Giuliani Revealing HUGE Money Laundering Operation Involving Bidens, Burisma Prosecutor Poisoned

[colfax_m]

Do us a favor though...

naw, you said you had evidence, post it up britches.

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

well that's a reference concerning 2016 and a query if he, the PM, could look at why the prosecutor got fired. Seems reasonable since investigating corruption is a big deal. right? I mean if Joe did his job in 2016 correctly.

BTW, thanks for manning up!!

Just to be clear, you’re agreeing that Trump is asking Ukraine to investigate his political opponent?

nope, I never said that, he reference 2016, and not a political opponent, reference the year!!!!!!

Or do you think the prosecutor was just in office? I mean, he said prosecutor right? that's 2016, right? I can get that video of creepy, sleepy if you need to hear the date.

Sorry, but is Joe Biden from 2016 in fact the same Joe Biden that is running for President?

 

[jc456]

naw, you said you had evidence, post it up britches.

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

well that's a reference concerning 2016 and a query if he, the PM, could look at why the prosecutor got fired. Seems reasonable since investigating corruption is a big deal. right? I mean if Joe did his job in 2016 correctly.

BTW, thanks for manning up!!

Just to be clear, you’re agreeing that Trump is asking Ukraine to investigate his political opponent?

nope, I never said that, he reference 2016, and not a political opponent, reference the year!!!!!!

Or do you think the prosecutor was just in office? I mean, he said prosecutor right? that's 2016, right? I can get that video of creepy, sleepy if you need to hear the date.

Sorry, but is Joe Biden from 2016 in fact the same Joe Biden that is running for President?

nope, because he was VP at the time and not running for any office. hmmmm you ok?

Again, no references to 2020 at all. again, when was the prosecutor there? 2016 right? and he was supposedly fired for corruption, right? That's again within the realm of the president in our country to seek out corruption, not sure your country Aussie.

 

[jc456]

Oh, it's on OAN, therefore I expect there to be indictments any day now.......

No........ really.........

Yes, you really do believe Slades bullshit...hard to swallow HONEST news reporting...ROTFLMFAO!

You don't know ANYTHING about HONEST news reporting.

I believe OAN is an honest outlet. why don't you? Is it that inconvenience thingy?

 

[OKTexas]

but "look into that" and make up fake FISA warrants are enough to go after the president.

got it.

No one is okay with making up information for FISA warrants, so please don't bring up strawmen arguments. Besides, as we've learned, that was not the predicate for the investigation into the Trump campaign.

The House really doesn't need any reason to investigate how the functions of government. They're our representatives and are an important check on the power of the President not to mention an invaluable source of transparency.

so i can't do "strawmen" arguments but you can turn around and give them to me.

got it.

as for you being ok with biden firing people for corruption, great. i'm ok with trump saying "look into it" to see if biden himself is corrupt.

you just want this to go 1 way and get pretty butthurt when it doesn't.

You're setting a dangerous standard where any president gets to order investigations into his political opponents just "to see".

Seriously. Imagine a hypothetical where you had evidence that Obama ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign. What would have you said then?

i'm not setting anything. i'm just an observer in all this.

however, in that light, the dems are setting a dangerous standard in which we interpret what the next Dem president says as to what we WANT it to be, reject any effort of them saying what they mean, and go straight to IMPEACH.

cause that's next.

and obama did - it was RUSSIA for 2+ years.

Obama didn't order any investigation into Trump's campaign. If you think I'm wrong, please provide any evidence that was the case.

It's in the Strozk, Page texts. He wanted to know everything they were doing.

.

 

[The Purge]

No one is okay with making up information for FISA warrants, so please don't bring up strawmen arguments. Besides, as we've learned, that was not the predicate for the investigation into the Trump campaign.

The House really doesn't need any reason to investigate how the functions of government. They're our representatives and are an important check on the power of the President not to mention an invaluable source of transparency.

so i can't do "strawmen" arguments but you can turn around and give them to me.

got it.

as for you being ok with biden firing people for corruption, great. i'm ok with trump saying "look into it" to see if biden himself is corrupt.

you just want this to go 1 way and get pretty butthurt when it doesn't.

You're setting a dangerous standard where any president gets to order investigations into his political opponents just "to see".

Seriously. Imagine a hypothetical where you had evidence that Obama ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign. What would have you said then?

i'm not setting anything. i'm just an observer in all this.

however, in that light, the dems are setting a dangerous standard in which we interpret what the next Dem president says as to what we WANT it to be, reject any effort of them saying what they mean, and go straight to IMPEACH.

cause that's next.

and obama did - it was RUSSIA for 2+ years.

Obama didn't order any investigation into Trump's campaign. If you think I'm wrong, please provide any evidence that was the case.

It's in the Strozk, Page texts. He wanted to know everything they were doing.

.

FBI texts: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Feb 7, 2018 · ... between an FBI lawyer revealed that Obama was keeping tabs ... texts between Peter Strzok, one of the top FBI agents who was .

The mother ******* Surrender Monkey is as guilty as Comey!!!

 

[jc456]

No one is okay with making up information for FISA warrants, so please don't bring up strawmen arguments. Besides, as we've learned, that was not the predicate for the investigation into the Trump campaign.

The House really doesn't need any reason to investigate how the functions of government. They're our representatives and are an important check on the power of the President not to mention an invaluable source of transparency.

so i can't do "strawmen" arguments but you can turn around and give them to me.

got it.

as for you being ok with biden firing people for corruption, great. i'm ok with trump saying "look into it" to see if biden himself is corrupt.

you just want this to go 1 way and get pretty butthurt when it doesn't.

You're setting a dangerous standard where any president gets to order investigations into his political opponents just "to see".

Seriously. Imagine a hypothetical where you had evidence that Obama ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign. What would have you said then?

i'm not setting anything. i'm just an observer in all this.

however, in that light, the dems are setting a dangerous standard in which we interpret what the next Dem president says as to what we WANT it to be, reject any effort of them saying what they mean, and go straight to IMPEACH.

cause that's next.

and obama did - it was RUSSIA for 2+ years.

Obama didn't order any investigation into Trump's campaign. If you think I'm wrong, please provide any evidence that was the case.

It's in the Strozk, Page texts. He wanted to know everything they were doing.

.

he thinks obammy had a rogue FBI I guess.

 

[Slade3200]

Cough cough bullshit

TRIGGERED! Lol

You’re one using all caps dude. Looks triggered to me

 

[iceberg]

so i can't do "strawmen" arguments but you can turn around and give them to me.

got it.

as for you being ok with biden firing people for corruption, great. i'm ok with trump saying "look into it" to see if biden himself is corrupt.

you just want this to go 1 way and get pretty butthurt when it doesn't.

You're setting a dangerous standard where any president gets to order investigations into his political opponents just "to see".

Seriously. Imagine a hypothetical where you had evidence that Obama ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign. What would have you said then?

i'm not setting anything. i'm just an observer in all this.

however, in that light, the dems are setting a dangerous standard in which we interpret what the next Dem president says as to what we WANT it to be, reject any effort of them saying what they mean, and go straight to IMPEACH.

cause that's next.

and obama did - it was RUSSIA for 2+ years.

Obama didn't order any investigation into Trump's campaign. If you think I'm wrong, please provide any evidence that was the case.

It's in the Strozk, Page texts. He wanted to know everything they were doing.

.

he thinks obammy had a rogue FBI I guess.

you get to a point where the left minimizes everything they do or dismisses it and then they shine a magnifying glass on ANYTHING they can to cry foul on the right. to me, they simply refuse to live by the standards they attack others with and it gets so very annoying.

 

[colfax_m]

No one is okay with making up information for FISA warrants, so please don't bring up strawmen arguments. Besides, as we've learned, that was not the predicate for the investigation into the Trump campaign.

The House really doesn't need any reason to investigate how the functions of government. They're our representatives and are an important check on the power of the President not to mention an invaluable source of transparency.

so i can't do "strawmen" arguments but you can turn around and give them to me.

got it.

as for you being ok with biden firing people for corruption, great. i'm ok with trump saying "look into it" to see if biden himself is corrupt.

you just want this to go 1 way and get pretty butthurt when it doesn't.

You're setting a dangerous standard where any president gets to order investigations into his political opponents just "to see".

Seriously. Imagine a hypothetical where you had evidence that Obama ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign. What would have you said then?

i'm not setting anything. i'm just an observer in all this.

however, in that light, the dems are setting a dangerous standard in which we interpret what the next Dem president says as to what we WANT it to be, reject any effort of them saying what they mean, and go straight to IMPEACH.

cause that's next.

and obama did - it was RUSSIA for 2+ years.

Obama didn't order any investigation into Trump's campaign. If you think I'm wrong, please provide any evidence that was the case.

It's in the Strozk, Page texts. He wanted to know everything they were doing.

.

Hearsay. Strzok never talked to Obama and you don't know what he's actually referring to in that text. You may apply your bias to it and assume it was about the Trump campaign, but that's only an assumption.

Obama did not request updates into the Trump campaign investigation. He was kept up to date in the Russian investigation, as one might expect. This is laid out in the IG report. Here's the relevant exerpt from page 77.

When we asked Corney about meetings with the White House concerning Crossfire Hurricane, he said that although he did not brief the White House about the investigation, he did mention to President Obama and others at a meeting in the Situation Room that the FBI was trying to determine whether any U.S. person had worked with the Russians in their efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. 194 Corney said he thought it was important that the President know the nature of the FBI's efforts without providing any specifics. Corney said although he did not recall exactly what he said, he may have said there were four individuals with "some association or connection to the Trump campaign." Corney stated that after he provided this information, no one at the meeting responded or followed up with any questions. Corney did not recall specifically when this meeting took place, but believed it may have been in August 2016. We were unable to determine whether this meeting was part of the same meeting reflected in McCabe's notes discussed above.

 

[colfax_m]

well that's a reference concerning 2016 and a query if he, the PM, could look at why the prosecutor got fired. Seems reasonable since investigating corruption is a big deal. right? I mean if Joe did his job in 2016 correctly.

BTW, thanks for manning up!!

Just to be clear, you’re agreeing that Trump is asking Ukraine to investigate his political opponent?

nope, I never said that, he reference 2016, and not a political opponent, reference the year!!!!!!

Or do you think the prosecutor was just in office? I mean, he said prosecutor right? that's 2016, right? I can get that video of creepy, sleepy if you need to hear the date.

Sorry, but is Joe Biden from 2016 in fact the same Joe Biden that is running for President?

nope, because he was VP at the time and not running for any office. hmmmm you ok?

Again, no references to 2020 at all. again, when was the prosecutor there? 2016 right? and he was supposedly fired for corruption, right? That's again within the realm of the president in our country to seek out corruption, not sure your country Aussie.

Makes you wonder why if all this happened in 2016, he decides to wait until now to bring it up, just as Biden is running for president.
Weird coincidence, right?

 

[OKTexas]

well given that the FISA warrants were invalid, isn't this then an illegal investigation into the democrats political opponents?

but that is ok.

on the other hand, trump saying "look into it" you can ONLY see as getting dirt on biden vs. perhaps - just PERHAPS - checking to see if biden was laundering money. to handcuff trump into NOT being able to look into political crimes seems rather convenient to "your" side.

There was one FISA warrant (not warrants). That does not make the entire investigation “illegal”. It was also an investigation undertaken by career FBI staff without bias and appropriately predicated. And, most importantly, it was not done in coordination or at the request of any politicians.

You don’t find it a tad convenient that Trump seems suddenly interested in rooting out “corruption” just as the target is killing him in polls? That’s kind of a coincidence. Don’t you think?

you don't find it a tad convenient to totally dismiss what, 51 violations from the FBI, comey saying he was wrong and so forth in order to say the investigation was legit?

that's kinda convenient to your side. don't you think?

Who is dismissing FISA violations? Seems like that's a bit of a strawman again.

you. you saying ONE VIOLATION DOESN'T NULLIFY THE INVESTIGATION!!!! more or less.
"There was one FISA warrant (not warrants). That does not make the entire investigation “illegal”. "

you're saying ONE warrant and dismissing everything else. like i said, convenient.

Everything you've said is in reference to the warrant. The 51 violations. Comey admitting he was wrong. Those are about the one FISA warrant.

A bad FISA warrant does not nullify the entire investigation.

Sure it does, everything discovered with the first warrant was exculpatory, it should have ended there. If the FBI hadn't lied to the court it would have.

.

 

[jc456]

You're setting a dangerous standard where any president gets to order investigations into his political opponents just "to see".

Seriously. Imagine a hypothetical where you had evidence that Obama ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign. What would have you said then?

i'm not setting anything. i'm just an observer in all this.

however, in that light, the dems are setting a dangerous standard in which we interpret what the next Dem president says as to what we WANT it to be, reject any effort of them saying what they mean, and go straight to IMPEACH.

cause that's next.

and obama did - it was RUSSIA for 2+ years.

Obama didn't order any investigation into Trump's campaign. If you think I'm wrong, please provide any evidence that was the case.

It's in the Strozk, Page texts. He wanted to know everything they were doing.

.

he thinks obammy had a rogue FBI I guess.

you get to a point where the left minimizes everything they do or dismisses it and then they shine a magnifying glass on ANYTHING they can to cry foul on the right. to me, they simply refuse to live by the standards they attack others with and it gets so very annoying.

no sense of reason ability with them.

 

[colfax_m]

You're setting a dangerous standard where any president gets to order investigations into his political opponents just "to see".

Seriously. Imagine a hypothetical where you had evidence that Obama ordered the investigation into the Trump campaign. What would have you said then?

i'm not setting anything. i'm just an observer in all this.

however, in that light, the dems are setting a dangerous standard in which we interpret what the next Dem president says as to what we WANT it to be, reject any effort of them saying what they mean, and go straight to IMPEACH.

cause that's next.

and obama did - it was RUSSIA for 2+ years.

Obama didn't order any investigation into Trump's campaign. If you think I'm wrong, please provide any evidence that was the case.

It's in the Strozk, Page texts. He wanted to know everything they were doing.

.

he thinks obammy had a rogue FBI I guess.

you get to a point where the left minimizes everything they do or dismisses it and then they shine a magnifying glass on ANYTHING they can to cry foul on the right. to me, they simply refuse to live by the standards they attack others with and it gets so very annoying.

I'm not minimizing what the "left does" when I'm calling out the BS narratives pumped by the right. Y'all believe the left does a lot of things that just aint so because you believe the lies that their feeding you.

 

[colfax_m]

There was one FISA warrant (not warrants). That does not make the entire investigation “illegal”. It was also an investigation undertaken by career FBI staff without bias and appropriately predicated. And, most importantly, it was not done in coordination or at the request of any politicians.

You don’t find it a tad convenient that Trump seems suddenly interested in rooting out “corruption” just as the target is killing him in polls? That’s kind of a coincidence. Don’t you think?

you don't find it a tad convenient to totally dismiss what, 51 violations from the FBI, comey saying he was wrong and so forth in order to say the investigation was legit?

that's kinda convenient to your side. don't you think?

Who is dismissing FISA violations? Seems like that's a bit of a strawman again.

you. you saying ONE VIOLATION DOESN'T NULLIFY THE INVESTIGATION!!!! more or less.
"There was one FISA warrant (not warrants). That does not make the entire investigation “illegal”. "

you're saying ONE warrant and dismissing everything else. like i said, convenient.

Everything you've said is in reference to the warrant. The 51 violations. Comey admitting he was wrong. Those are about the one FISA warrant.

A bad FISA warrant does not nullify the entire investigation.

Sure it does, everything discovered with the first warrant was exculpatory, it should have ended there. If the FBI hadn't lied to the court it would have.

.

Carter Page was not the foundation of the investigation, Papadopolous was.

You know what isn't exculpatory? People lying to the FBI about their communications with Russia. We know that happened, a lot.

 

[AntonToo]

Pushed by biased news outlets, and exposed by the internet

Indeed, there is virtually no unbiased news right now, and we don't seem to care.

We're content to believe and trust the distorted news provided by our tribes, isolating us from each other more every day.

That is killing us.
.

why does it matter? the biggest step is to admit it. Some stations hate half of americans and the other mocks the other half for the hate. Hate has truly lost its luster.

I don't think it's a coincidence that our divisions are becoming deeper and more profound as we continue to isolate ourselves from each other.

Personally, I think the fact that our country is coming apart at the seams in real time is a bad thing. I know there are now some who disagree.
.

Here, I got you something for Christmas:

Good example.
.

Mac no one gives a shit about your Chicken Little stories and never ending defeatist bitching, moaning and false equalizing.

There are people that wake up everyday go to work and try their best to inform the public about whats going on in the world. You want to shit all over that and think you can do better? Go start your own media company and show everyone how it's done.

 

[OKTexas]

Well fk I have a transcript. What have you got? Come on mate, man the fk up

The transcript that has Trump asking for an investigation into his political rival?
That one?

Can you show us where in the transcript the word "investigation" touched you on your private parts?

I really don’t have time or interest to teach you English.

we know, cause you don't do it well. Still waiting on that quote that shows your evidence. please post it for us stupid people who have the transcript that doesn't have that in it.

Do us a favor though...

Typical commie move, out of context quotes.

.

 

[colfax_m]

The transcript that has Trump asking for an investigation into his political rival?
That one?

Can you show us where in the transcript the word "investigation" touched you on your private parts?

I really don’t have time or interest to teach you English.

we know, cause you don't do it well. Still waiting on that quote that shows your evidence. please post it for us stupid people who have the transcript that doesn't have that in it.

Do us a favor though...

Typical commie move, out of context quotes.

.

Are you going to deny that Trump asked for an investigation into Biden too?

 

[The Original Tree]

Can you show us where in the transcript the word "investigation" touched you on your private parts?

I really don’t have time or interest to teach you English.

we know, cause you don't do it well. Still waiting on that quote that shows your evidence. please post it for us stupid people who have the transcript that doesn't have that in it.

Do us a favor though...

Typical commie move, out of context quotes.

.

Are you going to deny that Trump asked for an investigation into Biden too?

Can you find the place in The Transcript where the word Investigation appears and show us where it touched you in the private areas?

 

[colfax_m]

I really don’t have time or interest to teach you English.

we know, cause you don't do it well. Still waiting on that quote that shows your evidence. please post it for us stupid people who have the transcript that doesn't have that in it.

Do us a favor though...

Typical commie move, out of context quotes.

.

Are you going to deny that Trump asked for an investigation into Biden too?

Can you find the place in The Transcript where the word Investigation appears and show us where it touched you in the private areas?

Oh for the love of god

 

[jc456]

Can you show us where in the transcript the word "investigation" touched you on your private parts?

I really don’t have time or interest to teach you English.

we know, cause you don't do it well. Still waiting on that quote that shows your evidence. please post it for us stupid people who have the transcript that doesn't have that in it.

Do us a favor though...

Typical commie move, out of context quotes.

.

Are you going to deny that Trump asked for an investigation into Biden too?

again, he asked to look into the firing of the prosecutor. what part of what you posted didn't you understand with that reference in it, here again.....

Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..

I don't see anything mentioned outside the prosecutor. Feel free to point that one out.