So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
We've got Pompeous getting ready to release Hillary's emails while she was at State. Its all coming to ripen, that fruit from the poisonous tree and it will, I swear, bring them all down because THE BEST IS YET TO COME! Suckers.
And Lindsey Flimsy Flip Flop Faloozy Graham's senate investigation into the origins of Crossfire Hurricane is still churning and its definitely, I swear, going to result in indictments. You'll see. Any. Day. Now. Suckers.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
lol The last time you posted about this in the Trump thread you were super excited because of some dumb story that got leaked to Catherine Herridge. You seemed super stoked about this all coming out before the election. You said you it was like "xmas morning."
Now? Not coming out till December or January. Suuuure buddy.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
From the repub senate intelligence committee's report Volume 5:
The Predication of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Investigation
Both Barr and Durham have contested one of the main conclusions from the Justice Department inspector general’s December 2019 report: that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos’s comment to a foreign official that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton was an adequate predicate to open a counterintelligence investigation into Russian election interference and links to the Trump campaign. In one interview, Barr called the incident “a very slender reed to get law enforcement intelligence agencies involved in investigating the campaign of one’s political opponent” and confirmed that Durham was looking at the matter.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report does not explicitly address the FBI’s decision to open an investigation. But it does, in considerable detail, analyze Papadopoulos’s communications with foreign nationals throughout 2016. Based on those contacts, the committee concluded:
Papadopoulos’s efforts introduced him to several individuals that raise counterintelligence concerns, due to their associations with individuals from hostile foreign governments as well as actions these individuals undertook. The Committee assesses that Papadopoulos was not a witting cooptee of the Russian intelligence services, but nonetheless presented a prime intelligence target and potential vector for malign Russian influence. (Emphasis added.)
The report also found that “Papadopoulos likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016 from Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic with longstanding Russia ties, well before any public awareness of the Russian effort.” The committee described Papadopoulos’s contacts with Mifsud and another individual named Sergei Millian, both of whom “have significant ties to Russian government and business circles,” as “highly suspicious.” Still, the full picture is not public as a subheading of the report titled “Counterintelligence Concerns about Papadopoulos’s Interactions” remains almost entirely redacted.
Additionally, the committee determined that while it did not have affirmative evidence that Papadopoulos communicated his knowledge that the Russians had compromising information on Clinton to Trump campaign officials, “the Committee finds it implausible that Papadopoulos did not do so.”
It is also noteworthy that the Senate investigators concluded that on April 26, 2016, the date Papadopoulos met Mifsud, there was minimal “public awareness of the Russian effort [to interfere with the election].” That is, Mifsud mentioned the emails to Papadopoulos before the issue became a major story—suggesting that Mifsud may have received his information directly from the actors involved. Offering a different view of roughly the same time period, Barr has described Papadopoulos’s comment to the diplomat as unremarkable since “at that time in May 2016 there was rampant speculation going on in the media, on the blogosphere, and in political circles that Hillary Clinton’s email server had in 2014 been hacked, and therefore the Russians might have those emails.”
The Senate report’s findings are of only limited value in assessing whether the FBI’s investigation was adequately predicated because when the FBI launched its investigation, it did not know about any of Papadopoulos’s activities beyond the comment to the foreign diplomat. Nonetheless, the report suggests that Papadopoulos’s conduct around the time the FBI launched the investigation raised real counterintelligence concerns, and this conclusion offers some amount of confirmation that the FBI’s judgement was reasonable. Crucially, the report’s determination that Papadopoulos’s conduct was in fact suspect makes it unlikely that Barr and Durham possess undisclosed evidence that demonstrates that the FBI’s investigation lacked a predicate. Or, at least, if Barr and Durham possess that information, they did not share it with the committee.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
That's all you've got? Brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy. I figured you'd at least have some pieces of fruit from the poisonous tree, eh professor?
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
That's all you've got? Brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy. I figured you'd at least have some pieces of fruit from the poisonous tree, eh professor?
Said "woman take it slow, and it'll work itself out fine" All we need is just a little patience.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
That's all you've got? Brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy. I figured you'd at least have some pieces of fruit from the poisonous tree, eh professor?
Said "woman take it slow, and it'll work itself out fine" All we need is just a little patience.
The clock is ticking professor, there's not much time left. The final paragraph in the above linked Lawfare article:
Like any criminal investigation, it is not possible to judge Durham’s probe until its results are revealed. It remains possible that he has access to information from within the government that could support some of the claims that have been made about his findings. But what is clear now is that, with the notable exception of the Clinesmith email, the Justice Department inspector general, the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter—all serious investigators with strong incentives to uncover wrongdoing—have not found evidence of the type of misconduct that Trump and his top aides have alleged.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
That's all you've got? Brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy. I figured you'd at least have some pieces of fruit from the poisonous tree, eh professor?
Said "woman take it slow, and it'll work itself out fine" All we need is just a little patience.
The clock is ticking professor, there's not much time left. The final paragraph in the above linked Lawfare article:
Like any criminal investigation, it is not possible to judge Durham’s probe until its results are revealed. It remains possible that he has access to information from within the government that could support some of the claims that have been made about his findings. But what is clear now is that, with the notable exception of the Clinesmith email, the Justice Department inspector general, the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter—all serious investigators with strong incentives to uncover wrongdoing—have not found evidence of the type of misconduct that Trump and his top aides have alleged.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
That's all you've got? Brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy. I figured you'd at least have some pieces of fruit from the poisonous tree, eh professor?
Said "woman take it slow, and it'll work itself out fine" All we need is just a little patience.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
Not just for me. For everyone who has had the misfortune to read your baseless opinions that you try to pass off as facts. And yes, I still find it more likely than not that Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat watched women urinate on a bed that the Obama's had slept in. Melania's trusted friend has her quoted as saying she wouldn't move into the White House until the bathrooms had been renovated. But you know, facts.
Clown shoe? I like it and will add it to the very long list of names/things I've been called. Congratulations, it might be top 5.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
That's all you've got? Brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy. I figured you'd at least have some pieces of fruit from the poisonous tree, eh professor?
Said "woman take it slow, and it'll work itself out fine" All we need is just a little patience.
The clock is ticking professor, there's not much time left. The final paragraph in the above linked Lawfare article:
Like any criminal investigation, it is not possible to judge Durham’s probe until its results are revealed. It remains possible that he has access to information from within the government that could support some of the claims that have been made about his findings. But what is clear now is that, with the notable exception of the Clinesmith email, the Justice Department inspector general, the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter—all serious investigators with strong incentives to uncover wrongdoing—have not found evidence of the type of misconduct that Trump and his top aides have alleged.
Why do you need a SCOTUS majority to release the truth, professor? The dem house has subpoenaed CYA Barr for the full unredacted Team Mueller Report. Why hasn't he provided it yet? What is he hiding?
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
Not just for me. For everyone who has had the misfortune to read your baseless opinions that you try to pass off as facts. And yes, I still find it more likely than not that Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat watched women urinate on a bed that the Obama's had slept in. Melania's trusted friend has her quoted as saying she wouldn't move into the White House until the bathrooms had been renovated. But you know, facts.
Clown shoe? I like it and will add it to the very long list of names/things I've been called. Congratulations, it might be top 5.
The point is you’re not even the clown, you’re his fucking shoe. Just a megaphone of nonsense, a total waste of server space.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
"every single person that works for gov't is your enemy". Okay fine, he's a militia man. That doesn't make him left wing. He planned to abduct Whitmer and Northam, two Democratic governors. These are the same jokers that invaded the State house in Michigan. You think they vote Democrat or something?
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
That's all you've got? Brilliant brilliance in all its brilliancy. I figured you'd at least have some pieces of fruit from the poisonous tree, eh professor?
Said "woman take it slow, and it'll work itself out fine" All we need is just a little patience.
The clock is ticking professor, there's not much time left. The final paragraph in the above linked Lawfare article:
Like any criminal investigation, it is not possible to judge Durham’s probe until its results are revealed. It remains possible that he has access to information from within the government that could support some of the claims that have been made about his findings. But what is clear now is that, with the notable exception of the Clinesmith email, the Justice Department inspector general, the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter—all serious investigators with strong incentives to uncover wrongdoing—have not found evidence of the type of misconduct that Trump and his top aides have alleged.
Why do you need a SCOTUS majority to release the truth, professor? The dem house has subpoenaed CYA Barr for the full unredacted Team Mueller Report. Why hasn't he provided it yet? What is he hiding?
He is hiding the full unedited pee tape obviously. He has it on betamax, vhs, blu ray and Laser Disc! Actually he has been willing to release it for months but like the newest Vault nobody wants to pay the shipping.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
"every single person that works for gov't is your enemy". Okay fine, he's a militia man. That doesn't make him left wing. He planned to abduct Whitmer and Northam, two Democratic governors. These are the same jokers that invaded the State house in Michigan. You think they vote Democrat or something?
Didn’t say that. I said their views more align with anti-govt. to say they’re white supramacists it right wing is just as untruthful. They’re anarchists, whichever wing you want them on is your choice.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
"every single person that works for gov't is your enemy". Okay fine, he's a militia man. That doesn't make him left wing. He planned to abduct Whitmer and Northam, two Democratic governors. These are the same jokers that invaded the State house in Michigan. You think they vote Democrat or something?
Didn’t say that. I said their views more align with anti-govt. to say they’re white supramacists it right wing is just as untruthful. They’re anarchists, whichever wing you want them on is your choice.
Do you think the news that Whitmer was the target of an abduction helped or hurt Trump's cause in Michigan?
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
"every single person that works for gov't is your enemy". Okay fine, he's a militia man. That doesn't make him left wing. He planned to abduct Whitmer and Northam, two Democratic governors. These are the same jokers that invaded the State house in Michigan. You think they vote Democrat or something?
Didn’t say that. I said their views more align with anti-govt. to say they’re white supramacists it right wing is just as untruthful. They’re anarchists, whichever wing you want them on is your choice.
Do you think the news that Whitmer was the target of an abduction helped or hurt Trump's cause in Michigan?
Neither. Just like a Bernie Bro shooting up a baseball field full of Republicans makes no difference.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
Not just for me. For everyone who has had the misfortune to read your baseless opinions that you try to pass off as facts. And yes, I still find it more likely than not that Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat watched women urinate on a bed that the Obama's had slept in. Melania's trusted friend has her quoted as saying she wouldn't move into the White House until the bathrooms had been renovated. But you know, facts.
Clown shoe? I like it and will add it to the very long list of names/things I've been called. Congratulations, it might be top 5.
The point is you’re not even the clown, you’re his fucking shoe. Just a megaphone of nonsense, a total waste of server space.
Oh please expound and entertain me. Still thinking ANTIFA is a domestic terrorist threat? Scared Team Trump Treason Tax Cheat isn't going to get re-elected? That he might just lose Tejas? Or are you still waiting for Covid19 to go away like things go away? Don't believe systemic racism exists in policing or in just about every facet of life? But one example:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - African Americans still pay more than any other group to own a home, a disparity that over 30 years contributes to roughly half the current $130,000 gap between Blacks and whites in savings at retirement, a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows.
The annual difference of $743 in mortgage interest payments, $550 in mortgage insurance premiums and $390 in property taxes, when invested over 30 years results in lost retirement savings of $67,320 for Black homeowners, according to the study called “The Unequal Costs of Black Homeownership.”
These inequities make it impossible for black households to build housing wealth at the same rate as white households, said the study, whose lead author, Edward Golding, is executive director of the MIT Golub Center for Finance and Policy.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
"every single person that works for gov't is your enemy". Okay fine, he's a militia man. That doesn't make him left wing. He planned to abduct Whitmer and Northam, two Democratic governors. These are the same jokers that invaded the State house in Michigan. You think they vote Democrat or something?
Didn’t say that. I said their views more align with anti-govt. to say they’re white supramacists it right wing is just as untruthful. They’re anarchists, whichever wing you want them on is your choice.
Do you think the news that Whitmer was the target of an abduction helped or hurt Trump's cause in Michigan?
Neither. Just like a Bernie Bro shooting up a baseball field full of Republicans makes no difference.
This is big local news in Michigan, not happening in DC. You'll see another little bump or solidified D numbers in the polls in Michigan coming up. Then you'll start seeing Trump pulling ads, if that hasn't already happened.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
So they're pushing the Durham report back to after the election (spoiler alert--there's not a whole lot there) and now they quietly announce they found no evidence of wrong doing regarding the masking nonsense?
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent? @BS44325 @RoleModelsinBlood31
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
You really should cite your sources. Maybe provide a link?
To you? Lmao, you’re the biggest clown shoe here, and that’s saying a lot, seeing as this is the most misinformed “political” discussion group I tread! Pee-tape? Russia? I owe you nothing, fool. I told you all along.
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
"every single person that works for gov't is your enemy". Okay fine, he's a militia man. That doesn't make him left wing. He planned to abduct Whitmer and Northam, two Democratic governors. These are the same jokers that invaded the State house in Michigan. You think they vote Democrat or something?
Didn’t say that. I said their views more align with anti-govt. to say they’re white supramacists it right wing is just as untruthful. They’re anarchists, whichever wing you want them on is your choice.
Do you think the news that Whitmer was the target of an abduction helped or hurt Trump's cause in Michigan?
Neither. Just like a Bernie Bro shooting up a baseball field full of Republicans makes no difference.
This is big local news in Michigan, not happening in DC. You'll see another little bump or solidified D numbers in the polls in Michigan coming up. Then you'll start seeing Trump pulling ads, if that hasn't already happened.
Except John James is now only running a point behind Peters. The “decides” have decided and this shit won’t move them. Trump voters get that these bastards aren’t Trump people. Biden voters will claim they are regardless. The “middle” if they still exist might hate the insanity but won’t make there end decision based on the actions of domestic terrorists. My understanding is that Americans are made of sterner stuff.
Comments
Where art thou, devout Trumpists? You, who were clinging to these conspiracies to swing the election? Why so silent?
@BS44325
@RoleModelsinBlood31
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-unmasking-review-no-charges/2020/10/13/0f63fd2e-0d67-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html
This is faaaar from over, we all know that. Unlike democrats, republicans hold these things close to the chest and don’t leak (even falsities) to the media to “help” them. His investigation has gotten much bigger than was originally expected, that much is obvious.
If I was leading this investigation, I would want to run those down before I started to “show my cards” to my targets by making indictments public. I expect when an indictment is filed — and I believe one will be filed — it will include an extraordinarily detailed conspiracy count — maybe more than one conspiracy count — laying out the evidence against named and unnamed co-conspirators. A conspiracy charge includes a section describing the “manner and means” of the conspiracy — how the group planned and executed the objectives of the conspiracy — and a lengthy factual statement of the “overt acts” committed by individual co-conspirators “in furtherance of the objectives” of the conspiracy.
To be legally sufficient, an indictment only needs to describe one overt act. Historically there was a “practice” of minimizing the number of overt acts set forth in the indictment so as to not provide more information to the defense than the law required. In the past couple decades the practice has changed, and federal prosecutors now draft what are called “speaking indictments” which are sometimes wildly “over-inclusive” in describing the overt acts. The reason for doing this is the indictment is a “public record”, and anything in the indictment can be discussed in a press release or at a press conference announcing the case. A classic example of this was the Troll Farm and Russian GRU indictments announced by the Special Counsel’s Office.
They have all learned how the democrats operate, and it is to lie, cheat, and use any means necessary to attain political power: the US media, foreign assets, their own FBI, DOJ, etc. republicans are much smarter at this game, and we’ll see indictments come
December or early January, just before the inauguration of Trump.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The last time you posted about this in the Trump thread you were super excited because of some dumb story that got leaked to Catherine Herridge. You seemed super stoked about this all coming out before the election. You said you it was like "xmas morning."
Now? Not coming out till December or January. Suuuure buddy.
haha God I love this thread
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The Predication of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Investigation
Both Barr and Durham have contested one of the main conclusions from the Justice Department inspector general’s December 2019 report: that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos’s comment to a foreign official that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton was an adequate predicate to open a counterintelligence investigation into Russian election interference and links to the Trump campaign. In one interview, Barr called the incident “a very slender reed to get law enforcement intelligence agencies involved in investigating the campaign of one’s political opponent” and confirmed that Durham was looking at the matter.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report does not explicitly address the FBI’s decision to open an investigation. But it does, in considerable detail, analyze Papadopoulos’s communications with foreign nationals throughout 2016. Based on those contacts, the committee concluded:
The report also found that “Papadopoulos likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016 from Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic with longstanding Russia ties, well before any public awareness of the Russian effort.” The committee described Papadopoulos’s contacts with Mifsud and another individual named Sergei Millian, both of whom “have significant ties to Russian government and business circles,” as “highly suspicious.” Still, the full picture is not public as a subheading of the report titled “Counterintelligence Concerns about Papadopoulos’s Interactions” remains almost entirely redacted.
Additionally, the committee determined that while it did not have affirmative evidence that Papadopoulos communicated his knowledge that the Russians had compromising information on Clinton to Trump campaign officials, “the Committee finds it implausible that Papadopoulos did not do so.”
It is also noteworthy that the Senate investigators concluded that on April 26, 2016, the date Papadopoulos met Mifsud, there was minimal “public awareness of the Russian effort [to interfere with the election].” That is, Mifsud mentioned the emails to Papadopoulos before the issue became a major story—suggesting that Mifsud may have received his information directly from the actors involved. Offering a different view of roughly the same time period, Barr has described Papadopoulos’s comment to the diplomat as unremarkable since “at that time in May 2016 there was rampant speculation going on in the media, on the blogosphere, and in political circles that Hillary Clinton’s email server had in 2014 been hacked, and therefore the Russians might have those emails.”
The Senate report’s findings are of only limited value in assessing whether the FBI’s investigation was adequately predicated because when the FBI launched its investigation, it did not know about any of Papadopoulos’s activities beyond the comment to the foreign diplomat. Nonetheless, the report suggests that Papadopoulos’s conduct around the time the FBI launched the investigation raised real counterintelligence concerns, and this conclusion offers some amount of confirmation that the FBI’s judgement was reasonable. Crucially, the report’s determination that Papadopoulos’s conduct was in fact suspect makes it unlikely that Barr and Durham possess undisclosed evidence that demonstrates that the FBI’s investigation lacked a predicate. Or, at least, if Barr and Durham possess that information, they did not share it with the committee.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/even-more-questions-about-durham-investigationAnd still an awful lot of redactions in the following:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
lol
I only just scratched the surface in this pathetic echo chamber this last hour, but idiots here are talking about “right wing” dudes involved in the MI kidnapping? Jesus Christ you fools lap up everything you’re told. It’s already come out that one of the guys was a BLM activist who denounced Trump in videos in front of an anarchist flag of all things. didn’t take long to look that up, you just have to finally acknowledge that the candy you’ve been sucking on has been fed to you like a baby because you slurp it all up without question. Another of the goons? Pardoned by DE governor a few years back, only to return to attempt a shitty plot to kidnap someone. These weren’t right wingers, they were boogaloos, who may as well be left wing since their anti-gov’t beliefs fall more in line with Antifa and BLM than anyone on the right who supports their gov’t/country and doesn’t want to overthrow it.
i haven’t seen it yet, but what kind of spun filth is floating around this forum about the “security” clown in Denver who shot and killed the conservative hat maker at the march? You realize he was far left? Again, apologies if it’s been covered, but holy shit you all are so far off base with reality and just spoon fed anti-govt, anti-country bile that I just have to assume you’ve been fed it again with that news.
All we need is just a little patience.
Like any criminal investigation, it is not possible to judge Durham’s probe until its results are revealed. It remains possible that he has access to information from within the government that could support some of the claims that have been made about his findings. But what is clear now is that, with the notable exception of the Clinesmith email, the Justice Department inspector general, the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter—all serious investigators with strong incentives to uncover wrongdoing—have not found evidence of the type of misconduct that Trump and his top aides have alleged.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Clown shoe? I like it and will add it to the very long list of names/things I've been called. Congratulations, it might be top 5.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
say they’re white supramacists it right wing is just as untruthful. They’re anarchists, whichever wing you want them on is your choice.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - African Americans still pay more than any other group to own a home, a disparity that over 30 years contributes to roughly half the current $130,000 gap between Blacks and whites in savings at retirement, a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows.
The annual difference of $743 in mortgage interest payments, $550 in mortgage insurance premiums and $390 in property taxes, when invested over 30 years results in lost retirement savings of $67,320 for Black homeowners, according to the study called “The Unequal Costs of Black Homeownership.”
These inequities make it impossible for black households to build housing wealth at the same rate as white households, said the study, whose lead author, Edward Golding, is executive director of the MIT Golub Center for Finance and Policy.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN26S3F6
Please enlighten me with your worthy server space.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©