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

[g5000]

Pop quiz: Who will go to jail first, Rudy Giuliani or Joe Biden?

Rudy Giuliani under investigation by Manhattan feds for his dealings in Ukraine

What we have here is classic gaslighting and projection by Trump and his minions.

 

[OKTexas]

And what of the original charges?

1. Bribery -- gone.
2. Extortion -- gone.
3. Obstruction of justice -- gone. These are all things that like the Mueller charges, we were all told they had air-tight proof of. Now all gone.

Bribery and extortion is clearly described in general Abuse of Office Article of impeachment. Democrats simply descided not to apply regular statutory charges to Presidential high crimes and misadameanors.

The fact that they didn't lump in Obstruction of Justice with Obstruction of Congress does not mean he didn't do it.

.

 

[iceberg]

Provide that quote please.

.

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

.

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?

.

You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?

Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?

 

[OKTexas]

Page told Strozk "pouts wants to know everything we're doing". Am I?

.

You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?

The fact is maobama kept his fingers in everything, he claimed he kept his distance form ongoing investigations, he lied.

.

That’s not a fact at all.

He kept up to date with the Russian investigation, we have corroboration of that.

You are assuming he kept up to date with Trump’s investigation. Not to mention that the original topic was that Obama personally ordered the investigation, which the IG pretty well blew up.

Stop lying, I never said maobama personally ordered the investigation, his sycophants did with cooked books and no real evidence. As Barr put it, a suggestion of a suggestion, that's not evidence.

And don't try to tell me that the Trump campaign investigation wasn't intertwined with the Russia investigation, they were, what the hell do you think prompted the Mueller appointment?

.

Did you not read the post you were replying to? Obama personally ordering the investigation was the topic to which you replied.

Not what the poster said, perhaps you should go back and read it again.

.

 

[iceberg]

Too damn funny that you would post that crap after it has been completely debunked by the DOJ IG report. Horowitz proved that the Woods procedures were not followed, and intentional misrepresentations were included in the applications.

.

It’s fair to point out faults in the application. It’s not fair to claim Comey believed the dossier was verified.

He didn't believe it, yet he incorporated it in the application anyway. That's a crime.

.

Where does he say he didn’t believe it?

If you want to keep talking in circles do it with someone else.

It’s not fair to claim Comey believed the dossier was verified.

.

It’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.

If not black and white then the entire investigation was centered around assumptions

 

[colfax_m]

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?

.

You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?

Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?

No. But we have circumstantial evidence that Trump was acting on personal motives.

 

[colfax_m]

It’s fair to point out faults in the application. It’s not fair to claim Comey believed the dossier was verified.

He didn't believe it, yet he incorporated it in the application anyway. That's a crime.

.

Where does he say he didn’t believe it?

If you want to keep talking in circles do it with someone else.

It’s not fair to claim Comey believed the dossier was verified.

.

It’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.

If not black and white then the entire investigation was centered around assumptions

Yes. I think that’s quite common for the initiation of investigations. They have a low bar to meet to justify them.

 

[iceberg]

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?

.

You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?

Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?

No. But we have circumstantial evidence that Trump was acting on personal motives.

Then we have circumstantial evidence also.

That's how this game works.

 

[iceberg]

He didn't believe it, yet he incorporated it in the application anyway. That's a crime.

.

Where does he say he didn’t believe it?

If you want to keep talking in circles do it with someone else.

It’s not fair to claim Comey believed the dossier was verified.

.

It’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.

If not black and white then the entire investigation was centered around assumptions

Yes. I think that’s quite common for the initiation of investigations. They have a low bar to meet to justify them.

If a low bar to meet, why lie and alter evidence and create your own?

Just asking you to follow your own "rules"

 

[OKTexas]

He didn't believe it, yet he incorporated it in the application anyway. That's a crime.

.

Where does he say he didn’t believe it?

If you want to keep talking in circles do it with someone else.

It’s not fair to claim Comey believed the dossier was verified.

.

It’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.

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?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

.

You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?

Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?

No. But we have circumstantial evidence that Trump was acting on personal motives.

Yet no one said they knew that for a fact.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does he say he didn’t believe it?

If you want to keep talking in circles do it with someone else.

It’s not fair to claim Comey believed the dossier was verified.

.

It’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.

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.

 

[colfax_m]

You’re making assumptions.

Page told Strozk "pouts wants to know everything we're doing". Am I?

.

You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?

Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?

No. But we have circumstantial evidence that Trump was acting on personal motives.

Yet no one said they knew that for a fact.

.

Why do you think that is?

 

[colfax_m]

Where does he say he didn’t believe it?

If you want to keep talking in circles do it with someone else.

It’s not fair to claim Comey believed the dossier was verified.

.

It’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.

If not black and white then the entire investigation was centered around assumptions

Yes. I think that’s quite common for the initiation of investigations. They have a low bar to meet to justify them.

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.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

 

[OKTexas]

If you want to keep talking in circles do it with someone else.

.

It’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.

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.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Page told Strozk "pouts wants to know everything we're doing". Am I?

.

You sure are. Does Strzok state he’s referring specifically to the Trump campaign investigation?

Did Trump specifically say give me dirt on Biden for political reasons?

No. But we have circumstantial evidence that Trump was acting on personal motives.

Yet no one said they knew that for a fact.

.

Why do you think that is?

Because they admitted it.

.

 

[iceberg]

If you want to keep talking in circles do it with someone else.

.

It’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.

If not black and white then the entire investigation was centered around assumptions

Yes. I think that’s quite common for the initiation of investigations. They have a low bar to meet to justify them.

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.

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 you can't see that contradiction you're pretty much beyond hope.

 

[colfax_m]

It’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.

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.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.