Yes, I read her opinion column. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38Well, thank you tiggy! You're already way ahead of the rest of the pack of wolves here who just react with knee-jerk hostility to anyone who questions their DNC-dictated narratives. Glad to see you're different!
In post #13, in this thread, on Feb. 16, you posted;You’re splitting hairs. If Jamie Raskin sat through FBI briefings over the past ten years that relied on Smirnov’s statements, and he called those briefings “credible”, then by inference he considered Smirnov to be credible. Now go back to my post #13, open the link and watch the video. Raskin refers to a “highly credible source” 30 seconds in. But don’t stop there - be sure to watch the entire video.
did Democrat Jamie Raskin once call Smirnov a "very credible" source?
I said; No, Raskin didn't call smirnov a "very credible" source (this kind of statement is why you get accused of making things up).
From the article above;
"Ranking Oversight Democrat Jamie Raskin acknowledged the FBI’s briefing about credibility."
Yes, Raskin acknowledged he received the FBI briefing.
A few things.
How about a link to when and where Raskin called smirnov a "credible source"? The above says; "Ranking Oversight Democrat Jamie Raskin acknowledged the FBI’s briefing about credibility."
That doesn't mean he believed it or openly called smirnov a "credible source". That means he was given that information. You made this claim almost a week before this article came out. Just let me know where you heard it then. Simple, right? Originally Posted by Tigbitties38
Also, I read the indictment. It details the time lines of information, all the contradictions in his statements, claims of meetings in places never visited. Including when it blew up in his face in 2023.I haven’t read the indictment but I’m sure Kim Strassel did. Yes, she is an opinion writer, so what? Her point isn’t that Republicans weren’t thrown for a loop to learn that the Confidential Human Source (CHS) touted by the FBI for over a decade as “highly credible” is now charged with lying on that explosive FBI FD-1023. Her point is - why isn’t everyone talking about how that is a much bigger embarrassment/scandal to the FBI than to anyone else?
Mainly it shows the difference between an opinion article and an indictment type document.
And yes, the FBI was concerned when their credible source started lying to them. All that means he was truthful (or didn't give false info that they could prove otherwise until recently)some time ago. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38
Just another trumpy narrative that will fall flat on it's face in court.Lol... this isn’t a “trumpy narrative”. Biden family corruption has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Granted, it appears the alleged $5 million bribes to Hunter and Joe can’t be confirmed or corroborated. But given the sensational nature of this allegation which was made way back in 2017, why the fuck didn’t the FBI jump on it sooner?
Did you notice I said in my post;
And other than these particular lies about the bribes, the house should investigate to see what other lies he has told. since his credibility has fallen apart. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38
Did you notice Kim Strassel said in her column:
“Republicans would have been wise to treat the dramatic Smirnov accusations more carefully.”
P.S. I knew this author was full of shit when she said;Wrong. Taxpayers got two expensive reports - the Mueller report and the Durham report.
Shall we add up the taxpayer cost of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Mr. Durham’s clean-up of it, (now that's pretty fucking funny), the Justice Department’s manpower on the Smirnov case, and congressional and inspector-general investigations? Mueller-Many indictments and convictions. Cut short because trump's DOJ wouldn't go after a sitting president.
Durham-How many indictments/convictions? What did the tax payers, DOJ man hours, etc. get?
Not a goddamn thing. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38
It would have been better if neither Special Counsel had been appointed, but once Hillary Clinton instructed her dirty tricksters to pay for the phony Steele dossier and use it to subvert the FBI into spying on her opponent’s 2016 campaign and launching its phony Russia collusion investigation, the die was set. I’m just happy that BOTH reports are available for future historians to peruse.
Again, what was your source last week? Your new one doesn't prove your claim. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38Already answered. Click on the link in my post #13 and enjoy the video.
