Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was Obama using his constitutional powers these 7 times?While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Who, really, should give a fuck about the Steele dossier????
Trump has OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE worries right here in the good ol' USA...
Is Mueller concentrating ONLY on the validity of the dossier??....
Please answer YES or NO?
Changing the focus is.....well, a lame attempt that shows desperation.
There is no obstruction of justice, moron. A president can't be charged with obstrution for using a power the Constitution grants to him. That would be like prosecuting Congress for passing a tax increase.
btw, Trump himself admitted to obstruction.
former watergate prosecutor says no question he did.
And his aids too. Slam dunk.
Nick Ackerman isnt a leftist, he was an assistant watergate prosecutor under Archibald Cox.Was Obama using his constitutional powers these 7 times?While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Who, really, should give a fuck about the Steele dossier????
Trump has OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE worries right here in the good ol' USA...
Is Mueller concentrating ONLY on the validity of the dossier??....
Please answer YES or NO?
Changing the focus is.....well, a lame attempt that shows desperation.
There is no obstruction of justice, moron. A president can't be charged with obstrution for using a power the Constitution grants to him. That would be like prosecuting Congress for passing a tax increase.
btw, Trump himself admitted to obstruction.
former watergate prosecutor says no question he did.
And his aids too. Slam dunk.
Who cares what some scumbag lefty prosecutor says? His opinion is worth about as much as CNN "news."
Legally Obama couldn't be charged with obstruction of justice, but those are cases where Obama behaved like a scumbag and should have been impeached.
While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Nick Ackerman isnt a leftist, he was an assistant watergate prosecutor under Archibald Cox.Was Obama using his constitutional powers these 7 times?While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Who, really, should give a fuck about the Steele dossier????
Trump has OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE worries right here in the good ol' USA...
Is Mueller concentrating ONLY on the validity of the dossier??....
Please answer YES or NO?
Changing the focus is.....well, a lame attempt that shows desperation.
There is no obstruction of justice, moron. A president can't be charged with obstrution for using a power the Constitution grants to him. That would be like prosecuting Congress for passing a tax increase.
btw, Trump himself admitted to obstruction.
former watergate prosecutor says no question he did.
And his aids too. Slam dunk.
Who cares what some scumbag lefty prosecutor says? His opinion is worth about as much as CNN "news."
Legally Obama couldn't be charged with obstruction of justice, but those are cases where Obama behaved like a scumbag and should have been impeached.
Hey now we're getting somewhere. A president can be impeached for behaving like a scumbag. Today we have witness intimidation.
If no one says it's a fact, then why should anyone consider it to be a fact?While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Anyone that understands being under oath... know you don't say something is a FACT unless you see it with your own eyes. Just because someone doesn't say something is a FACT, doesn't mean it is fake...
If no one says it's a fact, then why should anyone consider it to be a fact?While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Anyone that understands being under oath... know you don't say something is a FACT unless you see it with your own eyes. Just because someone doesn't say something is a FACT, doesn't mean it is fake...
In other words, no one claims anything in the dossier is factual. Ergo, no one has any reason to believe a thing in it.If no one says it's a fact, then why should anyone consider it to be a fact?While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Anyone that understands being under oath... know you don't say something is a FACT unless you see it with your own eyes. Just because someone doesn't say something is a FACT, doesn't mean it is fake...
You don't get it, which is obviously no surprise. When you testify in court you can't say that someone else says it is fact, and therefor it is fact. That's called hearsay. You can only answer for yourself... and anyone with two brain cells to rub together will say it is possible due to second hand information given, but won't say it is fact, because they didn't see it firsthand for theirself.
In other words, no one claims anything in the dossier is factual. Ergo, no one has any reason to believe a thing in it.If no one says it's a fact, then why should anyone consider it to be a fact?While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Anyone that understands being under oath... know you don't say something is a FACT unless you see it with your own eyes. Just because someone doesn't say something is a FACT, doesn't mean it is fake...
You don't get it, which is obviously no surprise. When you testify in court you can't say that someone else says it is fact, and therefor it is fact. That's called hearsay. You can only answer for yourself... and anyone with two brain cells to rub together will say it is possible due to second hand information given, but won't say it is fact, because they didn't see it firsthand for theirself.
You obviously don't get it. You seem to think everything that isn't denied is automatically true. That's not how it works, moron.
In other words, no one claims anything in the dossier is factual. Ergo, no one has any reason to believe a thing in it.If no one says it's a fact, then why should anyone consider it to be a fact?While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Anyone that understands being under oath... know you don't say something is a FACT unless you see it with your own eyes. Just because someone doesn't say something is a FACT, doesn't mean it is fake...
You don't get it, which is obviously no surprise. When you testify in court you can't say that someone else says it is fact, and therefor it is fact. That's called hearsay. You can only answer for yourself... and anyone with two brain cells to rub together will say it is possible due to second hand information given, but won't say it is fact, because they didn't see it firsthand for theirself.
You obviously don't get it. You seem to think everything that isn't denied is automatically true. That's not how it works, moron.
No. The people that told Steele about the information think it is true, but they aren't under oath in court. This isn't a difficult concept for most people to understand.
In other words, no one claims anything in the dossier is factual. Ergo, no one has any reason to believe a thing in it.If no one says it's a fact, then why should anyone consider it to be a fact?Anyone that understands being under oath... know you don't say something is a FACT unless you see it with your own eyes. Just because someone doesn't say something is a FACT, doesn't mean it is fake...
You don't get it, which is obviously no surprise. When you testify in court you can't say that someone else says it is fact, and therefor it is fact. That's called hearsay. You can only answer for yourself... and anyone with two brain cells to rub together will say it is possible due to second hand information given, but won't say it is fact, because they didn't see it firsthand for theirself.
You obviously don't get it. You seem to think everything that isn't denied is automatically true. That's not how it works, moron.
No. The people that told Steele about the information think it is true, but they aren't under oath in court. This isn't a difficult concept for most people to understand.
Really? How do you know they aren't lying? How do we know Steel isn't lying? It's all nothing but unsubstantiated gossip. Nothing you have posted alters that essential fact. You haven't proven it to be the slightest bit credible in any way.
You really are a naive retard, ya know it?
Haha...oh yeah? Was that the healthcare for all, or the promise to regulate hedge funds?I voted for the platform,
Business Visas, Off-Shoring, Illegals, Infrastructure.Haha...oh yeah? Was that the healthcare for all, or the promise to regulate hedge funds?I voted for the platform,
Well, except for when Hillary did:The only other candidate to mention these? Bernie Sanders.
Part if Criminal Obama administration's seditious plan to undermine / overthrow Candidate Trump / President Trump.While he was confident in his dossier when it was released in 2016, a report released on Friday showed that in court for a libel suit against BuzzFeed — the publication which released the so-called “Trump dossier” to the public — former British spy Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was merely “possible,” not fact, and based on unreliable information and “limited intelligence.”
Fake Trump dossier 'author' confesses to using 'unverified' info
Hillary's methodologies were tried and failed in 2006.Well, except for when Hillary did:The only other candidate to mention these? Bernie Sanders.
Fixing America’s infrastructure - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Immigration reform - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Clinton puts crosshairs on offshore tax deals
I clearly did follow her campaign, and clearly knew more about her stances than you did, as I am the one who corrected your false statement. of course, itt was false not because you had made any error in analysis, but because you literally pulled it out of your ass and had no idea if it was true or not.Hillary's methodologies were tried and failed in 2006.Well, except for when Hillary did:The only other candidate to mention these? Bernie Sanders.
Fixing America’s infrastructure - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Immigration reform - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Clinton puts crosshairs on offshore tax deals
In other words, tax the shit out of Americans without changing any legislation to force/encourage the hiring of Americans.
Once again...Tried and failed...2006.
Yes, I followed her campaign very closely and I was far more impressed with Sanders and Trump.
But thanks for letting everybody that you didn't follow her campaign.
I clearly did follow her campaign, and clearly knew more about her stances than you did, as I am the one who corrected your false statement. of course, itt was false not because you had made any error in analysis, but because you literally pulled it out of your ass and had no idea if it was true or not.Hillary's methodologies were tried and failed in 2006.Well, except for when Hillary did:The only other candidate to mention these? Bernie Sanders.
Fixing America’s infrastructure - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Immigration reform - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Clinton puts crosshairs on offshore tax deals
In other words, tax the shit out of Americans without changing any legislation to force/encourage the hiring of Americans.
Once again...Tried and failed...2006.
Yes, I followed her campaign very closely and I was far more impressed with Sanders and Trump.
But thanks for letting everybody that you didn't follow her campaign.
sorry pal, this ain't religious magical voodoo, wherein you can just make up any shit you want and nobody can ever tell if it is true it false.
None of the dossier has been "confirmed." you don't even know what the word means. Furthermore, if I say the White House is pink, it's not true because it's a house. The only thing that matters is that the essential fact of the claim is wrong, and all the essential claims of the dossier are wholely unsubstantiated bullshit and gossip.In other words, no one claims anything in the dossier is factual. Ergo, no one has any reason to believe a thing in it.If no one says it's a fact, then why should anyone consider it to be a fact?
You don't get it, which is obviously no surprise. When you testify in court you can't say that someone else says it is fact, and therefor it is fact. That's called hearsay. You can only answer for yourself... and anyone with two brain cells to rub together will say it is possible due to second hand information given, but won't say it is fact, because they didn't see it firsthand for theirself.
You obviously don't get it. You seem to think everything that isn't denied is automatically true. That's not how it works, moron.
No. The people that told Steele about the information think it is true, but they aren't under oath in court. This isn't a difficult concept for most people to understand.
Really? How do you know they aren't lying? How do we know Steel isn't lying? It's all nothing but unsubstantiated gossip. Nothing you have posted alters that essential fact. You haven't proven it to be the slightest bit credible in any way.
You really are a naive retard, ya know it?
How do you know Trump isn't lying to you? How naive you are.
... and some of the dossier HAS BEEN confirmed.
I hope you never have to testify in court, because you are too dumb to understand how testimony works. If your boyfriend tells you they saw Bigfoot and you believe them, are you going to testify in court under oath, knowing that if it never really happened you could go to jail for perjury, that it was a FACT that Bigfoot existed?
He's right, Anyone.
