You sound bitter.
Trump LOST. Get over it.

BOOOOOOOM!!! pic.twitter.com/FOeoRXFxSW

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) May 15, 2023

Guilty.

pic.twitter.com/yJw5DhzIII

— Patch Ops (@patch_ops) May 15, 2023

Barack Obama has been awfully quiet.

The Mueller Report concluded that the FBI and independent counsel investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." They also found that the Russians engaged in massive interference in the election. You would think that the FBI and DOJ special counsel did the government and President Trump a service.

I'm not aware there is a simple standard for when to start investigation, but it would seem the size of Russian interference and the accusations made against Trump warranted investigation (indeed, a bipartisan Congressional committee had said the same). Also, the Durham Report accused the FBI of acting negligently, not intentionally or with malice, and that the two major errors in judgement made by the FBI and Justice Department will not happen again due to "corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time." So the idea that the investigation was a political witch-hunt, as claimed by Trump, are not supported by the Durham Report, nor is there any suggestion of collusion by the FBI as claimed in this thread. The Report was submitted to AG Garland, who read it over the weekend and ordered it released without changes.

Executive Summary

As set forth in greater detail in Section IV, the record in this matter reflects that upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In particular, at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened Crossfire Hurricane immediately. Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information....

In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials. The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign.

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Uhh Strozk was the lead investigator in the Russian probe dude, who promised his girlfriend Page that "we'll get Trump". This sh*t is a felony. There was a whole lot of felonies happening from this to election interference by the FBI's "Missteps".

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

---

How is that a felony? Did they plant evidence? Are you saying that the only people who may investigate Biden or his son are those who are their fans?

So, please what were the felonies they committed and why are they not charged? Why did the special prosecutor not even suggest any change to the process much less a charge for these "felonies"?

---

Why are you getting caught up on felonies. Big picture: Russiagate was a total and complete scam, a political hoax perpetrated by HRC to divert attention away from her server problems. The CIA had intelligence to that effect. It briefed the President, VP, DOJ and FBI. The former perpetuated the lie to help HRC, the latter became D operatives. Slow it down. Say it out loud. The law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of the federal government are Democratic operatives. If "scandal" makes you feel better than "felony" go with that. This makes Watergate look like children eating ice cream on a warm summer day.

wifeisafurd said:

---

The Mueller Report concluded that the FBI and independent counsel investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." They also found that the Russians engaged in massive interference in the election. You would think that the FBI and DOJ special counsel did the government and President Trump a service.

I'm not aware there is a simple standard for when to start investigation, but it would seem the size of Russian interference and the accusations made against Trump warranted investigation (indeed, a bipartisan Congressional committee had said the same). Also, the Durham Report accused the FBI of acting negligently, not intentionally or with malice, and that the two major errors in judgement made by the FBI and Justice Department will not happen again due to "corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time." So the idea that the investigation was a political witch-hunt, as claimed by Trump, are not supported by the Durham Report, nor is there any suggestion of collusion by the FBI as claimed in this thread. The Report was submitted to AG Garland, who read it over the weekend and ordered it released without changes.

---

The impetus for the Trump allegations was the HRC produced material, which they knew was false. There was no predicate for investigating. The whole thing was fake.

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Uhh Strozk was the lead investigator in the Russian probe dude, who promised his girlfriend Page that "we'll get Trump". This sh*t is a felony. There was a whole lot of felonies happening from this to election interference by the FBI's "Missteps".

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

---

How is that a felony? Did they plant evidence? Are you saying that the only people who may investigate Biden or his son are those who are their fans?

So, please what were the felonies they committed and why are they not charged? Why did the special prosecutor not even suggest any change to the process much less a charge for these "felonies"?

---

Why are you getting caught up on felonies. Big picture: Russiagate was a total and complete scam, a political hoax perpetrated by HRC to divert attention away from her server problems. The CIA had intelligence to that effect. It briefed the President, VP, DOJ and FBI. The former perpetuated the lie to help HRC, the latter became D operatives. Slow it down. Say it out loud. The law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of the federal government are Democratic operatives. If "scandal" makes you feel better than "felony" go with that. This makes Watergate look like children eating ice cream on a warm summer day.

---

I am focusing on felonies because the poster I was quoting said the FBI engaged in felonies.

Now, did they collaborate with Clinton and started the investigation knowing the the source document was suspect or did they have an obligation to investigate such a critical issue relating to potential foreign interference? They didn't bring any charges. I would rather they do their diligence. I don't see what the FBI did as scandalous but more along the lines of not engaging in pristine process with rushed decisions made by humans without clear evidence of malice.

If you don't have evidence showing collaboration between the FBI and Clinton's campaign, you cannot impute the intentions of her campaign to the FBI.

Tucker Carlson has been awfully quiet today.

calbear93 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Uhh Strozk was the lead investigator in the Russian probe dude, who promised his girlfriend Page that "we'll get Trump". This sh*t is a felony. There was a whole lot of felonies happening from this to election interference by the FBI's "Missteps".

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

---

How is that a felony? Did they plant evidence? Are you saying that the only people who may investigate Biden or his son are those who are their fans?

So, please what were the felonies they committed and why are they not charged? Why did the special prosecutor not even suggest any change to the process much less a charge for these "felonies"?

---

Why are you getting caught up on felonies. Big picture: Russiagate was a total and complete scam, a political hoax perpetrated by HRC to divert attention away from her server problems. The CIA had intelligence to that effect. It briefed the President, VP, DOJ and FBI. The former perpetuated the lie to help HRC, the latter became D operatives. Slow it down. Say it out loud. The law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of the federal government are Democratic operatives. If "scandal" makes you feel better than "felony" go with that. This makes Watergate look like children eating ice cream on a warm summer day.

---

I am focusing on felonies because the poster I was quoting said the FBI engaged in felonies.

Now, did they collaborate with Clinton and started the investigation knowing the the source document was suspect or did they have an obligation to investigate such a critical issue relating to potential foreign interference? They didn't bring any charges. I would rather they do their diligence. I don't see what the FBI did as scandalous but more along the lines of not engaging in pristine process with rushed decisions made by humans without clear evidence of malice.

If you don't have evidence showing collaboration between the FBI and Clinton's campaign, you cannot impute the intentions of her campaign to the FBI.

---

The real travesty was Comey repeatedly making statements detrimental to Clinton's campaign about an investigation into her which did not result in any finding of criminal wrongdoing. If he had announced the investigation into Trump, loudly publicly denounced him at a press conference and then not taken any steps to prosecute, the MAGAts would have a better argument.

In reality, Comey did those things to Clinton and greatly damaged her campaign.

The Russia investigation was mired by massive obstruction which may very well have been the thing that prevented the FBI from proving that Trump and hos campaign committed crimes. We may never know because the obstruction was successful and Mueller and Garland chose not to attempt prosecution.

Any revisionist history which claims Trump was exonerated or that anyone showed that Trump committed no wrongdoing is disingenuous. We know that the investigation failed to unequivocally prove that Trump himself committed crimes and that's about all we can say.

I know you haven't claimed otherwise (to my knowledge) but I felt it important in the context of this discussion to ground the bad faith claims made by the Trumpers in appropriate context.

GoOskie said:

---

Tucker Carlson has been awfully quiet today.

---

Yup.
Meanwhile, Bearfarce has posted 40X today.

Shocker.

BearHunter said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Jake who?

---

Tapper. It is literally at the top of this page.

---

It's best to leave him alone, he had a bad today. Needs a Bud Light, like, right now.

---

Wait.
I thought you guys told me the drink was called Truly.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Okay. But is there a sex tape?
How about an audio with moaning?

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

You're going to have to be your own judge and jury in all of this and vote accordingly.

Do you wish to support a party who ….. or a party who ……

Good luck in your decision making. The future of the world depends on how millions of "you" determine.

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The Mueller Report concluded that the FBI and independent counsel investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." They also found that the Russians engaged in massive interference in the election. You would think that the FBI and DOJ special counsel did the government and President Trump a service.

I'm not aware there is a simple standard for when to start investigation, but it would seem the size of Russian interference and the accusations made against Trump warranted investigation (indeed, a bipartisan Congressional committee had said the same). Also, the Durham Report accused the FBI of acting negligently, not intentionally or with malice, and that the two major errors in judgement made by the FBI and Justice Department will not happen again due to "corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time." So the idea that the investigation was a political witch-hunt, as claimed by Trump, are not supported by the Durham Report, nor is there any suggestion of collusion by the FBI as claimed in this thread. The Report was submitted to AG Garland, who read it over the weekend and ordered it released without changes.

---

The impetus for the Trump allegations was the HRC produced material, which they knew was false. There was no predicate for investigating. The whole thing was fake.

---

If only our venerable FBI followed their own guidelines as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c of the Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic Operations, they would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject.

In 2016, the FBI tried to change the presidential election.

By falsely accusing a presidential candidate of colluding with our enemy.

In 2020, the FBI changed the presidential election.

By hiding that a presidential candidate took bribes from our enemy.

FBI Director's spin: pic.twitter.com/iT6Ep8jwE6

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) May 16, 2023

Looks like our FBI Director issued a statement today.

Looks like you conveniently forgot about FBI Director Comey's letter to Congress (about Hillary and her emails) just 11 days before the 2016 Election.

Shocker.

Friendly reminder that Trump has a defamation lawsuit against CNN for defaming him about Russia collusion

He wants $475 million in punitive damages

After Durham’s report, I’d say that his chances of winning nearly half a billion dollars just improvedhttps://t.co/5LYjGIwCbI

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 15, 2023

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Friendly reminder that Trump has a defamation lawsuit against CNN for defaming him about Russia collusion

He wants $475 million in punitive damages

After Durham’s report, I’d say that his chances of winning nearly half a billion dollars just improvedhttps://t.co/5LYjGIwCbI

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 15, 2023

---

Not sure who DC Draino is, but anyone who thinks any defamation lawsuit from Drumpf will go anywhere is a maroon.

Truth is a defense to any defamation claim and Trump can't possibly maintain a defamation claim without submitting himself to document discovery and testimony. This lawsuit isn't going anywhere and everyone with half a brain realizes that. The only reason he brought it was to give himself something to use in his grift to facilitate the transfer of funds from his idiot base to his "campaign" fund and because he loves announcing investigations and lawsuits. This is the reason he corruptly demanded that Zelensky announce an investigation into Biden. The announcement is the purpose.

At some point this lawsuit will be dismissed or Trump will abandon it once he can't slow play it any longer because there is absolutely no way Trump will ever give CNN a chance to prove their defense. Just like with the Fox defamation case except Fox never even pretended to have truth on their side.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Friendly reminder that Trump has a defamation lawsuit against CNN for defaming him about Russia collusion

He wants $475 million in punitive damages

After Durham’s report, I’d say that his chances of winning nearly half a billion dollars just improvedhttps://t.co/5LYjGIwCbI

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 15, 2023

---

Not sure who DC Draino is, but anyone who thinks any defamation lawsuit from Drumpf will go anywhere is a maroon.

Truth is a defense to any defamation claim and Trump can't possibly maintain a defamation claim without submitting himself to document discovery and testimony. This lawsuit isn't going anywhere and everyone with half a brain realizes that. The only reason he brought it was to give himself something to use in his grift to facilitate the transfer of funds from his idiot base to his "campaing" fund and because he loves announcing investigations and lawsuits. This is the reason he corruptly demanded that Zelensky announce an investigation into Biden. The announcement is the purpose.

At some point this lawsuit will be dismissed or Trump will abandon it once he can't slow play it any longer because there is absolutely no way Trump will ever give CNN a chance to prove their defense. Just like with the Fox defamation case except Fox never even pretended to have truth on their side.

---

I think his chances of winning multiplied by 100 times following the report.

Of course his chances started at zero. But now it's 100 times that.

BearHunter said:

---

The author of this debunked 2016 Hillary Clinton lie is currently sitting inside of the White House as President Biden’s National Security Advisor. https://t.co/wwesyOvJSZ

— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) May 15, 2023

Should we see what Hillary has been up to?

---

What makes you think the GOP would be shy about launching another investigation into Hillary?

chazzed said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

The author of this debunked 2016 Hillary Clinton lie is currently sitting inside of the White House as President Biden’s National Security Advisor. https://t.co/wwesyOvJSZ

— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) May 15, 2023

Should we see what Hillary has been up to?

---

What makes you think the GOP would be shy about launching another investigation into Hillary?

---

They are running out of time to investigate Jimmy Carter?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Friendly reminder that Trump has a defamation lawsuit against CNN for defaming him about Russia collusion

He wants $475 million in punitive damages

After Durham’s report, I’d say that his chances of winning nearly half a billion dollars just improvedhttps://t.co/5LYjGIwCbI

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 15, 2023

---

Not sure who DC Draino is,

---

He's a stooge with a sweet, sweet white nationalist haircut.

IT WAS ALL BULLSH*T!!! pic.twitter.com/Rm2wtUWFdF

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) May 16, 2023

It was bullsheet from Day 1.

BearHunter said:

---

The author of this debunked 2016 Hillary Clinton lie is currently sitting inside of the White House as President Biden’s National Security Advisor. https://t.co/wwesyOvJSZ

— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) May 15, 2023

Should we see what Hillary has been up to?

---

The only thing Durham proved in court was that allegation was never really investigated. We still don't know what was going on there.

61 Hacks Who Peddled Russian Collusion And Should Never Be Trusted Again pic.twitter.com/Fw1sJBku43

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) May 16, 2023

Only 61 hacks?

BearHunter said:

---

61 Hacks Who Peddled Russian Collusion And Should Never Be Trusted Again pic.twitter.com/Fw1sJBku43

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) May 16, 2023

Only 61 hacks?

---

Jake Tapper, you say. I agree about not trusting him.

BREAKING: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has called for the immediate expulsion and possible prosecution of Rep. Adam Schiff for committing crimes of treason against the United States.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 17, 2023

Adam Schiff is a threat to our democracy and another example of white supremacy. If he was black, he would already have been expelled.

BearHunter said:

---

BREAKING: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has called for the immediate expulsion and possible prosecution of Rep. Adam Schiff for committing crimes of treason against the United States.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 17, 2023

If he was black, he would already have been expelled.

---

Probably true that if Adam Schiff were black the GOP would have already attempted to expel him

BearHunter said:

---

BREAKING: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has called for the immediate expulsion and possible prosecution of Rep. Adam Schiff for committing crimes of treason against the United States.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 17, 2023

Adam Schiff is a threat to our democracy and another example of white supremacy. If he was black, he would already have been expelled.

---

Having read what McCarthy said, I think that Twitter account should rename itself Misleading Report.

Russia Russia Russia.
Democrats are going to Democrat.

BearHunter said:

---

61 Hacks Who Peddled Russian Collusion And Should Never Be Trusted Again pic.twitter.com/Fw1sJBku43

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) May 16, 2023

Only 61 hacks?

---

Saw Malcolm Nance on there...oh man, did I enjoy laughing at his Ukraine War videos roflmao. "Stand By!"

"LOOK, Trump told them not to do anything and stay back!!#@!!#R WE GOT HIM HAHAHAHAHAHAH"

Trump couldn't possibly be a Russian asset...could he? - Raw Story - Celebrating 19 Years of Independent Journalism (archive.ph)

A nice little summary of the russian stooge (tRump) who's been financed by the ruskies for years.