BREAKING: FBI whistleblower @realSteveFriend revealed that bureau leadership received cash incentives to inflate the number of their “domestic extremism” cases! The FBI has been targeting our fellow Americans as “extremists” in order to abuse their power.

submitted by Chipit from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Yes this was in the whistle blower report. You can't debunk it by attacking hear say.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Link to it. Here, I'll help you. Because you're totally wrong.

https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-weaponization-federal-government-2

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/friend-testimony.pdf

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-05-17-fbi-whistleblower-testimony-highlights-government-abuse-misallocation-of-resources-and-retaliation-sm.pdf

It is debunked and it's totally lies.

"The FBI dispenses cash bonuses to local field office leadership for meeting certain arbitrary metrics and performance goals."

Absolutely nothing to do with domestic extremism and everything to do with running a local field office

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You linked to the hearsay testimony...

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Yes this was in the whistle blower report

Show me what you mean, then.

I believe I have linked and reviewed all such reports, including the original in-person congressional testimony from the mouths of the quoted parties which is quite literally the opposite of hearsay, you moron

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Morons like hearsay over the actual report.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

SoCo you keep saying hearsay, do you actually know what the word means?

It means an "out of court" statement by a party not under oath.

I have linked to the in-committee testimony from the sworn-in parties, their direct testimony.

That is not hearsay. I am struggling to understand what you think is happening here.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That is not what hearsay means....omg

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Be careful not to reply with any specifics SoCo, because then everyone would see you're talking out your ass

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Hearsay has very specific meanings in legal proceedings....but even in general terms, it has a specific meaning. This isn't some vague debatable thing you can troll an argument out of to hide that you are wrong about such a basic thing.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Okay SoCo so what is the specific meaning you're using here?

Remember, dipshit, how I already linked the primary source sworn testimony.

Now explain to us how the REAL definition of "hearsay" known to you, shows that I only linked to hearsay.

Explain yourself shitbird