Jump to content

DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal


Recommended Posts

A THIRD dossier now... 

 

 

So that brings us to three: 

1) Steele's dossier (From Fusion GPS)

2) Winer/Kerry's dossier (From Fusion GPS)

3) Nellie Ohr's supplemental dossier (also from Fusion GPS)

 

All three from the same source. All three paid for by the Clinton campaign. All three unverified and third hand hearsay. 

 

None of this was presented honestly to the FISC while preparing the applications. 

 

*Remember where Nellie Ohr worked... CIA. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

A THIRD dossier now... 

 

 

So that brings us to three: 

1) Steele's dossier (From Fusion GPS)

2) Winer/Kerry's dossier (From Fusion GPS)

3) Nellie Ohr's supplemental dossier (also from Fusion GPS)

 

All three from the same source. All three paid for by the Clinton campaign. All three unverified and third hand hearsay. 

 

None of this was presented honestly to the FISC while preparing the applications. 

 

*Remember where Nellie Ohr worked... CIA. 

 

But other than that, Trump TOTALLY colluded with Russia. :lol:

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bilzfancy said:

3 years of investigation and nothing found concerning the president,  nothing

What color is the sky in your world? There is tons of evidence of conspiracy, hush money payments, obstruction of justice, massive corruption and all his lies upon lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What color is the sky in your world? There is tons of evidence of conspiracy, hush money payments, obstruction of justice, massive corruption and all his lies upon lies.

If that were all true, he'd be indicted already, but nothing has happened and nothing will

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Breaking: 

 

 

I hope the Democrats go in to full on "but she won the popular vote" meltdown mode...but I expect weeks of progressive attempts to reinvent the English language to rationalize this report something it isn't, which will be nauseating.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I hope the Democrats go in to full on "but she won the popular vote" meltdown mode...but I expect weeks of progressive attempts to reinvent the English language to rationalize this report something it isn't, which will be nauseating.  

 

Might as well rush up on the Media/Dems/Left terms after the report

 

 

Innocent = Guilty

 

No Collusion = Russian Interference

 

Facebook ads = Voter fraud.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bilzfancy said:

If that were all true, he'd be indicted already, but nothing has happened and nothing will

Didn't you listen to the William Barr nomination? Sitting presidents can't be indicted. He is a criminal.

45 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Breaking: 

 

Or it may be next year. Let's remember that douche bag Whittaker now works at DOJ. He might be the source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

When you are losing, just make crap up. Foxx, Trump is a criminal, how can't you see that?

Tibs, i look at facts and what has actually happened. you on the other hand take (and believe) the 'narrative' that is being pushed upon you.

current facts are that there was no Russian collusion with Trump and Russia, in fact... there is more evidence of Democratic collusion with Russia and they have not been the intense focus of investigations nor the scourge of the main stream media.

 

does not the fact that 99% of what the media blares out about Trump being #orangemanbad give you any pause at all?  what about the facts that are slowly coming out about all these corrupt elite officials being compromised, does that in any way give you pause that the story you've been sold might not be on the level?

 

what do you think about what Hillary said... paraphrased, 'if we lose, we're all gonna swing'? do you not see a parallel to this recent Smollette hoax and the passing of the anti-lynching bill the Senate? i can go on and on with the parallels but if these obvious ones don't resonate with you, i would t be wasting my time, so i will leave it there for now. if you are sincere about an honest discussion of these/this topic(s) we can continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Tibs, i look at facts and what has actually happened. you on the other hand take (and believe) the 'narrative' that is being pushed upon you.

current facts are that there was no Russian collusion with Trump and Russia, in fact... there is more evidence of Democratic collusion with Russia and they have not been the intense focus of investigations nor the scourge of the main stream media.

 

does not the fact that 99% of what the media blares out about Trump being #orangemanbad give you any pause at all?  what about the facts that are slowly coming out about all these corrupt elite officials being compromised, does that in any way give you pause that the story you've been sold might not be on the level?

 

what do you think about what Hillary said... paraphrased, 'if we lose, we're all gonna swing'? do you not see a parallel to this recent Smollette hoax and the passing of the anti-lynching bill the Senate? i can go on and on with the parallels but if these obvious ones don't resonate with you, i would t be wasting my time, so i will leave it there for now. if you are sincere about an honest discussion of these/this topic(s) we can continue.

What about the Trump tower meeting and the total lies Trump made up about it. That was an attempt to work together with Russia over the election. That's just one thing, but how do you explain that away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What about the Trump tower meeting and the total lies Trump made up about it. That was an attempt to work together with Russia over the election. That's just one thing, but how do you explain that away?

not sure exactly to what you are referring to here, Tibs. there are many..., what do i want to say here... levels/layers that could be the focus of your allegation. as a general statement though, i will say that i don't think obtaining damning information on your election opponent is against the law, which is what i 'think' was the objective of that meeting. let us not forget, there were many supposed Hillary/Obama operatives that were present at that meeting.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Didn't you listen to the William Barr nomination? Sitting presidents can't be indicted. He is a criminal.

 

 

By that logic, so are the Founding Fathers. The Federalist Papers support this position.

 

The remedy for a sitting president is to be impeached by the House, removed by the Senate, then prosecuted criminally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...