What Trump supporters would like the rest of us to believe.

Oh, that ... my feeling is that if Barr would do so, perhaps the wankers constantly accusing Biden would ****.

I don't know the exact rule number or code, as I'm not in the FBI, but there is a proper protocol for conducting investigations in foreign countries, and that protocol includes contacting law enforcement in those countries, formally announcing our intentions and asking for their cooperation.

As to why Barr has not taken the proper route, I can only guess it's because he knows the stories he's chasing are bull dung. Wasn't he going around lately to various countries in pursuit of this "holy grail"? I wonder if they're laughing at him openly or behind his back?

Yeah ... they're making America great all right ....

 

Lets be clear.

It is ILLEGAL to seek or accept foreign help in an election. Saying that this or that person has done something like that or that exactly thing does not make it any less ILLEGAL.

Extortion is ILLEGAL. Regardless of what someone else may or may not have done. extortion for personal gain is ILLEGAL. That is in fact...in the Constitution

 

You nailed Hillary Clinton to the wall.

 

What evidence do you have that Barr is not doing this job exactly right? You are aware I pray that he is on the trail of how this impeachment farce started.

What would be fun is to start a pot with a buy in of $10, with a neutral party holding the funds, with the winner being the person that is accurate as to if Trump is found guilty in the Senate or not?

 

Another reference.
https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

 

When I hired people for my board I often picked them because they could help me raise money or make customer contacts. I doubt this was much different.

 

Fine Impeach her then...and save the Peewee Herman defense.

It's childish

 

That's pretty silly. It started when Trump's extortion scheme got outed by the WB

 

So when you paid those board members did you pay them 100's of times the amount of the wage of the customers? Did you ever hire someone for your board with the pretense of protecting your company from a corruption investigation? There will be more learned about this.

 

That started back in 2016? That is when the whistleblowers attorney announced the "coup" was about to begin!

 

Yeah well, you don't understand how it works. Cops can investigate anything they want. It's only if they want to take it to the DA that the DA needs to consider the evidence. The only thing keeping the DA from bringing charges is because that goes on their record, and you can't keep your job if you keep wasting a judge's time and the tax payer's money. If you can get a judge to accept the case, then comes a preliminary hearing if the accused declares innocent. This is to decide whether there is enough evidence to go to trial.

You don't even want cops to investigate stuff? lol!!! No, it doesn't work like that.

 

They were expensive.
I'll take the 5th on the second.

 

That's behind a paywall. You are missing the point. There isn't a shortage of references to the same statement. There is a shortage of credibility in that statement. It is the same inadequately sourced statement being quoted ad nauseam.

 

High board pay must go with the business.
$27 million: Exxon CEO’s compensation rises 8 percent

Henrietta H. Fore, 64, is chairwoman and CEO of Holsman International, a manufacturing, consulting and investment firm. She was previously the U.S. under secretary of state for management, acting as the chief operating officer of the State Department. Her compensation was $787,322 from Exxon Mobil in 2012, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ursula Burns, 54, is chairwoman and CEO of Xerox Corp. She made $713,649 from Exxon Mobil in 2012, according to SEC filings.

The two women made more in 2012 than any other director because they received additional stock awards for joining the board. Their 2013 compensation will be on par with other existing directors, which is around $330,000.

https://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/04/16/two-exxon-board-members-made-more-than-700000/

 

Well, here is a named source from BT (before Trump).
If that's not good enough, I'd say you are to fussy.

“This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general’s office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office . . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust,” said Jan Tombinski, the EU’s envoy to Ukraine.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

 

Same concept applies. Let me save you the trouble.....you could post 100 links to the same basic data. That changes nothing.

 

I thought so. The full Orwell.
“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

 

Nope.

Its more like that one source from the EU, along with the 3 unnamed state department sources, in combination with the Anti Corruption Source funded by George Soros, does not equal a proven fact. It equals a denial. Virtually every criminal defendant in the world begins with a hearty denial. The role of investigation is to corroborate or disprove a denial. Nobody on the left seems to want anything independently corroborated. They want to take that denial and simply treat it as gospel. I wonder if they would give Trump the same pass with the same scant few denials?

 

It's okay. I understand your a Trumper. No more excuses are required.

 

Well I'm not sure that Barr hasn't taken the proper route. You don't seem to sure of that yourself, but it's interesting that you seem to be the only one complaining that Barr isn't following protocol. I would figure there would be plenty in Congress that would be complaining of Barr going rogue if he was.

 

It depends on if the President ordered it. Then it would sound a lot like the way Putin deals with his rivals.

 

So we're in guesswork territory.

Oddly enough, that's the same place we started.

 

Lets stop this pointless conversation.

 

Just keep it in mind.

 

Works for me. I was happy with the first source.