It's pretty amazing how weaponized the FBI became

8,940 Views | 68 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by BearForce2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 6:41a, 11/9/21
BearGoggles said:
concordtom said:
BearGoggles said:



Trump did not testify - wisely because he's an inveterate liar and would have committed perjury.
It's such a wonderful feeling when Truth is spoken and we can all Agree on it!
Thank you, BearGoggles!
Was this in dispute? Not by me. I've said it many times.

It doesn't change the fact that the collusion narrative was a political hit job of the worst order - dirty tricks that would make Nixon blush. A campaign using knowingly false intelligence to weaponize the FBI against a candidate and then a president is unprecedented. Yet here claiming it was real despite it being completely debunked.


The debunking narrative is simply GOP-Trump Party political spin. I never heard that the intelligence agencies said, "we take it back".

So, I think that means you're repeating their phony nonsense.
Reply Quote
4
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Anarchistbear • 6:48a, 11/9/21
Anarchistbear said:
concordtom said:
Anarchistbear said:

Re: russian collusion hoax:

The investigations are over, the evidence has been weighed, reports issued, hearings held and there was no conspiracy.
I think that assertion is going too far. Here's why:

1. Trump admin and pretty much everyone associated hid information. They never testified. They claimed executive privilege or simply ignored subpoenas.
2. It HAS BEEN PROVED by US intelligence agencies, and accepted by pretty much everyone not named Trump, that Russia DID INTERFERE in the US election thru a robust online campaign.

So, you might be able to claim there is not evidence of "collusion", as in "intentional correspondence and strategy between Trump and Russia (getting out on a presumed slim hair because of hiding the facts), but

YOU CANNOT SAY THAT RUSSIA DID NOT HELP TRUMP.

You continue to try and assert that, but IT'S A LIE!!!!! MISINFORMATION on your part.
Liar.


I said that they ran ads on Facebook. Did those puny- compared to Trump and Clinton- ads assist Trump? I'd say they had no consequence. Have you seen those ads? They are totally goofy. What other material help did they provide Trump?

James Comey helped Trump a lot more than the Russians

https://i.insider.com/59fafd1d58a0c1184d8b4b24?width=700

Edit: The Russians ran 3500 Facebook ads. The Trump campaign ran 5.9 million. The Clinton, 66,000


I agree that Comey's pre-election investigation F'd up the history of this country forever.
But I disagree that the conclusion to the intelligence agencies pointing to Russia was 3500 Facebook ads.
Gotta be more to it than that. I don't think we'll ever get to see behind their secret curtain.
Reply Quote
2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 6:51a, 11/9/21
BearGoggles said:
concordtom said:
BearGoggles said:




So yes, I can say that Russia did not help Trump. Certainly not in any meaningful way.

You and Dajo are collusion truthers.
Yes, Dajo and I are speaking the truth, in order to keep the liars from writing the history. Thank you.

It's pretty funny to watch this (below) dialogue happen, knowing people's sides and how they try to twist the narrative.

1. Maria at the end seems to want to cast off the issue by simply saying "And Trump got X million votes from women!" Nice, Maria, but that means nothing as to what we are talking about here, which is a CIA report that claims Russia helped Trump.

2. And the little bow tie bulldog nerd tries to say that because the Fed Govt (a Bush-Republican war effort) lied to us about WMD in Iraq, therefore, we should not be believing them here. It's like, "well, we'll pick and choose what we want to believe."

Judge Neopolitano said it best: Republicans will investigate and come up with one conclusion, while the Democrats will come up with another, and we'll never know the truth.

I'll take the CIA at their word from the initial conclusion, and that is that Russia helped Trump.

By the way, BearGoggles, it's pretty impressive that YOU know MORE than the CIA!




If you want to go back to the source of the conclusion, then look to the Intelligence agencies press releases - the rest of it after that is politicized. And why haven't they told you more? Because it's secret stuff that we ordinary citizens don't get to know. Could they be lying? Sure. You get to believe when and about what, and we can agree to disagree on that.

Those were the same CIA officials that told us Hunter Biden's emails were Russian disinformation. Its funny you think that the intelligence assessment ordered by Obama after HRC's humiliating defeat was not politicized yet everything after that was politicized.

Obama, the FBI, and the CIA were all looking to CYA because they knew they had engaged in illegal and immoral tactics with crossfire hurricane and other bungling. And Brennan had specifically told Obama prior to the election that HRC's campaign was spreading Trump collusion lies. Obama did nothing.

There is no greater indication that Trump broke liberals then seeing liberals defend and vouch for the veracity of intelligence agencies. Is that the side you're on?


Softball for you.
What is crossfire hurricane.
Both sides, take your shots!
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 6:54a, 11/9/21
BearGoggles said:
concordtom said:
BearGoggles said:



Trump did not testify - wisely because he's an inveterate liar and would have committed perjury.
It's such a wonderful feeling when Truth is spoken and we can all Agree on it!
Thank you, BearGoggles!
Was this in dispute? Not by me. I've said it many times.


Good.
I just wanted to highlight that.
Everyone agrees that Trump is an inveterate liar.

We should NEVER support anyone who is an inveterate liar for any public office.

Period!
Reply Quote
5
calpoly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MinotStateBeav • 9:10a, 11/9/21
MinotStateBeav said:
calpoly said:
MinotStateBeav said:
dajo9 said:
Republicans will only talk about the Steele Dossier. The Steele Dossier has always been mostly irrelevant.

It was the reason you tried to impeach the president of the united states
Hey dumba$$ he was impeached twice!
yep, congress weaponized the impeachment process "Dumba$$"
So when you dislike the verdict you call it "weaponizing" but when you agree with the decision it is called "justice". You really are a dumba$$ political hack!
Reply Quote
4
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:25p, 11/17/21


A DOJ whistleblower has exposed AG Merrick Garland for misleading Congress about silencing parents who dissent at school board meetings.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
helltopay1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:17a, 11/18/21
FBI was weaponized under obama. After all, the DOJ controls the FBI. Eric Holder admitted that he was " Obamas' wing msn.'
Come and Wray continued the weaponization. Now, Wray is under the direction of Merrick Garland. who is a hopelessly comprised area of the Biden White House. obama knew what he was doing when he appointed Garland to the Supreme Court. He knew Garland would be a reliable vote for the Left on the court.
Reply Quote
1
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to helltopay1 • 12:54a, 11/18/21
helltopay1 said:
FBI was weaponized under obama. After all, the DOJ controls the FBI. Eric Holder admitted that he was " Obamas' wing msn.'
Come and Wray continued the weaponization. Now, Wray is under the direction of Merrick Garland. who is a hopelessly comprised area of the Biden White House. obama knew what he was doing when he appointed Garland to the Supreme Court. He knew Garland would be a reliable vote for the Left on the court.


Jeez, I forgot about that.
Reply Quote
1
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearForce2 • 4:05a, 11/18/21
BearForce2 said:


A DOJ whistleblower has exposed AG Merrick Garland for misleading Congress about silencing parents who dissent at school board meetings.


The DOJ is investigating people making threats so, if you are A) a parent and B) making threats then you may be tagged by the FBI as a person making threats who happens to be a parent.

This all seems pretty rudimentary until you realize the right wants to make it impossible for public servants to do things they don't like. If you are a public servant in education or elections who does not bend to the will of the right, then they want you to be harassed and threatened until you leave public service.
Reply Quote
3
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 2:09p, 11/18/21
dajo9 said:

The DOJ is investigating people making threats.

The CCP also investigates threats.
Reply Quote
2
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:31p, 11/22/21


Based.
Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearForce2 • 6:03a, 11/23/21
BearForce2 said:
Based.
You misspelled biased.
Reply Quote
4
MinotStateBeav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 7:31a, 11/23/21
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
BearForce2 said:
Based.
You misspelled biased.
You libs sure are pro-incarcenation now. The last 5 years we were told delete the bail system and lighter criminal sentences, and defund police. It's really strange what a stark shift you've had. But Rittenhouse is white/hispanic so at least you can still cling to your racism.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:57a, 11/25/21
Reply Quote
1
MinotStateBeav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 9:17a, 11/25/21
dajo9 said:
watching you guys cling to Russia is like a greek tragedy at this point.
Reply Quote
2
Yogi347
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 1:39p, 11/25/21
dajo9 said:


It makes sense that dajo9, who claimed to have cancelled his New York Times subscription due to all the war drum beating they did would pick an article by David Frum, one of the leading WMD propagandists, to support his obsession.

Quote:
In addition to spouting this theory, Goldberg also elevated actual Bush Administration officials like current Atlantic senior editor David Frum, who helped coin the phrase 'Axis of Evil' and contributed forcefully to the government PR initiatives which precipitated the 2003 invasion. Naturally, Frum has also been a leading proponent of the Trump/Russia conspiracy theoryagain highlighting the conspicuous overlap between these two discreditable categories. As is always the case when extreme failure goes unpunished, the lack of accountability ever imposed on these people for their malfeasance during the Bush years enabled them to commit yet another act of grand malfeasance during the Trump years. And they will almost certainly never be held accountable for this, either. So it's only a matter of time, tragically, before the next catastrophe arrives.

Reply Quote
3
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:47p, 11/25/21
Yes, David Frum is a tool and a warmonger and nobody I support. In a just world he would be a laughingstock and unemployed.

But this article is factual and new. You can use the author to rebut if you like. I do that sometimes. You can discredit Franklin Foer as well to hide from the facts. And on and on.
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 2:04p, 11/25/21
People who have known tRump since his youth know one thing for sure:

When he is accused of some sort of misconduct, he did it, and worse things never discovered.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
5
Yogi347
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 2:17p, 11/25/21
dajo9 said:
Yes, David Frum is a tool and a warmonger and nobody I support. In a just world he would be a laughingstock and unemployed.

But this article is factual and new. You can use the author to rebut if you like. I do that sometimes. You can discredit Franklin Foer as well to hide from the facts. And on and on.


Quote:
Falsehood No. 1: Michael Flynn Discussed Sanctions With Russia and Lied About It

Falsehood No. 2: Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Falsehood No. 3: George Papadopoulos's 'Night of Heavy Drinking' With the Australian Envoy

Falsehood No. 4: Russia Launched a Sweeping Interference Campaign That Posed a 'National Security Threat'

Falsehood No. 5: The Justice Department Pulled Its Punches on Trump

Reply Quote
3
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Yogi347 • 2:46p, 11/25/21
And Justice For All said:
dajo9 said:
Yes, David Frum is a tool and a warmonger and nobody I support. In a just world he would be a laughingstock and unemployed.

But this article is factual and new. You can use the author to rebut if you like. I do that sometimes. You can discredit Franklin Foer as well to hide from the facts. And on and on.


Quote:
Falsehood No. 1: Michael Flynn Discussed Sanctions With Russia and Lied About It

Falsehood No. 2: Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Falsehood No. 3: George Papadopoulos's 'Night of Heavy Drinking' With the Australian Envoy

Falsehood No. 4: Russia Launched a Sweeping Interference Campaign That Posed a 'National Security Threat'

Falsehood No. 5: The Justice Department Pulled Its Punches on Trump



It's funny that you think anybody here cares about the sanctity of the NY Times or the Washington Post.

It's Thanksgiving and I'm feeling generous so I clicked on your link. It doesn't even try to refute the claims being made that are supported by either the Senate Intelligence investigation or the Mueller investigation. It just attacks the articles.


Take #3 for example. It doesn't refute that the investigation into Trump Russia started when an Australian diplomat reported to America about a claim from a Trump campaign member about Russian involvement. It just disputes certain tangential things in the NY Times article.

Who cares.

Democratic Presidents deal with bad media from Fox and others nonstop. If Trumpers think the NY Times treated them unfairly, they need to suck it up.
Reply Quote
3
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MinotStateBeav • 4:17p, 11/25/21
MinotStateBeav said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
BearForce2 said:
Based.
You misspelled biased.
You libs sure are pro-incarcenation now. The last 5 years we were told delete the bail system and lighter criminal sentences, and defund police. It's really strange what a stark shift you've had. But Rittenhouse is white/hispanic so at least you can still cling to your racism.
As you and your brethren often do, you're assigning me beliefs I don't have. Go find anything I ever posted that supported deleting the bail system or defunding the police. I dare you. I may have said police could allocate more of their current funding for better training or reorganizing. That's about it.

As for lighter prison sentences, I think current sentences are generally reasonable but there are always specific sentences that are way off, both too light or too harsh. The same goes for the bail system.

I've pretty much avoided saying anything about Rittenhouse because I knew I wasn't fully informed of the specifics of the case and would probably say something inaccurate.

By the way, defunding police demands have only been taken seriously the last year or two (not 5 years) and seems to be fading away without accomplishing much. I don't recall ever hearing much serious discussion about deleting the bail system, though I expect you'll point to a few random people that said to do that. There's always somebody that's made some statement somewhere that you can blow up into a leftist manifesto. Time to find new boogeymen.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 4:33p, 11/25/21
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
MinotStateBeav said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
BearForce2 said:
Based.
You misspelled biased.
You libs sure are pro-incarcenation now. The last 5 years we were told delete the bail system and lighter criminal sentences, and defund police. It's really strange what a stark shift you've had. But Rittenhouse is white/hispanic so at least you can still cling to your racism.
As you and your brethren often do, you're assigning me beliefs I don't have. Go find anything I ever posted that supported deleting the bail system or defunding the police. I dare you. I may have said police could allocate more of their current funding for better training or reorganizing. That's about it.

As for lighter prison sentences, I think current sentences are generally reasonable but there are always specific sentences that are way off, both too light or too harsh. The same goes for the bail system.

I've pretty much avoided saying anything about Rittenhouse because I knew I wasn't fully informed of the specifics of the case and would probably say something inaccurate.

By the way, defunding police demands have only been taken seriously the last year or two (not 5 years) and seems to be fading away without accomplishing much. I don't recall ever hearing much serious discussion about deleting the bail system, though I expect you'll point to a few random people that said to do that. There's always somebody that's made some statement somewhere that you can blow up into a leftist manifesto. Time to find new boogeymen.


I'm old enough to remember Trump running on a campaign of ending mass incarceration just last year.

Biden was supposed to be bad because he was tough on crime.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
calbearinamaze
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to helltopay1 • 2:11a, 11/26/21
helltopay1 said:
FBI was weaponized under obama. After all, the DOJ controls the FBI. Eric Holder admitted that he was " Obamas' wing msn.'
Come and Wray continued the weaponization. Now, Wray is under the direction of Merrick Garland. who is a hopelessly comprised area of the Biden White House. obama knew what he was doing when he appointed Garland to the Supreme Court. He knew Garland would be a reliable vote for the Left on the court.
FBI-Director-Forever J. Edgar Hoover is all in a snit. He feels he isn't given enough
credit for "weaponizing" the FBI last century.
If you believe in forever
Then life is just a one-night stand
If there's a rock and roll heaven
Well you know they've got a hell of a band
Reply Quote
1
chazzed
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 9:21a, 11/26/21
dajo9 said:
Yes, David Frum is a tool and a warmonger and nobody I support. In a just world he would be a laughingstock and unemployed.

But this article is factual and new. You can use the author to rebut if you like. I do that sometimes. You can discredit Franklin Foer as well to hide from the facts. And on and on.

It's amazing how well that article describes people such as Anarchistbear and BearGoggles and would have described the previous Yogi (before he totally tuned his back on reality). The disinformation spouted from the radical conservatives here, on the other hand, is to be expected.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:25a, 12/1/21
Here is another article from another author that will have to be discredited

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-discredited-dossier-does-not-132946321.html
Reply Quote
3
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbearinamaze • 5:08p, 12/1/21
bearup said:
helltopay1 said:
FBI was weaponized under obama. After all, the DOJ controls the FBI. Eric Holder admitted that he was " Obamas' wing msn.'
Come and Wray continued the weaponization. Now, Wray is under the direction of Merrick Garland. who is a hopelessly comprised area of the Biden White House. obama knew what he was doing when he appointed Garland to the Supreme Court. He knew Garland would be a reliable vote for the Left on the court.
FBI-Director-Forever J. Edgar Hoover is all in a snit. He feels he isn't given enough
credit for "weaponizing" the FBI last century.


Wasn't J. Edgar's cross dressing name, Mary?

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Yogi348 • 7:16p, 12/1/21
Puppy Killer said:
dajo9 said:
Here is another article from another author that will have to be discredited

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-discredited-dossier-does-not-132946321.html




Quote:
Based upon a bombshell New York Times report (6/26/20), virtually the entire media landscape has been engulfed in the allegations that Russia is paying Taliban fighters bounties to kill US soldiers.

The Washington Post (6/27/20) and the Wall Street Journal (6/27/20) soon published similar stories, based on the same intelligence officials who refused to give their names, and did not appear to share any data or documents with the news organizations. "The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have confirmed our reporting," tweeted the Times article's lead author, Charlie Savage. The Post's John Hudson seemed to back him up: "We have confirmed the New York Times scoop: A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan," he responded.

Yet these statements were categorically untrue.

That was easy. Give me something challenging next time.





Why? So you can ignore it like you ignored the Franklin Foer article?
Reply Quote
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Yogi348 • 6:17a, 12/2/21
Puppy Killer said:
dajo9 said:
Puppy Killer said:
dajo9 said:
Here is another article from another author that will have to be discredited

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-discredited-dossier-does-not-132946321.html




Quote:
Based upon a bombshell New York Times report (6/26/20), virtually the entire media landscape has been engulfed in the allegations that Russia is paying Taliban fighters bounties to kill US soldiers.

The Washington Post (6/27/20) and the Wall Street Journal (6/27/20) soon published similar stories, based on the same intelligence officials who refused to give their names, and did not appear to share any data or documents with the news organizations. "The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have confirmed our reporting," tweeted the Times article's lead author, Charlie Savage. The Post's John Hudson seemed to back him up: "We have confirmed the New York Times scoop: A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan," he responded.

Yet these statements were categorically untrue.

That was easy. Give me something challenging next time.
Why? So you can ignore it like you ignored the Franklin Foer article?







Still relying on the nuts at grayzone for your disinformation, I see
Reply Quote
1 edit
going4roses
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:08p, 12/2/21
Is it really amazing?



Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Reply Quote
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:34p, 5/14/22
Reply Quote
2
helltopay1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:47a, 5/15/22
started under Obama...Continues to this day...
Reply Quote
2
helltopay1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:50a, 5/15/22
CT....Are you talking civil war?????What color uniform suits your fancy???
Conservatives would win because our pent-up rage is greater than your mental illness.
Reply Quote
2
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:09p, 6/14/22


The DOJ can't answer simple questions about the FBI's involvement on J6.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
1
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:23p, 8/8/22
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
2
Refresh
Page 2 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.