By HatetheSwamp July 21, 2023 8:22 am Category: Media (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Obviously, he's not taking at face value Curt's judgment that it's a nuthin burger. Baha.

It does seem relevant that Hunter Biden reportedly had emails from the Burisma CFO on his laptop (which the FBI apparently knew was authentic, by the way, even as the Biden campaign and their 'intelligence community' colluders were spinning the 'Russian disinformation' story). I'd also like to know if the FBI aggressively and thoroughly pursued the leads laid out in the form 1023 memo, which are extremely serious in nature, if confirmed. If they did, and determined the claims were wholly without merit, we need to know that (and why they reached that conclusion). If they explored it, but didn't follow-up or reach conclusions -- or if didn't really look into it much, or at all -- we need to know that. And especially why. I'm not prepared to reach any definitive judgments about the alleged bribery scheme yet, but I smell more smoke than I did previously, and we need some substantive answers. The FBI hiding behind 'national security' excuses isn't going to cut it, especially given the agency's (and DOJ's) recent track record.

Cited and related links:

1. townhall.com

Comments Start Below

by Curt_Anderson on July 21, 2023 9:54 am “ If they did, and determined the claims were wholly without merit, we need to know that (and why they reached that conclusion).” —HtS LOGIC MATTERS. If the allegations in the FD-1023 could be verified the FBI could conclude it was true or at least probable. Unsubstantiated they cannot conclude if is true or not. by HatetheSwamp on July 21, 2023 10:24 am Not from HatetheSwamp. Take it up with the unknown gay Guy. by oldedude on July 21, 2023 11:02 am If the allegations in the FD-1023 could be verified the FBI could conclude it was true or at least probable. Unsubstantiated they cannot conclude if is true or not. If there was a problem with the 1023, there would be followup paperwork stating that and attached to the file. If you pulled it up on the computer, the first thing you would see was the redaction and clarification. by Curt_Anderson on July 21, 2023 12:18 pm OD, Who said there was a problem? If you told the cops you saw me robbing the Ashland liquor store this morning, they might investigate, especially if the store was robbed. As it happens I have an alibi, as I am in New Jersey now. If you more generally said somebody told you I robbed some Ashland store on an undetermined date, I could not disprove it, nor could the cops conclude anything. That incidentally was the defense Trump used in the E. Jean Caroll case. by HatetheSwamp on July 21, 2023 12:24 pm No. E. Jean said you robbed the liquor store yesterday, or maybe the day before, or the week before, or, was it last year. But, you definitely did it. She's absolutely certain! That was the accusation E. Jean used. by oldedude on July 21, 2023 4:18 pm Well, to start with, the FBI Form 1023 report is used for information from a confidential source (CS), not some joe schumk off the street. A CS is someone who has a background check and is vetted by DOJ. Many times they are paid for good information. If they screw up. They're fired. And the contact agent has to go through the 1023s in his file to see if he lied about anything else. Many times they'll trash his entire file. So, your metaphor is extremely inaccurate to say the least. by Curt_Anderson on July 21, 2023 8:19 pm In the E. Jean Caroll rape case she was iffy on date but she narrowed it down to about three months some years back. I forget the alleged year. There was no doubt about where the rape happened. The witnesses were the alleged victim and friends she told at the time. The witness and her friends are all respected professionals (all journalists I believe) in NY. Trump claimed she “wasn’t his type” then proceeded to mistake Caroll for his former wife. All the witnesses testified under oath. The jury didn’t buy his claim of innocence. In this Biden case, the informant reported hearsay to the FBI supposedly said by Mykola Zlochevsky (see link) who is a known international crook whose whereabouts are unknown. He apparently hasn’t confirmed the tipster’s story. There was no date given as to when or where the alleged bribe happened. Supposedly the bribe was to have the corrupt prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired. Many countries including the US wanted him gone. en.wikipedia.org by oldedude on July 21, 2023 9:00 pm In this Biden case, the informant reported hearsay to the FBI supposedly said by Mykola Zlochevsky (see link) who is a known international crook whose whereabouts are unknown. He apparently hasn’t confirmed the tipster’s story. There was no date given as to when or where the alleged bribe happened. Supposedly the bribe was to have the corrupt prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired. Many countries including the US wanted him gone. You are really confused about what is actually hearsay. If I WITNESS something, and sign an agreement that I am telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I am a WITNESS. If I hear something from you, and report it, it is HEARSAY (thusly the term). I can only attest that is what you told me. NOT about what actually happened. We've discussed this before and you refuse to learn. What the CS reported is as a WITNESS. He was at the meeting. Unless your wiki has been updated in the past TWO DAYS, it's out of date as is usual with your posts. You also need to read the actual document. The CFO (et al) said in front of pedojr, the REASON for paying the bribe was to ensure Shokin was removed, using pedojoe as the reinforcement to ensure other countries would support Burisma. THAT WAS THE QUID PRO QUO. Wow, and to think I actually thought you could figure this stuff out at one point🙄. So if the other countries went against Shokin, pedojoe did his job. I agree Mykola Zlochevsky is a crook. So was everyone else on that board. If Zlochevsky is a "known value" why would pedojoe offer to take a bribe from him? It's because HE WAS A CROOK. Zlochevsky wasn't testifying, he was willfully saying he was being bribed by pedojoe, and requiring payments also to pedojr. He wasn't enticed to say it either. He willfully admitted he was paying bribes to the pedofamily. A witness says this. A witness that is an FBI asset. To information that was confirmed by the FBI (read the other post). To date, he could still be working for the FBI. by Curt_Anderson on July 21, 2023 9:27 pm Oh, I know what hearsay is. See link. Trying get people to understand the concept is hard. Incidentally, despite promises that Tony Ornato would refute Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony under oath, he never did. I wonder why? It’s not that hard to find a notary public to swear a person in. selectsmart.com by HatetheSwamp on July 22, 2023 2:58 am Thing is narrowing down to three months gives the OrangeAccused no opportunity to defend himself by providing an alibi. You're such a Good German. by oldedude on July 22, 2023 6:19 am Oh, I know what hearsay is. See link. Trying get people to understand the concept is hard. I agree with your second sentence. Getting you not to fabricate the idea of hearsay is the hardest part with you. When it's trumpster, you're all over the facts of hearsay. If it's your pedophile "friend" you completely turn your "cheeks." I used to think Lead's "good german" comments were a little out of line. He just saw it before I did. You will do anything at all for your massur. Incidentally, despite promises that Tony Ornato would refute Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony under oath, he never did. I wonder why? He was never called by the FBI. Which is part of the contention in Congress that the FBI didn't do due diligence and violated their own ethics in the case. It now sits with the house committees building a case. You've not understood this. You don't prove charges first. You hear testimony (in the case of congress) and gather facts. Look at the evidence, read the law, decide if there are charges, then ensure your predicate acts are fulfilled. I know this escapes you but that's the way it's "supposed" to be done. by Ponderer on July 22, 2023 8:41 am "Thing is narrowing down to three months gives the OrangeAccused no opportunity to defend himself by providing an alibi." -Hate Hey, don't sell your Mango Messiah short there, Bill! He is such a skilled liar that it wouldn't take him long to concoct some sort of alibi. He can pretty much come up with a lie at the drop of a hat usually. We've watched him do it countless times. He's that good and that practiced at it. And since I am sure that he remembers sexually assaulting her, he should be able to construct a reasonable lie that he was somewhere else at that time. Coming up with such a lie would be child's play for him. Plus, he's got tons of cult members and acolytes who would lie for him and back him up if he wanted them to. by Curt_Anderson on July 22, 2023 9:23 am “ Plus, he's got tons of cult members and acolytes who would lie for him and back him up if he wanted them to.” —Ponderer Including the aforementioned, Tony Ornato, the former Secret Service agent now employed by Donald Trump. When did January 6 committee asked him about Donald Trump’s behavior in the SUV Ornato used the favorite dodge of perjurers and claimed he “didn’t recall”. by HatetheSwamp on July 22, 2023 10:11 am He is such a skilled liar that it wouldn't take him long to concoct some sort of alibi Uh, po, the jury's in. Trump lost. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page