Jump to content

FBI informant charged for cooking up fake story about Hunter and Burisma


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Exactly.. known as of one point in time. new information filters in over time. New information usually changes a person's view of a topic. You can't possibly be so biased to not acknowledge that. 

You can't be so biased that you believe you've accounted for all the possibilities.

If a fact is KNOWN, it will not be contradicted by future revelations. Only speculation is subject to change.

11 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA great joke man really funny.

You sound so stupid when you have nothing intelligent to post.

You might as well save your typing and just hit the LOL button. Duh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2024 at 11:10 PM, robosmith said:

You can't be so biased that you believe you've accounted for all the possibilities.

If a fact is KNOWN, it will not be contradicted by future revelations. Only speculation is subject to change.

You sound so stupid when you have nothing intelligent to post.

You might as well save your typing and just hit the LOL button. Duh

It is a lack of bias on my part to know that two facts are one narrative but 4 facts are something else entirely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

It is a lack of bias on my part to know that two facts are one narrative but 4 facts are something else entirely. 

Facts are NOT a "narrative." A narrative can assert "facts" but that does not make them "facts."

What is the "something else" in your "bias free" OPINION? Alt-facts? LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, robosmith said:

Facts are NOT a "narrative." A narrative can assert "facts" but that does not make them "facts."

What is the "something else" in your "bias free" OPINION? Alt-facts? LMAO

So let me guess... you read a story upon its first unveiling and within seconds form a strong opinion? If so.. its a good thing that you are not in a position to do any type of data analysis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So let me guess... you read a story upon its first unveiling and within seconds form a strong opinion? If so.. its a good thing that you are not in a position to do any type of data analysis. 

So let ME guess. You confuse your guesses for "facts."

I ONLY form "strong opinions" after many corroborating facts from different CREDIBLE sources are asserted.

Where in order to be credible, a source must have a strong reputation for adhering to professional journalistic ethical standards. AKA, not a fly by night, pop up propaganda source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2024 at 10:15 AM, robosmith said:

Credible reporting organizations usually wait to get the story nailed down before going to press.

1) Jussie Smollett says hi

2) Your "news orgs" don't tell the truth no matter how long they wait, dumbass. They'd just be spending more time getting their false narratives ironed out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Jussie Smollett says hi

2) Your "news orgs" don't tell the truth no matter how long they wait, dumbass. They'd just be spending more time getting their false narratives ironed out. 

You STILL have not identified your gold standard for news. Maybe you don't have one.

AND you've verified YOUR beliefs to be fallacious by pretending that one "false" allegation completely discredits 30,000+.

When that allegation was PROVEN TRUE.

IOW, you have NO CREDIBILITY to talk about news credibility because you're mentally LAZY and HOPELESSLY PARTISAN BIASED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You STILL have not identified your gold standard for news. Maybe you don't have one.

AND you've verified YOUR beliefs to be fallacious by pretending that one "false" allegation completely discredits 30,000+.

When that allegation was PROVEN TRUE.

IOW, you have NO CREDIBILITY to talk about news credibility because you're mentally LAZY and HOPELESSLY PARTISAN BIASED.

There is no gold standard for news, they all have inherent bias.

When it comes to reality I go with a quote from Babylon 5: "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

There is no gold standard for news, they all have inherent bias.

If you have NO reliable source, you have NO BASIS on which to judge ANY FALSE.

30 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

When it comes to reality I go with a quote from Babylon 5: "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."

According to ^this, you can never know the truth. In FACT you can get really close, if not spot on, by by consulting MANY CREDIBLE SOURCES, instead of just listening to those which tell you what you want to hear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

That takes more than a few seconds... so you do the same thing. You wait to form an opinion. However, your bias keeps you from being objective and simply owning up to it. 

I do NOT wait months for additional sources to publish different versions of stories like you suggested you do.

Within days many credible sources report on most big stories.

Certainly you must acknowledge there a huge differences in the credibility of different sources, don't you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I do NOT wait months for additional sources to publish different versions of stories like you suggested you do.

Within days many credible sources report on most big stories.

Certainly you must acknowledge there a huge differences in the credibility of different sources, don't you? 

There are differences in credibility. However, in some cases.. everybody has access to the same information and yet it appears that there is more just waiting to come out (like this one). So no matter who I read, they lack the entire set of information. This one smelled fishy from the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

There are differences in credibility. However, in some cases.. everybody has access to the same information and yet it appears that there is more just waiting to come out (like this one). So no matter who I read, they lack the entire set of information. This one smelled fishy from the beginning.

It didn't just "smell fishy," it was reported fishy (UNVERIFIED) from the beginning. The FBI initially refused to release the 1023 report for that very reason; they knew it would be misrepresented for political purposes.

I guess you missed the credible sources which were reporting that whole story from the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

It didn't just "smell fishy," it was reported fishy (UNVERIFIED) from the beginning. The FBI initially refused to release the 1023 report for that very reason; they knew it would be misrepresented for political purposes.

I guess you missed the credible sources which were reporting that whole story from the beginning.

Well, either way.. my intuition was correct. I knew that there was more to the story and guess what? There was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Smirnov Affair: MAGA Republicans Are Useful ldiots for Russian Intelligence

Quote

In June 2020, a businessman and fixer named Alexander Smirnov, who was also an FBI informant, passed his handler at the bureau a potentially explosive tip: The owner of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, had told him that he had paid $5 million each to Joe Biden and his son Hunter so the elder Biden, then vice president, would stop an investigation into the firm. Last year, that allegation became a key component in the Republican effort to impeach the president. But according to federal prosecutors, it was all a lie. Nine days ago, Smirnov, an Israeli and American citizen who had worked with oligarchs over the years and had been a confidential FBI source for a decade, was indicted for making false statements to federal investigators.

Smirnov’s indictment is a big deal and blows up a huge chunk of the GOP’s impeachment drive. But, more important, his allegedly phony accusation did not occur in a vacuum. It is part of a larger story of the rotten relationship between Russian intelligence and the Trump cosmos.

A year before Smirnov dropped this (presumably counterfeit) dime on the Bidens, Rudy Giuliani—who at the time was Donald Trump’s personal lawyer—took a trip to Ukraine that he publicly said was for the purpose of digging up dirt on the Democratic presidential contender. Giuliani was particularly focused on the unfounded claim that Biden, as veep, had orchestrated the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor to end a probe of Burisma. Giuliani’s agenda included pressing the Ukrainian government to launch investigations that could yield derogatory information about Biden. (These Giuliani machinations would lead to Trump’s first impeachment.) In the following months, Giuliani’s endeavor was aided by Russian operatives spreading disinformation about the Bidens. In fact, Trump’s own intelligence establishment and his Treasury Department would later publicly declare that Russian agents were mounting an operation to discredit Biden to help Trump win reelection.

It appears likely that Smirnov’s supposedly false statements to the FBI were connected to this covert Kremlin campaign. According to the prosecutors in the Smirnov case, in 2023 he told the FBI he had been in touch with Russian officials. Later, during an interview with the FBI after he was arrested, Smirnov admitted that officials associated with Russian intelligence had been involved in “passing a story” about Hunter, according to court filings.

Add all this up and it looks as if Russia succeeded in inserting an explosive allegation—$10 million in secret payments to the Bidens!—into the MAGA bloodstream and boosted the GOP impeachment crusade against the president. In other words, the Republicans—and all their comrades at Fox and other right-wing media outlets that trumpeted Smirnov’s allegation against the Bidens—have been useful ldiots for Moscow
. 

Some might remember that the form 1023 which was classified was about Smirnov and AN UNVERIFIED DOCUMENT.

House Republicons pushed really hard to get that declassified so they could use the UNVERIFIED info for their POLITICAL PURPOSES.
 

impeach.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...