2nd Informant told FBI Bidens took 10 million from Ukraine

[Luvnit2]

John Soloman reported a 2nd informant reported the Biden's took 10 million dollars from Ukraine. The source spoke to the FBI located in DC. Here is another show of DOJ corruption if this is collaborated, Weiss instructed the DC agents to stop any investigation into Joe Biden burying the evidence again.

Why would Weiss stop any leads that lead to Joe Biden being corrupt if he was aggressively trying to get to the facts surrounding Hunter, Joe and the Biden family.

Garland is on the hill tomorrow to testify, it will be interested for him to explain his prior statements under oath to Congress:
1. He said Weiss had all the authority to charge Hunter Biden anywhere in the US, but we now know 6 witnesses have said Weiss himself said at a meeting in October of 2022 he wanted to charge HB with serious tax charges in DC and California, but the DOJ in those jurisdictions shut down the IRS tax charges and then let them expire. Weiss said he did not have the power.
2. Why did he name Weiss the special prosecutor when a SC is supposed to come from outside the justice department?
3. Did Garland approve the original plea deal from Weiss's office for HB? If not, who did approve the plea deal?
4. If Weiss had the power to charge HB anywhere in the US already, why did he feel the need to name him a SC after the plea deal fell apart?
5. Simply, did Garland lie under oath to Congress?
6. What paperwork does Garland or the DOJ have confirming the power of Weiss to prosecute HB anywhere in the US prior to the plead deal?

I sure appears as if the Biden justice department is running interference on behalf of Joe Biden and the DNC. Stay tunes on the conformation of the second informant, my guess it is coming soon. John Soloman is a trusted reporter.

[Arturo Bandini]

But he's in Canada so you wouldn't know him.

[GMDino]

(09-19-2023, 02:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: John Soloman reported a 2nd informant reported the Biden's took 10 million dollars from Ukraine. The source spoke to the FBI located in DC. Here is another show of DOJ corruption if this is collaborated, Weiss instructed the DC agents to stop any investigation into Joe Biden burying the evidence again.

Why would Weiss stop any leads that lead to Joe Biden being corrupt if he was aggressively trying to get to the facts surrounding Hunter, Joe and the Biden family.

Garland is on the hill tomorrow to testify, it will be interested for him to explain his prior statements under oath to Congress:
1. He said Weiss had all the authority to charge Hunter Biden anywhere in the US, but we now know 6 witnesses have said Weiss himself said at a meeting in October of 2022 he wanted to  charge HB with serious tax charges in DC and California, but the DOJ in those jurisdictions shut down the IRS tax charges and then let them expire. Weiss said he did not have the power.
2. Why did he name Weiss the special prosecutor when a SC is supposed to come from outside the justice department?
3. Did Garland approve the original plea deal from Weiss's office for HB? If not, who did approve the plea deal?
4. If Weiss had the power to charge HB anywhere in the US already, why did he feel the need to name him a SC after the plea deal fell apart?
5. Simply, did Garland lie under oath to Congress?
6. What paperwork does Garland or the DOJ have confirming the power of Weiss to prosecute HB anywhere in the US prior to the plead deal?

I sure appears as if the Biden justice department is running interference on behalf of Joe Biden and the DNC. Stay tunes on the conformation of the second informant, my guess it is coming soon. John Soloman is a trusted reporter.

[Luvnit2]

I find it funny you try and spin Fox News all the time as being a bad source of information. The same Fox News who exposed the Steele Dossier as the basis for the Mueller investigation. The same dossier that was bought and paid for by HRC and the DNC. While liberals outlets were wrong for 2.5 years. Fox was 100% right.

So, yes, I trust Fox news for my main news source and I am joined by the majority of Americans who trust Fox as the number 1 cable news source in the US.

Let's see if there was a second informant that Weiss shut down, if not Solomon and Fox were wrong.

[GMDino]

(09-20-2023, 09:27 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I find it funny you try and spin Fox News all the time as being a bad source of information. The same Fox News who exposed the Steele Dossier as the basis for the Mueller investigation. The same dossier that was bought and paid for by HRC and the DNC. While liberals outlets were wrong for 2.5 years. Fox was 100% right.

So, yes, I trust Fox news for my main news source and I am joined by the majority of Americans who trust Fox as the number 1 cable news source in the US.

Let's see if there was a second informant that Weiss shut down, if not Solomon and Fox were wrong.

When you are simply parroting FOX news talking points even after multiple other sources have been given and shown to you that dispute them...yes, I will say FOX new is a bad source of information.  Especially when you believe absolutely everything they say as the god's honest truth.

Blind squirrels and all that but otherwise not good.  Especially when the "news" is coming from their opinion arm.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-20-2023, 09:27 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I find it funny you try and spin Fox News all the time as being a bad source of information. The same Fox News who exposed the Steele Dossier as the basis for the Mueller investigation. The same dossier that was bought and paid for by HRC and the DNC. While liberals outlets were wrong for 2.5 years. Fox was 100% right.

So, yes, I trust Fox news for my main news source and I am joined by the majority of Americans who trust Fox as the number 1 cable news source in the US.

Let's see if there was a second informant that Weiss shut down, if not Solomon and Fox were wrong.

That’s the thing about leftists. They will ignore information if it doesn’t fit what they want to hear, and attack the source of your information, not the subject matter. I never post something that’s only on Fox News, but I found that many times I say something that goes against the woke, I’m accused of “getting it from Breitbart” (which I hate) or being “Q’Anon.” 

I’m not Q’Anon. I wish we had a third party I could vote for that actually had legs (which is why I usually vote third party, maybe I can enable them a bit? Do my part). I check more Republican boxes than I do Democrats, but in a perfect world, I’d like for them to be covered equally and fairly. 

I really can’t believe there are people who completely disregard the money the Bidens took. “10% for the big guy.” “No more favors, Zhao.” Then millions of dollars in payments to Hunter for being an “energy consultant.” My dad’s been in energy for 40 years. Hunter’s been in energy for 0. I wonder why Hunter is the one getting rich off it. He’s probably just a fast learner. 

Gimme a break guys. 

[Dill]

(09-20-2023, 11:39 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: That’s the thing about leftists. They will ignore information if it doesn’t fit what they want to hear, and attack the source of your information, not the subject matter. I never post something that’s only on Fox News, but I found that many times I say something that goes against the woke, I’m accused of “getting it from Breitbart” (which I hate) or being “Q’Anon.” 

I’m not Q’Anon. I wish we had a third party I could vote for that actually had legs (which is why I usually vote third party, maybe I can enable them a bit? Do my part). I check more Republican boxes than I do Democrats, but in a perfect world, I’d like for them to be covered equally and fairly. 

I really can’t believe there are people who completely disregard the money the Bidens took. “10% for the big guy.” “No more favors, Zhao.” Then millions of dollars in payments to Hunter for being an “energy consultant.” My dad’s been in energy for 40 years. Hunter’s been in energy for 0. I wonder why Hunter is the one getting rich off it. He’s probably just a fast learner. 

Gimme a break guys. 

Really? This from the guy who, so far as I can tell, has completely ignored the Green Bay Sweep and standard definitions of "coup" and "insurrection" because he stands by Trump's sincerity, while dead sure the liberal press and the FBI are at the Dem beck and call.

You say "the money the Bidens took," not the money Joe took. Maybe that's an important detail.

And hunter wasn't hired to consult about "energy." Jeezus. Why do you say people "disregard" the money "the Bidens" took when there are ongoing investigations into that matter? Sufficient attention to deflect half the country from the myriad Trump investigations and Trump's continued power over the GOP House. And so far none into Kushner's billions?

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-26-2023, 08:57 AM)Dill Wrote: Really? This from the guy who, so far as I can tell, has completely ignored the Green Bay Sweep and standard definitions of "coup" and "insurrection" because he stands by Trump's sincerity, while dead sure the liberal press and the FBI are at the Dem beck and call.

You say "the money the Bidens took," not the money Joe took. Maybe that's an important detail.

And hunter wasn't hired to consult about "energy." Jeezus. Why do you say people "disregard" the money "the Bidens" took when there are ongoing investigations into that matter? Sufficient attention to deflect half the country from the myriad Trump investigations and Trump's continued power over the GOP House. And so far none into Kushner's billions?

I’ve been over the definition of coup. A group of 20,000 people from the most armed segment of the rural population showing up with 3 guns isn’t a f*cking coup. If you can’t see that then I just can’t help ya there. It’s a coup because you want it to be. 

[*pally*]

(09-26-2023, 10:33 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: I’ve been over the definition of coup. A group of 20,000 people from the most armed segment of the rural population showing up with 3 guns isn’t a f*cking coup. If you can’t see that then I just can’t help ya there. It’s a coup because you want it to be. 

what would you call it if they had succeeded in hanging Mike Pence?  or had succeeded in stopping the certifying of the election? or if Pence had certified the election using illegal electors?

If your goal is to keep the LOSER in power and you take illegal actions to achieve that goal, it is a coup.  It doesn't require millions of people, though I suspect the millions of MAGA people out there would have supported those illegal actions.  Some would have taken up arms too. It doesn't require millions of guns either.  3 people were CHARGED with having a gun on Capitol grounds, but that does not mean there were only 3 guns present. And weapons don't only mean guns.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-26-2023, 11:27 AM)pally Wrote: what would you call it if they had succeeded in hanging Mike Pence?  or had succeeded in stopping the certifying of the election? or if Pence had certified the election using illegal electors?

If your goal is to keep the LOSER in power and you take illegal actions to achieve that goal, it is a coup.  It doesn't require millions of people, though I suspect the millions of MAGA people out there would have supported those illegal actions.  Some would have taken up arms too. It doesn't require millions of guns either.  3 people were CHARGED with having a gun on Capitol grounds, but that does not mean there were only 3 guns present. And weapons don't only mean guns.

Then try them all for treason?

I mean obviously they where there to "over throw" the Government.

[HarleyDog]

(09-26-2023, 10:33 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: I’ve been over the definition of coup. A group of 20,000 people from the most armed segment of the rural population showing up with 3 guns isn’t a f*cking coup. If you can’t see that then I just can’t help ya there. It’s a coup because you want it to be. 

Agree. That whole thing, although embarrassing, has been blown out of proportion by the left to raise hatred toward the deplorable Republicans voters. And why aren't all the people crying that the George Floyd riots were peaceful protests saying the same about this? In many cities the protesters overtook the government,  and their buildings while killing cops. That shit makes Jan 6th look like school recess.

[Arturo Bandini]

Yeah, he's the real victim here ...

Always.

[Arturo Bandini]

As it was already said, they have nothing. Waste of time and money. A clown show.

https://twitter.com/grantstern/status/1707436698588610996

Republicans’ “star”impeachment lawyer Jonathan Turley totally backfired. He just said in his opening statement, “I do NOT believe the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime & misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment."


BTW, I learned that this dude was a polygamist lobbyist and defended a pedophile ( Tom Green : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Green_(polygamist)  ) who was abusing his 13 years step daughter in an OPed  in USA Today.

Always the best people. Always. 

[Arturo Bandini]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1707461196247425294

LAW AND ORDER when it suits me. 

[GreenDragon]

The land of make believe.

[GreenDragon]

(09-19-2023, 02:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: John Soloman reported a 2nd informant reported the Biden's took 10 million dollars from Ukraine. The source spoke to the FBI located in DC. Here is another show of DOJ corruption if this is collaborated, Weiss instructed the DC agents to stop any investigation into Joe Biden burying the evidence again.

Why would Weiss stop any leads that lead to Joe Biden being corrupt if he was aggressively trying to get to the facts surrounding Hunter, Joe and the Biden family.

Garland is on the hill tomorrow to testify, it will be interested for him to explain his prior statements under oath to Congress:
1. He said Weiss had all the authority to charge Hunter Biden anywhere in the US, but we now know 6 witnesses have said Weiss himself said at a meeting in October of 2022 he wanted to  charge HB with serious tax charges in DC and California, but the DOJ in those jurisdictions shut down the IRS tax charges and then let them expire. Weiss said he did not have the power.
2. Why did he name Weiss the special prosecutor when a SC is supposed to come from outside the justice department?
3. Did Garland approve the original plea deal from Weiss's office for HB? If not, who did approve the plea deal?
4. If Weiss had the power to charge HB anywhere in the US already, why did he feel the need to name him a SC after the plea deal fell apart?
5. Simply, did Garland lie under oath to Congress?
6. What paperwork does Garland or the DOJ have confirming the power of Weiss to prosecute HB anywhere in the US prior to the plead deal?

I sure appears as if the Biden justice department is running interference on behalf of Joe Biden and the DNC. Stay tunes on the conformation of the second informant, my guess it is coming soon. John Soloman is a trusted reporter.

Link please.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(09-19-2023, 02:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  John Soloman is a trusted reporter.

WOW

I come here for comedy when the jokes and memes thread is slow. You never disappoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)


Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review in 2007, wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[7] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline," and that he "was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals."[8][28] During the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, Thomas Lang wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review that a Solomon story for the Associated Press covered criticism of John Kerry's record on national security appeared to mirror a research report released by the Republican National Committee. Lang wrote that Solomon's story was "a clear demonstration of the influence opposition research is already having on coverage of the [presidential] campaign."[51][52]

The Washington Post wrote in September 2019 that Solomon's "recent work has been trailed by claims that it is biased and lacks rigor."[28] The Post noted that Solomon had done award-winning investigative work during his early career, but that his work had taken a pronounced conservative bent from the late 2000s and onwards.[28] According to Foreign Policy magazine, Solomon had "grown into a prominent conservative political commentator with a somewhat controversial track record."[35]
In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post, criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon's reporting omitted context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[6] Progressive news outlets ThinkProgress, Media Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon's reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[53][54][55] According to The Intercept, Just Security and The Daily Beast, Solomon helps to advance right-wing and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.[30][9][56] The New Republic described Solomon's columns for The Hill as "right-wing fever dreams."[57] Independent journalist Marcy Wheeler accused Solomon of manufacturing fake scandals which suggested wrongdoing by those conducting probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[58] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.

[Luvnit2]

(10-04-2023, 07:38 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: WOW

I come here for comedy when the jokes and memes thread is slow. You never disappoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)


Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review in 2007, wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[7] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline," and that he "was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals."[8][28] During the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, Thomas Lang wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review that a Solomon story for the Associated Press covered criticism of John Kerry's record on national security appeared to mirror a research report released by the Republican National Committee. Lang wrote that Solomon's story was "a clear demonstration of the influence opposition research is already having on coverage of the [presidential] campaign."[51][52]

The Washington Post wrote in September 2019 that Solomon's "recent work has been trailed by claims that it is biased and lacks rigor."[28] The Post noted that Solomon had done award-winning investigative work during his early career, but that his work had taken a pronounced conservative bent from the late 2000s and onwards.[28] According to Foreign Policy magazine, Solomon had "grown into a prominent conservative political commentator with a somewhat controversial track record."[35]
In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post, criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon's reporting omitted context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[6] Progressive news outlets ThinkProgress, Media Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon's reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[53][54][55] According to The Intercept, Just Security and The Daily Beast, Solomon helps to advance right-wing and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.[30][9][56] The New Republic described Solomon's columns for The Hill as "right-wing fever dreams."[57] Independent journalist Marcy Wheeler accused Solomon of manufacturing fake scandals which suggested wrongdoing by those conducting probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[58] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.

Yet he was the first to sniff out the Steeler Dossier was a HRC and DNC political hit piece in 2015. his story has been proven 100% accurate by Horowitz and Durham. The DOJ and FBI started an investigation on a dossier that was never vetted. It is fact the offered Steele 1 million dollars to prove his dossier was accurate in 2015 (prior to launching an investigation and then a political special prosecutor), but he could not give them one piece of factual proof.

Of course the left is going to torch a great reporter, that is. their MO, attack the source's credibility. Yet through it all, if proper protocol would have been followed by vetting evidence, tax payers would have saved 50 million dollars. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-04-2023, 07:38 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: The Post noted that Solomon had done award-winning investigative work during his early career, but that his work had taken a pronounced conservative bent from the late 2000s and onwards.

And that's when he went from future promising writer to bad man!
He didn't just suddenly forget how to write, he switched sides.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(10-04-2023, 02:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And that's when he went from future promising writer to bad man!
He didn't just suddenly forget how to write, he switched sides.

LOL

''Switched sides''?

Are you accusing him of being a Democrat that switched sides or someone that went from truth to political hack? The decades of Fox News partisan reporting has had a major impact on what conservatives now consider as journalism and it is tragic.