Trump has a LONG history of being shady and corrupt in his business dealings-- I have a very hard time believing he changed his spots and magically became a model citizen upon jumping into politics.This is the most investigated man in the history of the planet, not only by half the lawyers in DC, but also an army of “journalists”. In five years they’ve come up with bupkis, making him potentially the cleanest politician to ever hold office.
- Jacuzzme
- 08-10-2022, 09:03 AM
- Salty Again
- 08-10-2022, 09:08 AM
... And they are STILL investigating.
The MOST INVESTIGATED MAN in America is STILL
the odds-on FAVOURITE to Win in 2024. ...
#### SAlty
The MOST INVESTIGATED MAN in America is STILL
the odds-on FAVOURITE to Win in 2024. ...
#### SAlty
- HedonistForever
- 08-10-2022, 10:00 AM
AH! The good old days when asking that your political opponent be investigated would get you impeached.
- WTF
- 08-10-2022, 10:05 AM
This is the most investigated man in the history of the planet, not only by half the lawyers in DC, but also an army of “journalists”. In five years they’ve come up with bupkis, making him potentially the cleanest politician to ever hold office. Originally Posted by JacuzzmeOh Jesus H Christ....cry me a river.
Have you ever heard of the Clintons?
- WTF
- 08-10-2022, 10:09 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 08-10-2022, 10:25 AM
... "classified documents"?? ... Doesn't PRESIDENT TrumpNO.
get to decide just WHAT documents are "classified" or not??
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
Oh, and he’s not president, which technically makes him a thief.
Can former presidents declassify documents and possess classified material? Is the issue how Trump stored top secret documents?
Former presidents have no power to declassify anything. They can request access to classified material, but only through a heavily regulated process, which does not appear to apply to this case.
They also don’t hold onto their records after their departure, because they belong to the American public. Former presidents are required to transfer their records to the National Archives upon leaving office.
- 1blackman1
- 08-10-2022, 10:58 AM
- 1blackman1
- 08-10-2022, 11:03 AM
... "classified documents"?? ... Doesn't PRESIDENT TrumpNo. Former presidents don’t get to do anything because, they are no longer president. And there’s a process for declassifying documents which it’s clear he didn’t follow or the documents wouldn’t have been sought and requested be secured in multiple conversations with the DoJ and his attys. Were the documents no longer classified then he still would have been required to turn them over to the Archive.
get to decide just WHAT documents are "classified" or not??
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
As usual you have no clue what you’re talking about and didn’t bother to do the slightest bit of educating yourself before spouting nonsense.
Do you have any information that you can provide a single link to that suggests that Trump was not in possession of classified materials as has been reported by every news source. Just one. Even a bullshit one.
- nevergaveitathought
- 08-10-2022, 11:07 AM
i always like it when a leftist's nerves are touched and they blow up
- 69in2it69
- 08-10-2022, 12:01 PM
... "classified documents"?? ... Doesn't PRESIDENT Trump
get to decide just WHAT documents are "classified" or not??
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
Well there's just one little problem with that...it's citizen Trump. Period, end of discussion. He has exactly as much right to have classified/top secret government documents as:
A retired general.
A retired private.
Otherwise known as NONE.
And come on BC, you lead with "at gunpoint" what kind of BS are you watching. You say you're ex military so tell us, what would happen if you just decided to "take some classified military documents home" when you discharged? What has happened, right in front of your deluded faces is Trump broke a law created to prevent corrupt presidents from possessing classified documents. Get the fuck over it, he broke the law. What happened to being the party of law and order?? Just not when it involves your false prophet??
- lustylad
- 08-10-2022, 12:21 PM
I know plenty fuck more than you which is clear from your inchoate, nonsensical and asinine posts. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
Oh dear! That doesn't sound very nice or respectful, does it? Sure hope nobody hits the RTM button!
#1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others.
#3 - Disrespect to others, IN GENERAL, will be considered an item of low tolerance, especially when posting in our coed forums.
#4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention.
- lustylad
- 08-10-2022, 12:25 PM
- lustylad
- 08-10-2022, 01:01 PM
Has Biden pressured another country to investigate Trump?No need to. The deep swamp combo of the DOJ, the FBI, sundry state AGs and the mainstream media do it gladly without being asked.
In fact has he asked anyone to? Originally Posted by WTF
Meanwhile, they play interference if anyone suggests we need to investigate Biden. They constantly hush up, suppress and lie about Hunter and the ongoing misdeeds of the Biden family crime syndicate.
- VerySkeptical
- 08-10-2022, 01:41 PM
Trump was president and controlled congress his first 2 years.
How funny the things you claim you know are wrong. We know why that is. Because we know where you get your information.
The things you KNOW come from a hooker board. So you are as credible as information that comes from people like you.
I surely get a good bit of info - right here - in the forum!
From the sorry lot of you mates here! Salty
We also know why you don't post links. Because there no valid ones that corroborate many of your false narratives.
An investigation looks for facts. If there enough facts that show guilt, they go to a grand jury, etc.
There weren't enough facts to start the legal process to try Trump for conspiracy. Collusion is not a crime, conspiracy is.
Your claim everybody you don't like
Your answer to everything is Trumpys are victims.
You will claim the midterms were fixed if your goals aren't met. Even with all of the Trump lies exposed.
Here are some facts.
Trump’s Baseless Attacks on Times, Post Reporting on Russia Probe
"President Donald Trump has attacked reporting on the Russia investigation by the New York Times and the Washington Post as “fake news,” asserting — along with his press secretary — that the news organizations should return the Pulitzer Prizes they received in 2018 for their work.
But Trump and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany have pointed to no errors in the reporting, and a rereading of the articles shows that the work is quite solid. The reporting is heavily supported by special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and by other publicly available documents and sources.
We asked the White House what exactly was wrong with the papers’ reporting. We received no specifics, and were steered instead to McEnany’s unrelated comments criticizing the Times’ reporting on intelligence indicating Russia had offered bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Eileen Murphy, the Times’ senior vice president for communications, said the news outlet was aware of no problems with the articles and would have no comment on Trump’s and McEnany’s remarks. The Post did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump’s criticism of the reporting is part of a larger pattern: his relentless campaign to demonize the press, dismissing its work as “fake news” and seeking to weaken its credibility, as documented in an April report by the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The Times and the Post shared the 2018 Pulitzer for national reporting. Here’s what the Pulitzer board said of why the work was honored:
Pulitzer board, April 16, 2018: For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.
At the end of her briefing on June 29, McEnany criticized the Times’ article on the bounties and a number of other Times articles. She then turned her attention to the 2018 Pulitzers.
McEnany, June 29: It is inexcusable, the failed Russia reporting of the New York Times. And I think it’s time that the New York Times, and also the Washington Post, hand back their Pulitzers.
Trump assailed the Pulitzer-winning articles on June 25 during an interview with Sean Hannity at a Fox News town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, describing both the Times and Post as “so dishonest.”
Trump, June 25: The Pulitzer Prize is very embarrassed; it’s lost a lot of its credibility because all these writers got Pulitzer Prizes on the “Russia, Russia, Russia,” and they were all wrong.
And he demanded that the Pulitzers be returned at a meeting with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May.
Trump, May 7: [A]ll of those journalists that received a Pulitzer Prize should be forced to give those Pulitzer Prizes back because they were all wrong. There was no — because if you saw today, more documents came out, saying there was absolutely no collusion with Russia. It came out very loud and clear.
And they wrote for years because they tried to do a number on the presidency and this president. It happened to be me. Pulitzer Prizes should all be returned. Because you know what? They were given out falsely. It was fake news. They’re all fake news. Those Pulitzer Prizes should be given back immediately.
And the Pulitzer committee, or whoever gives the prizes, they’re a disgrace, unless they take those prizes back. Because they got Pulitzer Prizes for what turned out to be false stories.
At a coronavirus task force briefing, Trump singled out Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who contributed to a number of the Russia investigation stories, for criticism.
Trump, April 18: Maggie Haberman. You know, she won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of Russia, but she was wrong on Russia. So was everyone else. They should all give back their Pulitzer Prizes. … So Maggie Haberman gets a Pulitzer Prize? She’s a third-rate reporter. New York Times.
Trump first demanded that the prizes be returned in a tweet on March 29, 2019 — even before the Mueller report was released. Trump based his call for action on a summary of the report by his attorney general, William Barr. Barr’s four-page synopsis, submitted to Congress, was criticized by Mueller, who said in a letter to Barr that it “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his work.
So funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia – And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 29, 2019
The Trump administration’s approach to the Pulitzer-winning articles reflects its stance on the Mueller report.
Since the report “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” and did not contain “a traditional prosecution decision” on obstruction of justice, Trump has taken the position that he was exonerated and that there was no obstruction of justice on his part. But that is not what the report said, as we have reported.
No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 24, 2019
Here is what the report said about collusion:
The Mueller report: In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Here is what the report said about obstruction:
The Mueller report: Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.
As for exoneration, the report says explicitly, “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Mueller wrote: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
A Review of the Pulitzer-Winning Stories
The joint Pulitzer for the Times and Post was for 20 articles, 10 from each of the papers.
Reading them several years after they were published, it is clear that they hold up well.
For example, early in 2017, the Post ran an article that began:
Washington Post, Feb. 9, 2017: National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
Transcripts released in May confirmed the story. The fact that Flynn publicly lied about his contacts with Kislyak put him at risk of being blackmailed. That’s what led to his firing and his legal problems.
On May 23, 2017, the Post reported that Trump in March of that year had asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials, Daniel Coats, then-director of national intelligence, and Michael S. Rogers, then-director of the National Security Agency, to deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Both declined to do so.
The story was confirmed in the Mueller report.
On June 15, 2017, the Post reported that Mueller’s investigation was focusing on whether Trump tried to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation. That certainly turned out to be the case.
On May 16, 2017, the Times ran a story that began:
New York Times, May 16: President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The Mueller report said “substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.”
On May 20, 2017, the Times reported that Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office that firing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” the Times quoted Trump as saying, quoting from a memo that it said was the official account of the meeting. The Mueller report also included evidence to corroborate that account, noting that the White House did not dispute that description of the meeting.
On Sept. 7, 2017, the Times ran a piece headlined “The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election.” The article began by focusing on DCLeaks, a website that had recently gone live, posting material stolen from prominent Americans by Russian hackers. The article revealed Russian efforts on social media to hurt the chances of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
This Russian meddling was extensively chronicled in the Mueller report, which we covered in our story “Kushner Distorts Scope of Russia Interference.”
As we mentioned above, Trump singled out Times reporter Maggie Haberman for criticism. Haberman was a coauthor of two of the Times’ pieces in the Pulitzer package and a contributor to two others. All of the stories have been confirmed or substantially corroborated.
For example, Haberman was a coauthor of the article cited above about Trump telling Russian officials that removing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. She also was a coauthor of an article that began, “Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.”
Trump Jr. posted the emails on Twitter. They said exactly what Haberman had reported.
We encourage readers to review all of the award-winning stories on the Pulitzer website. The White House has made no specific challenges to the stories, and a review of them shows that they hold up well."
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/tr...-russia-probe/
And until the FBI releases the results of its investigation, no one knows what is true or not.
How funny the things you claim you know are wrong. We know why that is. Because we know where you get your information.
The things you KNOW come from a hooker board. So you are as credible as information that comes from people like you.
I surely get a good bit of info - right here - in the forum!
From the sorry lot of you mates here! Salty
We also know why you don't post links. Because there no valid ones that corroborate many of your false narratives.
An investigation looks for facts. If there enough facts that show guilt, they go to a grand jury, etc.
There weren't enough facts to start the legal process to try Trump for conspiracy. Collusion is not a crime, conspiracy is.
Your claim everybody you don't like
Your answer to everything is Trumpys are victims.
You will claim the midterms were fixed if your goals aren't met. Even with all of the Trump lies exposed.
Here are some facts.
Trump’s Baseless Attacks on Times, Post Reporting on Russia Probe
"President Donald Trump has attacked reporting on the Russia investigation by the New York Times and the Washington Post as “fake news,” asserting — along with his press secretary — that the news organizations should return the Pulitzer Prizes they received in 2018 for their work.
But Trump and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany have pointed to no errors in the reporting, and a rereading of the articles shows that the work is quite solid. The reporting is heavily supported by special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and by other publicly available documents and sources.
We asked the White House what exactly was wrong with the papers’ reporting. We received no specifics, and were steered instead to McEnany’s unrelated comments criticizing the Times’ reporting on intelligence indicating Russia had offered bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Eileen Murphy, the Times’ senior vice president for communications, said the news outlet was aware of no problems with the articles and would have no comment on Trump’s and McEnany’s remarks. The Post did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump’s criticism of the reporting is part of a larger pattern: his relentless campaign to demonize the press, dismissing its work as “fake news” and seeking to weaken its credibility, as documented in an April report by the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The Times and the Post shared the 2018 Pulitzer for national reporting. Here’s what the Pulitzer board said of why the work was honored:
Pulitzer board, April 16, 2018: For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.
At the end of her briefing on June 29, McEnany criticized the Times’ article on the bounties and a number of other Times articles. She then turned her attention to the 2018 Pulitzers.
McEnany, June 29: It is inexcusable, the failed Russia reporting of the New York Times. And I think it’s time that the New York Times, and also the Washington Post, hand back their Pulitzers.
Trump assailed the Pulitzer-winning articles on June 25 during an interview with Sean Hannity at a Fox News town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, describing both the Times and Post as “so dishonest.”
Trump, June 25: The Pulitzer Prize is very embarrassed; it’s lost a lot of its credibility because all these writers got Pulitzer Prizes on the “Russia, Russia, Russia,” and they were all wrong.
And he demanded that the Pulitzers be returned at a meeting with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May.
Trump, May 7: [A]ll of those journalists that received a Pulitzer Prize should be forced to give those Pulitzer Prizes back because they were all wrong. There was no — because if you saw today, more documents came out, saying there was absolutely no collusion with Russia. It came out very loud and clear.
And they wrote for years because they tried to do a number on the presidency and this president. It happened to be me. Pulitzer Prizes should all be returned. Because you know what? They were given out falsely. It was fake news. They’re all fake news. Those Pulitzer Prizes should be given back immediately.
And the Pulitzer committee, or whoever gives the prizes, they’re a disgrace, unless they take those prizes back. Because they got Pulitzer Prizes for what turned out to be false stories.
At a coronavirus task force briefing, Trump singled out Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who contributed to a number of the Russia investigation stories, for criticism.
Trump, April 18: Maggie Haberman. You know, she won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of Russia, but she was wrong on Russia. So was everyone else. They should all give back their Pulitzer Prizes. … So Maggie Haberman gets a Pulitzer Prize? She’s a third-rate reporter. New York Times.
Trump first demanded that the prizes be returned in a tweet on March 29, 2019 — even before the Mueller report was released. Trump based his call for action on a summary of the report by his attorney general, William Barr. Barr’s four-page synopsis, submitted to Congress, was criticized by Mueller, who said in a letter to Barr that it “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his work.
So funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia – And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 29, 2019
The Trump administration’s approach to the Pulitzer-winning articles reflects its stance on the Mueller report.
Since the report “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” and did not contain “a traditional prosecution decision” on obstruction of justice, Trump has taken the position that he was exonerated and that there was no obstruction of justice on his part. But that is not what the report said, as we have reported.
No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 24, 2019
Here is what the report said about collusion:
The Mueller report: In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Here is what the report said about obstruction:
The Mueller report: Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.
As for exoneration, the report says explicitly, “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Mueller wrote: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
A Review of the Pulitzer-Winning Stories
The joint Pulitzer for the Times and Post was for 20 articles, 10 from each of the papers.
Reading them several years after they were published, it is clear that they hold up well.
For example, early in 2017, the Post ran an article that began:
Washington Post, Feb. 9, 2017: National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
Transcripts released in May confirmed the story. The fact that Flynn publicly lied about his contacts with Kislyak put him at risk of being blackmailed. That’s what led to his firing and his legal problems.
On May 23, 2017, the Post reported that Trump in March of that year had asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials, Daniel Coats, then-director of national intelligence, and Michael S. Rogers, then-director of the National Security Agency, to deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Both declined to do so.
The story was confirmed in the Mueller report.
On June 15, 2017, the Post reported that Mueller’s investigation was focusing on whether Trump tried to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation. That certainly turned out to be the case.
On May 16, 2017, the Times ran a story that began:
New York Times, May 16: President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The Mueller report said “substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.”
On May 20, 2017, the Times reported that Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office that firing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” the Times quoted Trump as saying, quoting from a memo that it said was the official account of the meeting. The Mueller report also included evidence to corroborate that account, noting that the White House did not dispute that description of the meeting.
On Sept. 7, 2017, the Times ran a piece headlined “The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election.” The article began by focusing on DCLeaks, a website that had recently gone live, posting material stolen from prominent Americans by Russian hackers. The article revealed Russian efforts on social media to hurt the chances of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
This Russian meddling was extensively chronicled in the Mueller report, which we covered in our story “Kushner Distorts Scope of Russia Interference.”
As we mentioned above, Trump singled out Times reporter Maggie Haberman for criticism. Haberman was a coauthor of two of the Times’ pieces in the Pulitzer package and a contributor to two others. All of the stories have been confirmed or substantially corroborated.
For example, Haberman was a coauthor of the article cited above about Trump telling Russian officials that removing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. She also was a coauthor of an article that began, “Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.”
Trump Jr. posted the emails on Twitter. They said exactly what Haberman had reported.
We encourage readers to review all of the award-winning stories on the Pulitzer website. The White House has made no specific challenges to the stories, and a review of them shows that they hold up well."
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/tr...-russia-probe/
... You give us two examples here, Pretty-bird.One of Murdoc's media outlets carried the laptop story. Fox news wouldn't even run it. The laptop wasn't made available to anyone to check the contents. The FBI had the laptop for almost a year before the election. The Trumpys didn't let it be known there was a hard drive and released it right before the election so there wasn't time to verify any of it. The experts who were finally allowed access said they were forensic messes. There were files being added to the drive after the FBI seized the laptop.
But let's see what we already KNOW - "They" the Deep State
- Democrat politicians, FBI, DOJ, whomever - were ALL telling
the American people that Trump colluded with the Russians.
Russian Hookers peeing on his bed... The whole thing.The hooker deal was from the dossier.
But we KNOW NOW that the whole "Trump/Russia collusion"
was a bullshit story created by Hillary Clinton's people
and Perkins-Coie. ... We KNOW it... It's been PROVEN.
Do YOU believe that's fair??
And we also KNOW that the Hunter lap is not-onley REAL
- but that the FBI/DOJ and Adam Schiff KNEW it was real
when they had the past and present members of the
Intelligence committee surely sign off that it was
FAKE and "most likely" Russian Dis-Information.
Wrong. The intelligence people say they didn't know if the laptop was real or not. They also said the laptop looked like a classic Russian disinformation operation and gave an example of a past operation very similar to the laptop.
Being Australian, you don't speak English very well. You constantly misquote, misrepresent information, and present your opinion as fact.
Of course we all know your language skills have nothing to do with the bull you spew.
So the lied to the American people about Hunter's laptop.
Right before the election.
Do you believe that some o' those Biden voters might have
changed their vote or not voted at all IF they knew the truth??
... See? ... The CORRUPTION you're looking to avoid
is right there. ... Thanks to Hillary Clinton and the FBI.
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
And until the FBI releases the results of its investigation, no one knows what is true or not.
- nevergaveitathought
- 08-10-2022, 01:44 PM
wow, what willful concerted acceptance of bilge spun by the worst among us