Durham finds DOJ, FBI 'failed to uphold' mission of 'strict fidelity to the law' in Trump-Russia pro

I believe the GOP House has that on their list along with the Clinton Foundation, Hunter Biden, Bill and Hil's ''investment' in land where they lost money, the entire Biden family, Kamala, Obama's birth cert, etc. So it might be awhile

 

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible.

Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule are "attenuation of the taint," "independent source," and "inevitable discovery."

 

lol!


Glad to see you again.

 

Right because members of Congress didn't have copies? lol

You guys and the myths you create

 

LOL, an absurd post.
It was Fox Lies, hardly close to god's truth.

But even RW media recognized what trump may have been doing. And talking about adoption doesn't seem to be the topic.

 

The report is long.
You must have some point in that report that makes you think as you do.
Can you post it or not?

 

Does not appear any claiming weaponization can point to the part in the report that makes them believe it.

 

AHHH. That old chestnut. Well, you could just accept FAUX SNOOZE's reporting and acknowledge that the Orange Buffoon shared secret intel with our enemy. Or you could continue to deny that he did what everyone knows he did and claim that you can't prove a negative, which is a falsehood anyway.

 

No.

 

You can prove a negative. If you have facts on your side.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...f/thinking_tools_you_can_prove_a_negative.pdf

 

Well, that's just shocking! Surely people claiming this wouldn't be relying on less than honest reporting on the Durham Flop's contents......

 

When caught posting untruths, it's best to double down and go with something more made up.

 

Nope, I agreed with his conclusion and seen how hard he wagged his finger at the FBI for some corner cutting. Oh my. So much weaponization. LOL.

 

Absolutely correct.
Most of the country cares not about this almost nothingburger.
It was investigated, no new investigations to be opened. No new person(s) to be charged or indicted.
And Durham gave a stern and long wagging of his finger at the FBI for shoddy practices.

 

May have been doing? Lol
Nice back peddle from your earlier claim:

 

He didn't share intel with the fat Sergeis?

 

BEARS REPEATING

 

Oh the irony.

Nancy Pelosi irresponsibly claimed we have to pass Obamacare to see what's in it. As a result she rightfully took a lot of heat for it because like Gregory asked, the hurry up, the rush to get it done, caused more problems than it solved.

Enjoy the memories.

NBC’s Gregory Confronts Pelosi With ‘We Have to Pass the Bill to Find Out What’s In It’ Clip (mediaite.com)

 

You keep cutting off the rest of the quote. It's starting to look like flame-baiting.

 

I see, you are tripling down on your false and very misleading requote of Pelosi's quote by hacking off part of her actual quote.

The irony is all on you.

 

MAGA, not the most honest of people the country has. Have you seen or heard the leader?

There's a rumor out there he may be indicted soon. Perhaps for stealing gov't property/documents.

 

So, you think meetings his group had was about adoption. LOL.

 

Read the thread if the Durham report is too long for you. I've posted about Durham's conclusions from the report, pp. 303-304 which prove the O/P thread premise. (post 898. The posters @popscott, @Steve N, @Bluesguy, and some others did a great job of documenting from Durham's actual report too, if you're interested.

 

So, you can't prove where the accusation of weaponized FBI or any gov't office has happened.
Got it.

...
Durham said he wanted to assess whether Clinton-related and Trump-related allegations were being handled with equal rigor and aggressiveness.

“Comparing the respective investigative activity was significant to the investigation since it could support or undercut allegations of institutional bias against either candidate,” the special prosecutor wrote. However, he acknowledged that because the facts involved in the various allegations differ, comparing them is “undoubtedly an imperfect method” to assess whether such bias existed.
Takeaways from the Durham report on the Trump-Russia probe - POLITICO

 

Silly nonsense. Security for Presidents, funnels no money into the Presidents pocket.