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.
repeating lies -BRIBERY AND EXTORTION DON'T GET ANY PLAINER THAT JOJO BIDEN!
If you fuckers wouldn't rely on repeating proven lies as your primary form of argument, you'd have nothing. And that would be an improvement.
Fact-checking Rudy Giuliani's newest allegations from his Ukraine trip - CNNPoliticsRudy has a lot of experience building RICO charts and connecting the dots. If he were going after me and speaking with confidence about it, I'd be worried.
.
Creating it, maybe.Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani taunted the Deep State-Democrat-media complex Sunday morning and said he will be sharing evidence he “has garnered through hundreds of hours of research.”
~Snip~
A few hours after his initial tweet on Sunday, Rudy began dropping bombshells one tweet at at time.
Rudy said Victor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor general investigating Burisma was not only fired after Biden threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine, but that he was poisoned and barely survived the poisoning.
“Shokin holds documents proving money laundering by Burisma & Biden’s,” Giuliani said. “He was fired due to VP Joe Biden’s threat not to release $1 billion in vital US aid.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com
I think it is time to cease labeling Rudy “President’s Lawyer”
Rudy is in fact the President’s envoy or perhaps Special Envoy....but then, that takes away the ABNORMALS talking point about Rudy!
Perhaps Bob Mueller could come out of retirement for a Cameo and look carefully into this real collusion.
Hey Bob, this is what real collusion looks like, you partisan ninny....how much money did you make for all that NOTHING BURGER?
Sen. Graham invites Rudy Giuliani to testify about Ukraine trip with OAN | One America News Network
Uncovering? You can't do that with something that doesn't exist.
Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?right here.
Poor little commie, saying maobama wanted to be kept apprised, isn't claiming he ordered a damn thing, it just says he was aware. Perhaps your ESL teacher could explain it to ya.
.
You’re making assumptions.
Page told Strozk "pouts wants to know everything we're doing". Am I?
.
Shokin is the criminal. The Urkainian people demanded he be fired. The Ukranian legislature demanded he be fired. The IMF called for his firing. The EBRD called for his firing. The EU called for his firing.
Even Republicans called for his firing!
Stop drinking piss, morons.
All you have is idiot innuendo.
Now look here:
Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromaviius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system.
<snip>
The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
<snip>
We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step.
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman
Biden: "And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t."
Notice how Biden and the Republicans statements are so similar in tone?
You dipshits have been punked by your propagandists. You better hurry back for refills of your piss cups to find out what other bullshit you need to parrot.
They know. They are just dishonest shits. And that is why they are always so angry....despite CONSTANT WINNING.
depends on how "loosely" you wish to define what it would take to start one. seems if trump farts in the wind, it's time to investigate. if we have info biden and others are laundering money out of the ukraine it's STOP MAKING SHIT UP.If a low bar to meet, why lie and alter evidence and create your own?Yes. I think that’s quite common for the initiation of investigations. They have a low bar to meet to justify them.If not black and white then the entire investigation was centered around assumptionsIt’s really not. The dossier wasn’t verified but they found some parts of it credible enough to take seriously.
Things aren’t as black and white as you may want them to be.
Just asking you to follow your own "rules"
You’re crossing your streams here. The initiation of the investigation was warranted. The one FISA application for Page wasn’t.
if you can't see that contradiction you're pretty much beyond hope.
repeating lies -BRIBERY AND EXTORTION DON'T GET ANY PLAINER THAT JOJO BIDEN!
If you fuckers wouldn't rely on repeating proven lies as your primary form of argument, you'd have nothing. And that would be an improvement.
like "Kavanaugh is a rapist"
or "Trump is digging for dirt on Biden" (opinion not fact)
and that kind of shit? seems your panties wad up when done to you but you have zero issue using heresay on others.
sorry but eat it, son.
Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?Poor little commie, saying maobama wanted to be kept apprised, isn't claiming he ordered a damn thing, it just says he was aware. Perhaps your ESL teacher could explain it to ya.
.
You’re making assumptions.
Page told Strozk "pouts wants to know everything we're doing". Am I?
.
No.
So he MUST be acquitted. If a man does not say that he is committing a crime while doing it, it doesn't count.
No. But we have circumstantial evidence that Trump was acting on personal motives.Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?
Yet no one said they knew that for a fact.
.
Why do you think that is?
Because they admitted it.
.
depends on how "loosely" you wish to define what it would take to start one. seems if trump farts in the wind, it's time to investigate. if we have info biden and others are laundering money out of the ukraine it's STOP MAKING SHIT UP.If a low bar to meet, why lie and alter evidence and create your own?Yes. I think that’s quite common for the initiation of investigations. They have a low bar to meet to justify them.If not black and white then the entire investigation was centered around assumptions
Just asking you to follow your own "rules"
You’re crossing your streams here. The initiation of the investigation was warranted. The one FISA application for Page wasn’t.
if you can't see that contradiction you're pretty much beyond hope.
I got bad news for you. Sometimes people make shit up. You really aren’t doing yourself any favors by not questioning the source of your information.
Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?You’re making assumptions.
Page told Strozk "pouts wants to know everything we're doing". Am I?
.
No.
So he MUST be acquitted. If a man does not say that he is committing a crime while doing it, it doesn't count.
You have just expertly explained why the IG couldn't say there was political bias
Yet you are too fucking dim to know it.
depends on how "loosely" you wish to define what it would take to start one. seems if trump farts in the wind, it's time to investigate. if we have info biden and others are laundering money out of the ukraine it's STOP MAKING SHIT UP.If a low bar to meet, why lie and alter evidence and create your own?Yes. I think that’s quite common for the initiation of investigations. They have a low bar to meet to justify them.
Just asking you to follow your own "rules"
You’re crossing your streams here. The initiation of the investigation was warranted. The one FISA application for Page wasn’t.
if you can't see that contradiction you're pretty much beyond hope.
I got bad news for you. Sometimes people make shit up. You really aren’t doing yourself any favors by not questioning the source of your information.
Like the entire Russian hoax.
That not the standard, they found by the time of the third renewal that none of it was credible after they talked to the primary sub-source, it was just barroom talk and speculation. Procedures require everything be verified.
.
Procedures do not require everything be verified.
From page viii of the executive summary: (my B/U)
Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are "scrupulously accurate." We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. We found that the problems we identified were primarily caused by the Crossfire Hurricane team failing to share all relevant information with QI and, consequently, the information was not considered by the Department decision makers who ultimately decided to support the applications.
Scrupulously accurate is the standard. Anything else, hack?
.
You may have noticed that none of the criticisms from Horowitz are that the dossier itself was unverified at the time they submitted the first application.
That’s because it’s is not mandatory that all information from sources be 100% verified.
What did you fail to understand about "scrupulously accurate"? That's not optional on any FISA application.
.
What “scrupulously accurate” is referring to. It does not refer to the information directly from the sources. It means that the statements of fact, from the FBI, are accurate. I.e. when they describe the source and why they consider them reliable. It does not mean they’ve verified everything in the source material. If they had already verified it, they probably wouldn’t need the warrant.
Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?Page told Strozk "pouts wants to know everything we're doing". Am I?
.
No.
So he MUST be acquitted. If a man does not say that he is committing a crime while doing it, it doesn't count.
You have just expertly explained why the IG couldn't say there was political bias
Yet you are too fucking dim to know it.
Oh! That's awwwwwwwwsome!
depends on how "loosely" you wish to define what it would take to start one. seems if trump farts in the wind, it's time to investigate. if we have info biden and others are laundering money out of the ukraine it's STOP MAKING SHIT UP.If a low bar to meet, why lie and alter evidence and create your own?
Just asking you to follow your own "rules"
You’re crossing your streams here. The initiation of the investigation was warranted. The one FISA application for Page wasn’t.
if you can't see that contradiction you're pretty much beyond hope.
I got bad news for you. Sometimes people make shit up. You really aren’t doing yourself any favors by not questioning the source of your information.
Like the entire Russian hoax.
Parrot? No parrot. You're the parrot.
92 countries get US foreign aid, including Israel whose PM is under indictment.repeating lies -BRIBERY AND EXTORTION DON'T GET ANY PLAINER THAT JOJO BIDEN!
If you fuckers wouldn't rely on repeating proven lies as your primary form of argument, you'd have nothing. And that would be an improvement.
like "Kavanaugh is a rapist"
or "Trump is digging for dirt on Biden" (opinion not fact)
and that kind of shit? seems your panties wad up when done to you but you have zero issue using heresay on others.
sorry but eat it, son.
Procedures do not require everything be verified.
From page viii of the executive summary: (my B/U)
Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are "scrupulously accurate." We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. We found that the problems we identified were primarily caused by the Crossfire Hurricane team failing to share all relevant information with QI and, consequently, the information was not considered by the Department decision makers who ultimately decided to support the applications.
Scrupulously accurate is the standard. Anything else, hack?
.
You may have noticed that none of the criticisms from Horowitz are that the dossier itself was unverified at the time they submitted the first application.
That’s because it’s is not mandatory that all information from sources be 100% verified.
What did you fail to understand about "scrupulously accurate"? That's not optional on any FISA application.
.
What “scrupulously accurate” is referring to. It does not refer to the information directly from the sources. It means that the statements of fact, from the FBI, are accurate. I.e. when they describe the source and why they consider them reliable. It does not mean they’ve verified everything in the source material. If they had already verified it, they probably wouldn’t need the warrant.
Feel free to tell that to Horowitz, all I can do is rely on what he actually said. You can pretend otherwise, just like you have on the phone transcript.
.
No. But we have circumstantial evidence that Trump was acting on personal motives.Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?
Yet no one said they knew that for a fact.
.
Why do you think that is?
Because they admitted it.
.
Get back to mean when we’ve heard from everyone.
From page viii of the executive summary: (my B/U)
Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are "scrupulously accurate." We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. We found that the problems we identified were primarily caused by the Crossfire Hurricane team failing to share all relevant information with QI and, consequently, the information was not considered by the Department decision makers who ultimately decided to support the applications.
Scrupulously accurate is the standard. Anything else, hack?
.
You may have noticed that none of the criticisms from Horowitz are that the dossier itself was unverified at the time they submitted the first application.
That’s because it’s is not mandatory that all information from sources be 100% verified.
What did you fail to understand about "scrupulously accurate"? That's not optional on any FISA application.
.
What “scrupulously accurate” is referring to. It does not refer to the information directly from the sources. It means that the statements of fact, from the FBI, are accurate. I.e. when they describe the source and why they consider them reliable. It does not mean they’ve verified everything in the source material. If they had already verified it, they probably wouldn’t need the warrant.
Feel free to tell that to Horowitz, all I can do is rely on what he actually said. You can pretend otherwise, just like you have on the phone transcript.
.
I don’t have to tell Horowitz what’s so obvious.
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
