Another Lie debunked-IG report concludes FBI did not spy on trump campaign

[Seawytch]

I hate to break it to ya hon, but that is nothing more than BS propaganda from the usual suspects. Only morons, and fellow travelers pay any attention to that crapola.

Irony poisoning.

Tell us, where did you get your intel? Where do we get the "real" story? (This ought to be good)

Wall street journal, fox news. The economist, Forbes, you know, legit sources.

And yet all of those sites call the Crowdstrike malarky just that.

Ummmmm, no They don't.

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

You hoo....still waiting for your credible links to the crowdstrike story...

 

[westwall]

Wall street journal, fox news. The economist, Forbes, you know, legit sources.

And yet all of those sites call the Crowdstrike malarky just that.

Ummmmm, no They don't.

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

Sure thing sweetcheeks. Here are just a very, very few..... let your brain do some searching and you will be amazed by what you find. Of course, you have to have a brain first. So far we have no evidence of that.


December 1: The 27-Cent Foreclosure
At Politico on December 1, Lorraine Woellert published a shocking essay claiming that Trump’s pick for secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, had overseen a company that “foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error.” According to Woellert: “After confusion over insurance coverage, a OneWest subsidiary sent [Ossie] Lofton a bill for $423.30. She sent a check for $423. The bank sent another bill, for 30 cents. Lofton, 90, sent a check for three cents. In November 2014, the bank foreclosed.”

The story received widespread coverage, being shared nearly 17,000 times on Facebook. The New York Times’s Steven Rattner shared it on Twitter (1,300 retweets), as did NBC News’s Brad Jaffy (1,200 retweets), the AP’s David Beard (1,900 retweets) and many others.

The problem? The central scandalous claims of Woellert’s article were simply untrue. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ted Frank pointed out, the woman in question was never foreclosed on, and never lost her home. Moreover, “It wasn’t Mnuchin’s bank that brought the suit.”

Politico eventually corrected these serious and glaring errors. But the damage was done: the story had been repeated by numerous media outlets including Huffington Post (shared 25,000 times on Facebook), the New York Post, Vanity Fair, and many others.


January 20: The Nonexistent Climate Change Website ‘Purge’
Also on the day of the inauguration, New York Times writer Coral Davenport published an article on the Times’s website whose headline claimed that the Trump administration had “purged” any “climate change references” from the White House website. Within the article, Davenport acknowledged that the “purge” (or what she also called “online deletions”) was “not unexpected” but rather part of a routine turnover of digital authority between administrations.

To call this action a “purge” was thus at the height of intellectual dishonesty: Davenport was styling the whole thing as a kind of digital book-burn rather than a routine part of American government. But of course that was almost surely the point. The inflammatory headline was probably the only thing that most people read of the article, doubtlessly leading many readers (the article was shared nearly 50,000 times on Facebook) to believe something that simply wasn’t true.


January 29: The Reuters Account Hoax
Following the Quebec City mosque massacre, the Daily Beast published a story that purported to identify the two shooters who had perpetrated the crime. The problem? The story’s source was a Reuters parody account on Twitter. Incredibly, nobody at the Daily Beast thought to check the source to any appreciable degree.


February 2: Renaming Black History Month
At the start of February, which is Black History Month in the United States, Trump proclaimed the month “National African American History Month.” Many outlets tried to spin the story in a bizarre way: TMZ claimed that a “senior administration official” said that Trump believed the term “black” to be outdated. “Every U.S. president since 1976 has designated February as Black History Month,” wrote TMZ. BET wrote the same thing.

The problem? It’s just not true. President Obama, for example, declared February “National African American History Month” as well. TMZ quickly updated their piece to fix their embarrassing error.

Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call
Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call

I linked to the Associated Press. None of your links referenced the AP. Making a mistake and issuing a correction is common. Except for over at Fox...they don't usually correct their errors or retract bogus stories.

They did, finally, retract this one, but they are still being sued...

UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

 

[Seawytch]

And yet all of those sites call the Crowdstrike malarky just that.

Ummmmm, no They don't.

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

Sure thing sweetcheeks. Here are just a very, very few..... let your brain do some searching and you will be amazed by what you find. Of course, you have to have a brain first. So far we have no evidence of that.


December 1: The 27-Cent Foreclosure
At Politico on December 1, Lorraine Woellert published a shocking essay claiming that Trump’s pick for secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, had overseen a company that “foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error.” According to Woellert: “After confusion over insurance coverage, a OneWest subsidiary sent [Ossie] Lofton a bill for $423.30. She sent a check for $423. The bank sent another bill, for 30 cents. Lofton, 90, sent a check for three cents. In November 2014, the bank foreclosed.”

The story received widespread coverage, being shared nearly 17,000 times on Facebook. The New York Times’s Steven Rattner shared it on Twitter (1,300 retweets), as did NBC News’s Brad Jaffy (1,200 retweets), the AP’s David Beard (1,900 retweets) and many others.

The problem? The central scandalous claims of Woellert’s article were simply untrue. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ted Frank pointed out, the woman in question was never foreclosed on, and never lost her home. Moreover, “It wasn’t Mnuchin’s bank that brought the suit.”

Politico eventually corrected these serious and glaring errors. But the damage was done: the story had been repeated by numerous media outlets including Huffington Post (shared 25,000 times on Facebook), the New York Post, Vanity Fair, and many others.


January 20: The Nonexistent Climate Change Website ‘Purge’
Also on the day of the inauguration, New York Times writer Coral Davenport published an article on the Times’s website whose headline claimed that the Trump administration had “purged” any “climate change references” from the White House website. Within the article, Davenport acknowledged that the “purge” (or what she also called “online deletions”) was “not unexpected” but rather part of a routine turnover of digital authority between administrations.

To call this action a “purge” was thus at the height of intellectual dishonesty: Davenport was styling the whole thing as a kind of digital book-burn rather than a routine part of American government. But of course that was almost surely the point. The inflammatory headline was probably the only thing that most people read of the article, doubtlessly leading many readers (the article was shared nearly 50,000 times on Facebook) to believe something that simply wasn’t true.


January 29: The Reuters Account Hoax
Following the Quebec City mosque massacre, the Daily Beast published a story that purported to identify the two shooters who had perpetrated the crime. The problem? The story’s source was a Reuters parody account on Twitter. Incredibly, nobody at the Daily Beast thought to check the source to any appreciable degree.


February 2: Renaming Black History Month
At the start of February, which is Black History Month in the United States, Trump proclaimed the month “National African American History Month.” Many outlets tried to spin the story in a bizarre way: TMZ claimed that a “senior administration official” said that Trump believed the term “black” to be outdated. “Every U.S. president since 1976 has designated February as Black History Month,” wrote TMZ. BET wrote the same thing.

The problem? It’s just not true. President Obama, for example, declared February “National African American History Month” as well. TMZ quickly updated their piece to fix their embarrassing error.

Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call
Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call

I linked to the Associated Press. None of your links referenced the AP. Making a mistake and issuing a correction is common. Except for over at Fox...they don't usually correct their errors or retract bogus stories.

They did, finally, retract this one, but they are still being sued...

UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Yes, and? Oh, still wating for your credible crowdstike link from "Wall street journal, fox news. The economist, Forbes".

 

[Seawytch]

Irony poisoning.

Tell us, where did you get your intel? Where do we get the "real" story? (This ought to be good)

Wall street journal, fox news. The economist, Forbes, you know, legit sources.

And yet all of those sites call the Crowdstrike malarky just that.

Ummmmm, no They don't.

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

You hoo....still waiting for your credible links to the crowdstrike story...

Wall Strret Journal: What Trump Said on the Ukraine Call

Mr. Trump’s comments relate to a debunked conspiracy theory about the U.S.-based cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which conducted forensic analysis of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network after it was hacked. CrowdStrike concluded the hack was carried out by Russian intelligence officers, a finding corroborated by U.S. intelligence agencies and Mr. Mueller—but which Mr. Trump has repeatedly questioned.​

Forbes: The CrowdStrike Conspiracy: Here’s Why Trump Keeps Referencing The Cybersecurity Firm

references a right-wing conspiracy that theorizes the claim that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee’s servers in 2016 are part of an elaborate ruse, devised to discredit Trump’s victory.​

 

[westwall]

Ummmmm, no They don't.

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

Sure thing sweetcheeks. Here are just a very, very few..... let your brain do some searching and you will be amazed by what you find. Of course, you have to have a brain first. So far we have no evidence of that.


December 1: The 27-Cent Foreclosure
At Politico on December 1, Lorraine Woellert published a shocking essay claiming that Trump’s pick for secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, had overseen a company that “foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error.” According to Woellert: “After confusion over insurance coverage, a OneWest subsidiary sent [Ossie] Lofton a bill for $423.30. She sent a check for $423. The bank sent another bill, for 30 cents. Lofton, 90, sent a check for three cents. In November 2014, the bank foreclosed.”

The story received widespread coverage, being shared nearly 17,000 times on Facebook. The New York Times’s Steven Rattner shared it on Twitter (1,300 retweets), as did NBC News’s Brad Jaffy (1,200 retweets), the AP’s David Beard (1,900 retweets) and many others.

The problem? The central scandalous claims of Woellert’s article were simply untrue. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ted Frank pointed out, the woman in question was never foreclosed on, and never lost her home. Moreover, “It wasn’t Mnuchin’s bank that brought the suit.”

Politico eventually corrected these serious and glaring errors. But the damage was done: the story had been repeated by numerous media outlets including Huffington Post (shared 25,000 times on Facebook), the New York Post, Vanity Fair, and many others.


January 20: The Nonexistent Climate Change Website ‘Purge’
Also on the day of the inauguration, New York Times writer Coral Davenport published an article on the Times’s website whose headline claimed that the Trump administration had “purged” any “climate change references” from the White House website. Within the article, Davenport acknowledged that the “purge” (or what she also called “online deletions”) was “not unexpected” but rather part of a routine turnover of digital authority between administrations.

To call this action a “purge” was thus at the height of intellectual dishonesty: Davenport was styling the whole thing as a kind of digital book-burn rather than a routine part of American government. But of course that was almost surely the point. The inflammatory headline was probably the only thing that most people read of the article, doubtlessly leading many readers (the article was shared nearly 50,000 times on Facebook) to believe something that simply wasn’t true.


January 29: The Reuters Account Hoax
Following the Quebec City mosque massacre, the Daily Beast published a story that purported to identify the two shooters who had perpetrated the crime. The problem? The story’s source was a Reuters parody account on Twitter. Incredibly, nobody at the Daily Beast thought to check the source to any appreciable degree.


February 2: Renaming Black History Month
At the start of February, which is Black History Month in the United States, Trump proclaimed the month “National African American History Month.” Many outlets tried to spin the story in a bizarre way: TMZ claimed that a “senior administration official” said that Trump believed the term “black” to be outdated. “Every U.S. president since 1976 has designated February as Black History Month,” wrote TMZ. BET wrote the same thing.

The problem? It’s just not true. President Obama, for example, declared February “National African American History Month” as well. TMZ quickly updated their piece to fix their embarrassing error.

Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call
Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call

I linked to the Associated Press. None of your links referenced the AP. Making a mistake and issuing a correction is common. Except for over at Fox...they don't usually correct their errors or retract bogus stories.

They did, finally, retract this one, but they are still being sued...

UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Yes, and? Oh, still wating for your credible crowdstike link from "Wall street journal, fox news. The economist, Forbes".

Still waiting for a non biased source that says crowdstrike isn't a DNC firm. Which we know it is.

 

[westwall]

Wall street journal, fox news. The economist, Forbes, you know, legit sources.

And yet all of those sites call the Crowdstrike malarky just that.

Ummmmm, no They don't.

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

You hoo....still waiting for your credible links to the crowdstrike story...

Wall Strret Journal: What Trump Said on the Ukraine Call

Mr. Trump’s comments relate to a debunked conspiracy theory about the U.S.-based cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which conducted forensic analysis of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network after it was hacked. CrowdStrike concluded the hack was carried out by Russian intelligence officers, a finding corroborated by U.S. intelligence agencies and Mr. Mueller—but which Mr. Trump has repeatedly questioned.​

Forbes: The CrowdStrike Conspiracy: Here’s Why Trump Keeps Referencing The Cybersecurity Firm

references a right-wing conspiracy that theorizes the claim that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee’s servers in 2016 are part of an elaborate ruse, devised to discredit Trump’s victory.​

Won't you look stupid if Durham comes up with real evidence they were involved.

 

[Lesh]

Won't you look stupid if Durham comes up with real evidence they were involved.

Involved in what? Putin's propaganda fantasy?

 

[westwall]

Won't you look stupid if Durham comes up with real evidence they were involved.

Involved in what? Putin's propaganda fantasy?

What's funny as hell is the bidens are ass deep in corruption that is plain to see, and good ole uncle joe, the fucking moron, bragged about it because he was sure the election was a cake walk. Now that we have the ability to investigate these fuckers, you asshats sit around with your hands over your eyes as you whistle dixie.

Fucking idiots, the lot of you.

 

[Faun]

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

Sure thing sweetcheeks. Here are just a very, very few..... let your brain do some searching and you will be amazed by what you find. Of course, you have to have a brain first. So far we have no evidence of that.


December 1: The 27-Cent Foreclosure
At Politico on December 1, Lorraine Woellert published a shocking essay claiming that Trump’s pick for secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, had overseen a company that “foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error.” According to Woellert: “After confusion over insurance coverage, a OneWest subsidiary sent [Ossie] Lofton a bill for $423.30. She sent a check for $423. The bank sent another bill, for 30 cents. Lofton, 90, sent a check for three cents. In November 2014, the bank foreclosed.”

The story received widespread coverage, being shared nearly 17,000 times on Facebook. The New York Times’s Steven Rattner shared it on Twitter (1,300 retweets), as did NBC News’s Brad Jaffy (1,200 retweets), the AP’s David Beard (1,900 retweets) and many others.

The problem? The central scandalous claims of Woellert’s article were simply untrue. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ted Frank pointed out, the woman in question was never foreclosed on, and never lost her home. Moreover, “It wasn’t Mnuchin’s bank that brought the suit.”

Politico eventually corrected these serious and glaring errors. But the damage was done: the story had been repeated by numerous media outlets including Huffington Post (shared 25,000 times on Facebook), the New York Post, Vanity Fair, and many others.


January 20: The Nonexistent Climate Change Website ‘Purge’
Also on the day of the inauguration, New York Times writer Coral Davenport published an article on the Times’s website whose headline claimed that the Trump administration had “purged” any “climate change references” from the White House website. Within the article, Davenport acknowledged that the “purge” (or what she also called “online deletions”) was “not unexpected” but rather part of a routine turnover of digital authority between administrations.

To call this action a “purge” was thus at the height of intellectual dishonesty: Davenport was styling the whole thing as a kind of digital book-burn rather than a routine part of American government. But of course that was almost surely the point. The inflammatory headline was probably the only thing that most people read of the article, doubtlessly leading many readers (the article was shared nearly 50,000 times on Facebook) to believe something that simply wasn’t true.


January 29: The Reuters Account Hoax
Following the Quebec City mosque massacre, the Daily Beast published a story that purported to identify the two shooters who had perpetrated the crime. The problem? The story’s source was a Reuters parody account on Twitter. Incredibly, nobody at the Daily Beast thought to check the source to any appreciable degree.


February 2: Renaming Black History Month
At the start of February, which is Black History Month in the United States, Trump proclaimed the month “National African American History Month.” Many outlets tried to spin the story in a bizarre way: TMZ claimed that a “senior administration official” said that Trump believed the term “black” to be outdated. “Every U.S. president since 1976 has designated February as Black History Month,” wrote TMZ. BET wrote the same thing.

The problem? It’s just not true. President Obama, for example, declared February “National African American History Month” as well. TMZ quickly updated their piece to fix their embarrassing error.

Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call
Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call

I linked to the Associated Press. None of your links referenced the AP. Making a mistake and issuing a correction is common. Except for over at Fox...they don't usually correct their errors or retract bogus stories.

They did, finally, retract this one, but they are still being sued...

UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Yes, and? Oh, still wating for your credible crowdstike link from "Wall street journal, fox news. The economist, Forbes".

Still waiting for a non biased source that says crowdstrike isn't a DNC firm. Which we know it is.

 

[Seawytch]

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

Sure thing sweetcheeks. Here are just a very, very few..... let your brain do some searching and you will be amazed by what you find. Of course, you have to have a brain first. So far we have no evidence of that.


December 1: The 27-Cent Foreclosure
At Politico on December 1, Lorraine Woellert published a shocking essay claiming that Trump’s pick for secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, had overseen a company that “foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman after a 27-cent payment error.” According to Woellert: “After confusion over insurance coverage, a OneWest subsidiary sent [Ossie] Lofton a bill for $423.30. She sent a check for $423. The bank sent another bill, for 30 cents. Lofton, 90, sent a check for three cents. In November 2014, the bank foreclosed.”

The story received widespread coverage, being shared nearly 17,000 times on Facebook. The New York Times’s Steven Rattner shared it on Twitter (1,300 retweets), as did NBC News’s Brad Jaffy (1,200 retweets), the AP’s David Beard (1,900 retweets) and many others.

The problem? The central scandalous claims of Woellert’s article were simply untrue. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ted Frank pointed out, the woman in question was never foreclosed on, and never lost her home. Moreover, “It wasn’t Mnuchin’s bank that brought the suit.”

Politico eventually corrected these serious and glaring errors. But the damage was done: the story had been repeated by numerous media outlets including Huffington Post (shared 25,000 times on Facebook), the New York Post, Vanity Fair, and many others.


January 20: The Nonexistent Climate Change Website ‘Purge’
Also on the day of the inauguration, New York Times writer Coral Davenport published an article on the Times’s website whose headline claimed that the Trump administration had “purged” any “climate change references” from the White House website. Within the article, Davenport acknowledged that the “purge” (or what she also called “online deletions”) was “not unexpected” but rather part of a routine turnover of digital authority between administrations.

To call this action a “purge” was thus at the height of intellectual dishonesty: Davenport was styling the whole thing as a kind of digital book-burn rather than a routine part of American government. But of course that was almost surely the point. The inflammatory headline was probably the only thing that most people read of the article, doubtlessly leading many readers (the article was shared nearly 50,000 times on Facebook) to believe something that simply wasn’t true.


January 29: The Reuters Account Hoax
Following the Quebec City mosque massacre, the Daily Beast published a story that purported to identify the two shooters who had perpetrated the crime. The problem? The story’s source was a Reuters parody account on Twitter. Incredibly, nobody at the Daily Beast thought to check the source to any appreciable degree.


February 2: Renaming Black History Month
At the start of February, which is Black History Month in the United States, Trump proclaimed the month “National African American History Month.” Many outlets tried to spin the story in a bizarre way: TMZ claimed that a “senior administration official” said that Trump believed the term “black” to be outdated. “Every U.S. president since 1976 has designated February as Black History Month,” wrote TMZ. BET wrote the same thing.

The problem? It’s just not true. President Obama, for example, declared February “National African American History Month” as well. TMZ quickly updated their piece to fix their embarrassing error.

Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call
Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump's Ukraine Call

I linked to the Associated Press. None of your links referenced the AP. Making a mistake and issuing a correction is common. Except for over at Fox...they don't usually correct their errors or retract bogus stories.

They did, finally, retract this one, but they are still being sued...

UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Covington Catholic High teen can go forward with $275M NBC suit: Judge

Yes, and? Oh, still wating for your credible crowdstike link from "Wall street journal, fox news. The economist, Forbes".

Still waiting for a non biased source that says crowdstrike isn't a DNC firm. Which we know it is.

So why aren't you linking to anything that says they are? They are an American cyber security company, that's it.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet all of those sites call the Crowdstrike malarky just that.

Ummmmm, no They don't.

Ummmmmmm, so give us a link that supports whatever conspiracy you're spouting.

You hoo....still waiting for your credible links to the crowdstrike story...

Wall Strret Journal: What Trump Said on the Ukraine Call

Mr. Trump’s comments relate to a debunked conspiracy theory about the U.S.-based cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which conducted forensic analysis of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network after it was hacked. CrowdStrike concluded the hack was carried out by Russian intelligence officers, a finding corroborated by U.S. intelligence agencies and Mr. Mueller—but which Mr. Trump has repeatedly questioned.​

Forbes: The CrowdStrike Conspiracy: Here’s Why Trump Keeps Referencing The Cybersecurity Firm

references a right-wing conspiracy that theorizes the claim that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee’s servers in 2016 are part of an elaborate ruse, devised to discredit Trump’s victory.​

Won't you look stupid if Durham comes up with real evidence they were involved.

How, exactly, is Crowdstrike "involved" and in what? Let's see how your conspiracy theory matches up to reality. Are you saying the IG report made you look stupid? And when this other report fails to support Trump's ridiculous rantings just like the IG report, how are you going to look?

 

[georgephillip]

Still waiting for a non biased source that says crowdstrike isn't a DNC firm. Which we know it is.

Did Trump tell you that"

Why would you believe anything he says?

 

[easyt65]

So why aren't you linking to anything that says they are? They are an American cyber security company, that's it.

What is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired by DNC has Ties to Hillary Clinton, a Ukrainian Billionaire and Google


CrowdStrike: Five Things Everyone Is Ignoring About The Russia-DNC Story

.

 

[easyt65]

Barry hired Crowdstrike as part of his administration, they then were the only one to look at the DNC's server to confirm Russian hacking - he FBI used THEIR unsubstantiated report as 'gospel'. (Sounds like the Dossier all over again...)

Crowdstrike is associated with / linked to Clinton and Soros.

 

[Seawytch]

Won't you look stupid if Durham comes up with real evidence they were involved.

Involved in what? Putin's propaganda fantasy?

What's funny as hell is the bidens are ass deep in corruption that is plain to see, and good ole uncle joe, the fucking moron, bragged about it because he was sure the election was a cake walk. Now that we have the ability to investigate these fuckers, you asshats sit around with your hands over your eyes as you whistle dixie.

Fucking idiots, the lot of you.

He bragged about it because it was actually something to brag about. He was getting rid of someone that, according to the United States and other western governments, was a corrupt prosecutor.

 

[Seawytch]

So why aren't you linking to anything that says they are? They are an American cyber security company, that's it.

What is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired by DNC has Ties to Hillary Clinton, a Ukrainian Billionaire and Google


CrowdStrike: Five Things Everyone Is Ignoring About The Russia-DNC Story

.

I should have been more specific....any credible links. According to Westwall, only Fox, WSJ, the Economist or forbes will suffice.

 

[easyt65]

Won't you look stupid if Durham comes up with real evidence they were involved.

Involved in what? Putin's propaganda fantasy?

What's funny as hell is the bidens are ass deep in corruption that is plain to see, and good ole uncle joe, the fucking moron, bragged about it because he was sure the election was a cake walk. Now that we have the ability to investigate these fuckers, you asshats sit around with your hands over your eyes as you whistle dixie.

Fucking idiots, the lot of you.

He bragged about it because it was actually something to brag about. He was getting rid of someone that, according to the United States and other western governments, was a corrupt prosecutor.

1. You thing extorting the Ukraine PM was something to brag about on videotape?! You're as stupid as Biden...

2.You asked for links - you got links...it you don't like getting what you asked for...and refuse to produce any of your own...as usual.

When you get facts you can't dispute you attempt to attack the source.

Fail.

 

[Faun]

So why aren't you linking to anything that says they are? They are an American cyber security company, that's it.

What is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired by DNC has Ties to Hillary Clinton, a Ukrainian Billionaire and Google


CrowdStrike: Five Things Everyone Is Ignoring About The Russia-DNC Story

.

 

[westwall]

Won't you look stupid if Durham comes up with real evidence they were involved.

Involved in what? Putin's propaganda fantasy?

What's funny as hell is the bidens are ass deep in corruption that is plain to see, and good ole uncle joe, the fucking moron, bragged about it because he was sure the election was a cake walk. Now that we have the ability to investigate these fuckers, you asshats sit around with your hands over your eyes as you whistle dixie.

Fucking idiots, the lot of you.

He bragged about it because it was actually something to brag about. He was getting rid of someone that, according to the United States and other western governments, was a corrupt prosecutor.

Yes, you support corruption so long as it's one of yours. In other words you are a class A scumbag.

 

[Seawytch]

Won't you look stupid if Durham comes up with real evidence they were involved.

Involved in what? Putin's propaganda fantasy?

What's funny as hell is the bidens are ass deep in corruption that is plain to see, and good ole uncle joe, the fucking moron, bragged about it because he was sure the election was a cake walk. Now that we have the ability to investigate these fuckers, you asshats sit around with your hands over your eyes as you whistle dixie.

Fucking idiots, the lot of you.

He bragged about it because it was actually something to brag about. He was getting rid of someone that, according to the United States and other western governments, was a corrupt prosecutor.

Yes, you support corruption so long as it's one of yours. In other words you are a class A scumbag.

Tsk, tsk. Aren't we getting testy. Ad hominems just because you can't produce a credible link to your Crowdstrike conspiracy theory.

I'm not a Trump supporter. They're the ones who support corruption.

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

Trump University Fraud Cases Settled for $25 Million