An early peek at some of John Durham's report

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

thank you valued pumper!

You are correct. I said so.

if you say so. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You are correct. I said so. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

tiddies. huge fuckin' anime tiddies!







BAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAA

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Who is that little girl and why is she’s your preferred method of distraction today, big shooter? So many questions, so little knowledge. At least she isn’t hangings out of a tree, eh?

With very little factual evidence, you have reached many conclusions in which your opinions are the "facts".
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

First, thank you for the grammar lesson. I have no problem being corrected for grammatical errors.


Second, yes, most if not all that I say is my expressed opinion. Now if I ever write "What I'm about to say is a fact" and it isn't, please correct me. I don't believe I stated anything I said was a proven fact. I'll wait for Horowitz and Durham to prove me right or wrong.


You know what words you do not use in expressing a fact as opposed to an opinion?

Why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law — and the Steele dossier likely didn’t

That's called hedging your bet that you are expressing a fact. The author just left room for the possibility that he is wrong and what he said was his opinion.

An early peek at some of John Durham's report Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Who let YOU look at it?

I'll wait for Horowitz and Durham to prove me right or wrong. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

They are not the ones to "PROVE" ... they are reporting what someone said or something said. A "REPORT" is a "REPORT" and nothing more.

False Reports are now the substance of daily discussions and that's why the Reporters of "False Reporters" are working for Fake News organizations. Munchie is just carrying water for them. But's he's been their lacky for years.

They are not the ones to "PROVE" ... they are reporting what someone said or something said. A "REPORT" is a "REPORT" and nothing more.

False Reports are now the substance of daily discussions and that's why the Reporters of "False Reporters" are working for Fake News organizations. Munchie is just carrying water for them. But's he's been their lacky for years. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I agree that we could argue till the end of time what is "proof" and what isn't. So I'll change my statement to "let's see if the two reports confirm or cast doubt on my opinions" and yes, everything I and everybody else on this board posts is an opinion.

I agree that we could argue till the end of time what is "proof" and what isn't. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

No. You can. I know what it is and what it isn't.

With respect to the instant topic (OP), when the deranged bullshitters orchestrating the fraudulent, illegal "impeachment investigation" begin to get prosecuted for their lies under oath after they are subpoenaed before the Senate Trial before the Presiding Justice from the US Supreme Court who will find them in contempt for refusing to answer questions asked you will be informed what "proof" is when they insist upon their "Constitutional Rights" they have denied others through the fake process.

You will hear familiar phrases like .... "insufficient evidence"! And once it is determined by the assertion of THEIR RIGHTS that they knew all along that there were INALIENABLE RIGHTS then it will BE PROOF that their deception and lies WERE INTENTIONAL and not born from PURE IGNORANCE. Pisslousy will be firing staff members for "not informing her" thoroughly of the nuances and "legal technicalities" of "DUE PROCESS"!

The title of the thread is, "An early peek at some of John Durham's report".
The title of the article is, "Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup".

Durham is the "handpicked prosecutor" named in the headline of the article (which you obviously didn't read). Some information from his upcoming report was released to Horowitz as detailed in the article.

So what part of "An early peek at some of John Durham's report", which is due to be released on Monday, don't you understand?
No comment on the story, just a display of your ignorance.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Did you actually even read your own article.

Please point to where information from Durham's upcoming report was released to Horowitz.

You're article specifically doesn't say that. It seems like wishful reading on your part.

From your own source.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office contacted U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor Barr personally tapped to lead a separate review of the 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the people said. The inspector general also contacted several U.S. intelligence agencies.

Contacted - Hmm, Doesn't say shared content of upcoming report

Among Horowitz’s questions: whether a Maltese professor who interacted with a Trump campaign adviser was actually a U.S. intelligence asset deployed to ensnare the campaign, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the inspector general’s findings have not been made public.
But the intelligence agencies said the professor was not among their assets, the people said. And Durham informed Horowitz’s office that his investigation had not produced any evidence that might contradict the inspector general’s findings on that point.

Informed - Hmm, Doesn't say shared content of upcoming report

Spokespeople for the inspector general’s office, Durham and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Declined - Hmm, Seems like the post went strictly on "anonymous" sources again.

The previously unreported interaction with Durham is noted in a draft of Horowitz’s forthcoming report on the Russia investigation, which concludes that the FBI had adequate cause to launch its Russia investigation, people familiar with the matter said. Its public release is set for Monday.

Interaction - Hmm, Doesn't say shared content of upcoming report

That could rebut conservatives’ doubts — which Barr has shared with associates in recent weeks — that Horowitz might be blessing the FBI’s Russia investigation prematurely and that Durham could potentially find more, particularly with regard to the Maltese professor.

Potentially Find More - Hmm, Seems like it's way too premature to even speculate on the contents of the Durham report

The draft, though, is not final. The inspector general has yet to release any conclusions, and The Washington Post has not reviewed Horowitz’s entire report, even in draft form. It is also unclear whether Durham has shared the entirety of his findings and evidence with the inspector general or merely answered a specific question.

Unclear - Hmm, Seems like the author doesn't really even have a clue as to whether any information from a potential Durhan report was discussed or not

I'll be awaiting where you point out where any "content" of a potential upcoming Durham report was shared.

Typical trumpy.

Two of the "conservatives" offered up any discussion of the article itself. Hedon and Dilbert.

Baby b(s) tried to hijack the thread (the guy who registered in 2010 and didn't make his first post (under that handle) until Aug 2017)

obewan felt the need to make 4 worthless and meaningless comments (so far).

And iccy showed off his reading skills (hs). Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

No Typical leftist TDS sufferer.

You post crap like this OP and you actually expect reasoned responses. I call bullshit.

TDS = Opinions they wanta believe are Facts ,,,,,,, the distortion continues

DPST's have nothing cogent or constructive in debate

all they got is counting the number of different opinion responses.

Poor, benighted DPST's.

Cannot even understand the issue when called out on their own hypocrisy!