Hunter - the right got what they wanted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP got the eviscerating wrong... Durham played the Censored Congressman from California 30th district

Dumb "I know you are but what am I" retort from Durham.

I suggest you listen to the entire testimony. Durham gets ripped to shreds and so many times had to resort to the most stupid and implausible kinds of responses like "I don't know, I don't follow the news" regarding HIS OWN DAMN CASE.

He didn’t say he didn’t follow the news. He said ‘that’s what I read in the news’ multiple times.

He did say that about an item that was actually in the Mueller Report and got caught on it - like why the hell are you talking about "hearing about it in the news" when you should have been reading about it in the files relevant to the case that is YOUR FRICKIN JOB

But to the point of the news, he DID in fact also a few times say "I don't know, I don't follow the news" several times as well, particularly when it was about what he was doing that was fodder for the right wing media. Falsely presumed innocence. What a hack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RUDY... what a 🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, people are quoting Rudy. Can we shut this down now? This is not a serious discussion.

Rudy oughta be careful or he's going to end up with a defamation suit. Not that he has two nickels to rub together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When it comes to whistleblowers, didn’t Trump and the GOP dismiss LT. Col, Alexander Vindman’s testimony about Ukraine. Not only that, they retaliated against him and bullied him into retirement. But the IRS whistleblower is ok?

If I recall, that whistleblower was never identified. Still hasn't been. Although his name has been floated.

The whistleblowers that are coming forward are not seeking anonymity. They all have not yet been named, but it is tough to discount the testimony of Gary Shapley, given his reputation in the IRS, his position, and most importantly - the evidence he has produced. It is not just what he is saying - it is what he has in terms of documentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The permanent bureaucracy is at it again. According to the IRS whistleblower the election was stolen from Donald Trump by his own DOJ.

Gary Shapley (who admitted voting for both Democrats and Republicans) says they were given stand down orders immediately after Joe Biden won the nomination for the democrat candidate. He says the DOJ standard rule of not investigating 60-90 days before an election started long before that deadline.

In his testimony he stated “It was apparent that DOJ was purposely slow-walking investigative actions in this matter."

This is what happens when you have people like Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and James Comey making decisions about investigations.
These three may be gone, but there are many more like them left to do their damage. And, they have gotten more careful about not putting anything in texts or writing. That is why the email that Shapley wrote proving his allegations is so significant.

I am dying laughing at the brain worms. You do realize the above type of statement is a hallmark of believing in a conspiracy theory, don't you? Because if you aren't aware of that, you should be.

Amazing how conspiracy theory ends up true when it comes to Dem scandals.

+100

Dafuq you talking about?

Obama Secret Muslim?
Uranium One?
Comet Ping Pong?
Microchips in the Covid vax?

You people with your conspiracy theories are just plain nuts. Sure, every once in a blue moon you get something right but 99% of your conspiracy theories are completely false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know the DOJ didn't subpoena this phone...

"Must be true, because Breitbart guy Peter Schweizer sez so"

Same Peter Schweizer who was also caught lying about "Clinton Cash" and "Uranium One" and other favorite right wing conspiracy theories.

But in a bit,when it’s proven true (as many, many “RWNJ conspiracies” have been) will you own up to your misjudgment? Everyone gets things wrong, I certainly have and will undoubtedly continue to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know the DOJ didn't subpoena this phone...

"Must be true, because Breitbart guy Peter Schweizer sez so"

Same Peter Schweizer who was also caught lying about "Clinton Cash" and "Uranium One" and other favorite right wing conspiracy theories.

But in a bit,when it’s proven true (as many, many “RWNJ conspiracies” have been) will you own up to your misjudgment? Everyone gets things wrong, I certainly have and will undoubtedly continue to do so.

No, most RWNJ conspiracies have been and continue to be bogus

Will you get lucky with this one? Who knows. It's mostly weird hearsay weak on actual evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know the DOJ didn't subpoena this phone...

"Must be true, because Breitbart guy Peter Schweizer sez so"

Same Peter Schweizer who was also caught lying about "Clinton Cash" and "Uranium One" and other favorite right wing conspiracy theories.

But in a bit,when it’s proven true (as many, many “RWNJ conspiracies” have been) will you own up to your misjudgment? Everyone gets things wrong, I certainly have and will undoubtedly continue to do so.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, people are quoting Rudy. Can we shut this down now? This is not a serious discussion.

Seems Biden has lawyered up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP got the eviscerating wrong... Durham played the Censored Congressman from California 30th district

Dumb "I know you are but what am I" retort from Durham.

I suggest you listen to the entire testimony. Durham gets ripped to shreds and so many times had to resort to the most stupid and implausible kinds of responses like "I don't know, I don't follow the news" regarding HIS OWN DAMN CASE.

He didn’t say he didn’t follow the news. He said ‘that’s what I read in the news’ multiple times.

He did say that about an item that was actually in the Mueller Report and got caught on it - like why the hell are you talking about "hearing about it in the news" when you should have been reading about it in the files relevant to the case that is YOUR FRICKIN JOB

But to the point of the news, he DID in fact also a few times say "I don't know, I don't follow the news" several times as well, particularly when it was about what he was doing that was fodder for the right wing media. Falsely presumed innocence. What a hack.

He stated straight out that he was only going to talk about what was in the scope of his report. When he said he didn’t follow the news, he was being sarcastic about the way the news covered the fake Russia dossier, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When it comes to whistleblowers, didn’t Trump and the GOP dismiss LT. Col, Alexander Vindman’s testimony about Ukraine. Not only that, they retaliated against him and bullied him into retirement. But the IRS whistleblower is ok?

If I recall, that whistleblower was never identified. Still hasn't been. Although his name has been floated.

The whistleblowers that are coming forward are not seeking anonymity. They all have not yet been named, but it is tough to discount the testimony of Gary Shapley, given his reputation in the IRS, his position, and most importantly - the evidence he has produced. It is not just what he is saying - it is what he has in terms of documentation.

I remember hearing that once whistleblowers started to come forward in numbers, they would not be concerned with hiding their identity. We are starting to see this. I think the Trump indictment was a catalyst and rightfully so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How soon we forget...

I'm not very familiar with the law but this is what I found

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA requires certain agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political activities or other activities specified under the statute to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

What specifically was Hunter doing that qualified as "political activities or other activities specified under the statute?

That is just one of many reasons why there needs to be a thorough investigation. We don't know... at least the public doesn't. Congress may have information that we don't.

There is now sufficient evidence that Joe and family are as involved as Hunter, which makes it political

So in other words, neither you nor Donalds nor any of the other GOP talking heads have any evidence that Hunter was in violation of FARA and you just want another dumb GOP fishing expedition like Benghazi and But Her Emails.

Note my final comment: "Congress may have information that we don't."
But, if he was getting millions from China, Ukraine, Russia, and other countries, I think we need to at least find out what "business" he was being paid for.

And, regarding HRC... funny you bring up her emails. There never was a complete investigation of her emails. Why? Because she and her staff deleted emails, destroyed devices, and used bleachbit to clean her system. Some might call that tampering with evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP got the eviscerating wrong... Durham played the Censored Congressman from California 30th district

Dumb "I know you are but what am I" retort from Durham.

I suggest you listen to the entire testimony. Durham gets ripped to shreds and so many times had to resort to the most stupid and implausible kinds of responses like "I don't know, I don't follow the news" regarding HIS OWN DAMN CASE.

He didn’t say he didn’t follow the news. He said ‘that’s what I read in the news’ multiple times.

He did say that about an item that was actually in the Mueller Report and got caught on it - like why the hell are you talking about "hearing about it in the news" when you should have been reading about it in the files relevant to the case that is YOUR FRICKIN JOB

But to the point of the news, he DID in fact also a few times say "I don't know, I don't follow the news" several times as well, particularly when it was about what he was doing that was fodder for the right wing media. Falsely presumed innocence. What a hack.

He stated straight out that he was only going to talk about what was in the scope of his report. When he said he didn’t follow the news, he was being sarcastic about the way the news covered the fake Russia dossier, etc.

Oh puh frickin leeze. Any attempts at sarcasm from him were limp and pathetic and only showed him to be a partisan hack. And he tried that "that's what I read in the news" when they asked him to confirm how many indictments came out of the "fake Russia hoax" - it was 34, and how many acquittals - it was zero - some fake hoax - 34, THIRTY FOUR INDICTMENTS, and ZERO ACQUITTALS, and in half the time that Durham spent on his investigation, only to come up with jack.

Durham is a complete joke. And again, it's ridiculous that Republicans think "FBI cut corners and didn't fully follow procedure but were ultimately justified in opening the investigation" that led to the 34 indictments is somehow the "crime of the century."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP got the eviscerating wrong... Durham played the Censored Congressman from California 30th district

Dumb "I know you are but what am I" retort from Durham.

I suggest you listen to the entire testimony. Durham gets ripped to shreds and so many times had to resort to the most stupid and implausible kinds of responses like "I don't know, I don't follow the news" regarding HIS OWN DAMN CASE.

He didn’t say he didn’t follow the news. He said ‘that’s what I read in the news’ multiple times.

He did say that about an item that was actually in the Mueller Report and got caught on it - like why the hell are you talking about "hearing about it in the news" when you should have been reading about it in the files relevant to the case that is YOUR FRICKIN JOB

But to the point of the news, he DID in fact also a few times say "I don't know, I don't follow the news" several times as well, particularly when it was about what he was doing that was fodder for the right wing media. Falsely presumed innocence. What a hack.

He stated straight out that he was only going to talk about what was in the scope of his report. When he said he didn’t follow the news, he was being sarcastic about the way the news covered the fake Russia dossier, etc.

Oh puh frickin leeze. Any attempts at sarcasm from him were limp and pathetic and only showed him to be a partisan hack. And he tried that "that's what I read in the news" when they asked him to confirm how many indictments came out of the "fake Russia hoax" - it was 34, and how many acquittals - it was zero - some fake hoax - 34, THIRTY FOUR INDICTMENTS, and ZERO ACQUITTALS, and in half the time that Durham spent on his investigation, only to come up with jack.

Durham is a complete joke. And again, it's ridiculous that Republicans think "FBI cut corners and didn't fully follow procedure but were ultimately justified in opening the investigation" that led to the 34 indictments is somehow the "crime of the century."

I think Durham was weak. Your position is weaker still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS whistleblowers say Hunter booked income from Burisma as a “loan” so he wouldn’t have to pay tax on it.

But you can’t lend money to yourself.

"The IRS team recommended that Hunter be prosecuted on felony charges of tax evasion for 2014 and false tax filings and a misdemeanor charge for 2015 of failure to pay tax. Yet because the U.S. Attorney waited so long to make a prosecutorial decision, the six-year statute of limitations expired. Hunter thus won’t pay taxes on more than $400,000 in unreported income for these years.

Mr. Shapley says: 'The purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 years sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts.""


https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-biden-fair-tax-share-fraud-irs-special-agent-whistleblower-charges-misdemeanor-scheme-d8813133?st=yhs1ity2ve6pxxp

Even if it's $400,000 in tax cheating, that's petty nothingness compared to the Trumps tax cheating.

But regardless - another irony here is that Biden actually proposed having more agents able to investigate exactly this kind of tax cheating but the Republicans shot it down.

We are beyond tax cheat here. The tax cheat is because they were hiding foreign bribes

No one believes you and you gang of misfits- you, Fox, RWNJs on Twitter, Russia propaganda, etc