Skip to content

Durham

Political Discussion
104 12 4.5k
  • I’d prefer execution but we should start with prosecution.

    @hammertime said:

    I’d prefer execution but we should start with prosecution.

    MAGA-hang 'em high I say like the good ole days. Then on to prosecution. That way no one worries about getting the cart before the horse when all ya need is a horse.  ??

  • @hammertime said:

    I’d prefer execution but we should start with prosecution.

    MAGA-hang 'em high I say like the good ole days. Then on to prosecution. That way no one worries about getting the cart before the horse when all ya need is a horse.  ??

    @texasag1969 said:

    MAGA-hang 'em high I say like the good ole days. Then on to prosecution. That way no one worries about getting the cart before the horse when all ya need is a horse.  ??

    Consider :

    image.png.10b0afcbb88ee94eed9274dcb87c8c1a.png

    "Q" or not, the allegory applies.

  • @texasag1969 said:

    MAGA-hang 'em high I say like the good ole days. Then on to prosecution. That way no one worries about getting the cart before the horse when all ya need is a horse.  ??

    Consider :

    image.png.10b0afcbb88ee94eed9274dcb87c8c1a.png

    "Q" or not, the allegory applies.

    @jafbf said:

    Consider :

    image.png.10b0afcbb88ee94eed9274dcb87c8c1a.png

    "Q" or not, the allegory applies.

    Yep, as the noose closes in just watch King Liar sacrifice all his pawns. He walks away with your donations and they go to jail, do not pass "Go" and do not collect a dime since he loves to stiff lawyers too. Caveat Emptor.

  • At the end of the day Garland is corrupt. Nothing we can do about it except hold out till after the midterms. And to be completely honest no matter which way these things shook out I would really rather have a completely honest and objective justice department and not just a flack for Pelosi and the left wing lunatics.

    WSS

  • At the end of the day Garland is corrupt. Nothing we can do about it except hold out till after the midterms. And to be completely honest no matter which way these things shook out I would really rather have a completely honest and objective justice department and not just a flack for Pelosi and the left wing lunatics.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    At the end of the day Garland is corrupt. Nothing we can do about it except hold out till after the midterms. And to be completely honest no matter which way these things shook out I would really rather have a completely honest and objective justice department and not just a flack for Pelosi and the left wing lunatics.

    WSS

    TRUE. It's dangerous though. The FBI is also corrupt up on high. and clapper and brennan at the CIA.

    The term "deep state" refers to these corrupt sob's who have way, way too much power over the years, and

    have the "keep that power" agenda. (peter strock, lisa page. etc etc etc etc etc etc)

  • image.png.80111ae7e83d2491ee5d7de5968428c3.png

    image.png.651d7ce531b6691a2e760fb9df12c0c9.png

  • image.png.b11f7185f0f9686bf8c23a878d02c7fe.png

    578d858d5358d29f.webp

  • ok it was shown that Danchenko was paid by the FBI from March 2017 til 2020. 

    the court convenes in October -i bet Danchenko gets the nod (like that of jeffrey epstien got from mueller back in 2008)

    and he walks free . at worst gets deported why?  the fbi wins anyway 

  • ok it was shown that Danchenko was paid by the FBI from March 2017 til 2020. 

    the court convenes in October -i bet Danchenko gets the nod (like that of jeffrey epstien got from mueller back in 2008)

    and he walks free . at worst gets deported why?  the fbi wins anyway 

    @fairhooker11 said:

    ok it was shown that Danchenko was paid by the FBI from March 2017 til 2020. 

    the court convenes in October -i bet Danchenko gets the nod (like that of jeffrey epstien got from mueller back in 2008)

    and he walks free . at worst gets deported why?  the fbi wins anyway 

    With Garland as attorney general what the hell is the difference?

    WSS

  • Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Now Mr. Durham appears to be winding down his three-year inquiry without anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking. The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Durham and his team are working to complete a final report by the end of the year, they said, and one of the lead prosecutors on his team is leaving for a job with a prominent law firm.

     
     

    Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the F.B.I. in relation to outside efforts to investigate purported Trump-Russia ties, but he has not charged any conspiracy or put any high-level officials on trial. The recent developments suggest that the chances of any more indictments are remote.

  • Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Now Mr. Durham appears to be winding down his three-year inquiry without anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking. The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Durham and his team are working to complete a final report by the end of the year, they said, and one of the lead prosecutors on his team is leaving for a job with a prominent law firm.

     
     

    Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the F.B.I. in relation to outside efforts to investigate purported Trump-Russia ties, but he has not charged any conspiracy or put any high-level officials on trial. The recent developments suggest that the chances of any more indictments are remote.

    @cccjwh said:

    Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Now Mr. Durham appears to be winding down his three-year inquiry without anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking. The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Durham and his team are working to complete a final report by the end of the year, they said, and one of the lead prosecutors on his team is leaving for a job with a prominent law firm.

     

    Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the F.B.I. in relation to outside efforts to investigate purported Trump-Russia ties, but he has not charged any conspiracy or put any high-level officials on trial. The recent developments suggest that the chances of any more indictments are remote.

    Haha.. NY Times.

    I bet you never miss an episode of The View.

  • @cccjwh said:

    Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Now Mr. Durham appears to be winding down his three-year inquiry without anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking. The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Durham and his team are working to complete a final report by the end of the year, they said, and one of the lead prosecutors on his team is leaving for a job with a prominent law firm.

     

    Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the F.B.I. in relation to outside efforts to investigate purported Trump-Russia ties, but he has not charged any conspiracy or put any high-level officials on trial. The recent developments suggest that the chances of any more indictments are remote.

    Haha.. NY Times.

    I bet you never miss an episode of The View.

    @fy56 said:

    Haha.. NY Times.

    I bet you never miss an episode of The View.

    I know you guys get your news from blogs and Russia propagandists (see Tucker).

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    New York Times

    Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
    Factual Reporting: HIGH
    Country: USA
    Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
    Media Type: Newspaper
    Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
    MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

  • @fy56 said:

    Haha.. NY Times.

    I bet you never miss an episode of The View.

    I know you guys get your news from blogs and Russia propagandists (see Tucker).

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    New York Times

    Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
    Factual Reporting: HIGH
    Country: USA
    Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
    Media Type: Newspaper
    Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
    MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

    @cccjwh said:

    I know you guys get your news from blogs and Russia propagandists (see Tucker).

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    New York Times

    Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
    Factual Reporting: HIGH
    Country: USA
    Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
    Media Type: Newspaper
    Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
    MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

    0000.gif.6590ed36ad1540afa9b32b0c3186b4a8.gif

  • @fy56 said:

    Haha.. NY Times.

    I bet you never miss an episode of The View.

    I know you guys get your news from blogs and Russia propagandists (see Tucker).

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    New York Times

    Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
    Factual Reporting: HIGH
    Country: USA
    Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
    Media Type: Newspaper
    Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
    MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

    @cccjwh said:

    I know you guys get your news from blogs and Russia propagandists (see Tucker).

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    New York Times

    Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
    Factual Reporting: HIGH
    Country: USA
    Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
    Media Type: Newspaper
    Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
    MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

    Haha...

    Why do you insist on opening a can of worms?  I can start by posting the NY Times top 10 lies, but i won't. You can do that yourself.

  • @cccjwh said:

    I know you guys get your news from blogs and Russia propagandists (see Tucker).

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

    New York Times

    Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
    Factual Reporting: HIGH
    Country: USA
    Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
    Media Type: Newspaper
    Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
    MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

    Haha...

    Why do you insist on opening a can of worms?  I can start by posting the NY Times top 10 lies, but i won't. You can do that yourself.

    @fy56 said:

    Haha...

    Why do you insist on opening a can of worms?  I can start by posting the NY Times top 10 lies, but i won't. You can do that yourself.

    I'm sure you got the list from a blog. Haha

    Every source makes mistakes. The sources that take accountability for those mistake have high credibility. But you keep reading those blogs. They tell you what you want to hear after all.

    Failed Fact Checks

    A factual search shows the New York Times has made false claims in reporting but always makes corrections to those stories as soon as new information is available. Further, failed fact checks occurred on Op-Ed pages and not straight news reporting.

    Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting. (5/18/2016) Update (M. Huitsing 04/19/2022)

  • Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Now Mr. Durham appears to be winding down his three-year inquiry without anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking. The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Durham and his team are working to complete a final report by the end of the year, they said, and one of the lead prosecutors on his team is leaving for a job with a prominent law firm.

     
     

    Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the F.B.I. in relation to outside efforts to investigate purported Trump-Russia ties, but he has not charged any conspiracy or put any high-level officials on trial. The recent developments suggest that the chances of any more indictments are remote.

    @cccjwh said:

    Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

    Now Mr. Durham appears to be winding down his three-year inquiry without anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking. The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Durham and his team are working to complete a final report by the end of the year, they said, and one of the lead prosecutors on his team is leaving for a job with a prominent law firm.

     

    Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the F.B.I. in relation to outside efforts to investigate purported Trump-Russia ties, but he has not charged any conspiracy or put any high-level officials on trial. The recent developments suggest that the chances of any more indictments are remote.

    Who said it was going to be in D.C. ?

    This is RICO minimum   .   .   .   and may not even processed through a Federal Court. 

  • Im with Gorka on this       

    AND this "BOMBSHELL" shoulda coulda woulda been more effective 3 years ago  

    it coulda shoulda wouldve been found out back then as well...

  • image.thumb.png.c6a7df9aa5cd483b3b9ec001f8b1d4e1.png

    (Split post)

    image.png.206e705e202320c3b89985e25452e72f.png