray not giving air to his conspiracy theory and rightfully so. But since you come off as disingenuous for reaching back to four months ago to explain why you would bring Wray's questioning up, going back a year isn't going to do you any better. Now you didn't think this one through, so go ahead, spin your next fiction, hack.

[saltydog]

I, for one, am very appreciative of the release of these tapes so more Insurrectionist Moron Traitors can find out the consequences of their actions.

Before anyone else (you know who you are...) wants to rush to defend any of them, I DARE YOU to dress up like a Gravy Seal and try to pull some of the same shit at your local State House, or place of government assembly. Smash a few windows, steal shit from the offices, throw smoke bombs at security and let us know how it works out for you.

[CHEEZY17]

I do believe you are functionally retarded.
It proves you wrong because you insisted I only knew about it from 2 weeks ago or whenever that other thing was that I didnt even know about. You think I'm referencing something I didnt even know about when I was referencing the original clip I posted a year ago. It proves you wrong because I said the same thing literally over a year ago and then I shoved the proof right in your disingenuous face. It further proves you wrong because you still keep throwing out that I think the FBI instigated it, which I dont. You are incredibly butt-hurt because youve been consistently wrong and now youre trying desperately to save face.
You are pathetic.
But hey, you do you.

[dot]

I do believe you are functionally retarded.
It proves you wrong because you insisted I only knew about it from 2 weeks ago or whenever that other thing was that I didnt even know about. You think I'm referencing something I didnt even know about when I was referencing the original clip I posted a year ago. It proves you wrong because I said the same thing literally over a year ago and then I shoved the proof right in your disingenuous face. It further proves you wrong because you still keep throwing out that I think the FBI instigated it, which I dont. You are incredibly butt-hurt because youve been consistently wrong and now youre trying desperately to save face.
You are pathetic.
But hey, you do you.

No, I said you bring it up because it is current relevant news as the recent hearing was two weeks ago. But thanks for admitting you were in fact lying because now you are in fact saying you were referencing a year ago rather than your original lie of four months ago from yet another different hearing. Whoops, see how being intellectually dishonest doesn't help you in the long run? Telling too many lies and having to keep track of them going forward, what a mess. No matter which lie you stick with, here's how it shook out for you. You're either backing an aggressive conspiracy theorist coup apologist from a year or two weeks ago, which is what I first said you were doing, or you backed a less aggressive coup apologist from four months ago who wasn't in the news. So given your changing stories and being unable to come up with a convincing lie, it looks like your accusing / confessing labels of disingenuous hack is now expanded to include functionally retarded. You wanna try again? Your fiction has been fun after all.

[saltydog]

I do believe you are functionally retarded.
It proves you wrong because you insisted I only knew about it from 2 weeks ago or whenever that other thing was that I didnt even know about. You think I'm referencing something I didnt even know about when I was referencing the original clip I posted a year ago. It proves you wrong because I said the same thing literally over a year ago and then I shoved the proof right in your disingenuous face. It further proves you wrong because you still keep throwing out that I think the FBI instigated it, which I dont. You are incredibly butt-hurt because youve been consistently wrong and now youre trying desperately to save face.
You are pathetic.
But hey, you do you.

Says the guy who HAS to vote for Trump.

How'd your boy do last night with the home court and homemade moderator advantage last night?

The last time I saw someone make those facial gestures as often as Ronnie boy, it was diaper changing time at the local day care.