nauseus

No. He's always tried to pass on the best and most relevant information of the day. Now, that there are a lot more data and studies available, he's simply trying to update and inform people as he always has, so they can decide for themselves.

Seems like just more nonsense.

Had a look - closed door interview - no detail. BEER INTERMISSION Back tomorrow.

So now Smirnov is an agent? No wonder you come up with so much nonsense.

BEER INTERMISSION Back tomorrow.

Aha. OK link that then.

From your own story: Republican Congressman Ken Buck said that House members "were warned" that allegations leveled by an ex-FBI informant regarding President Joe Biden's business dealings may not be credible. AND In his statement to Newsweek last week, Comer said that the "FBI's actions in this matter are very concerning," adding that a source in the bureau had told lawmakers that Smirnov "was credible and trusted, had worked with the FBI for over a decade, and had been paid six figures." So who is reliable here? Not the FBI it seems.

Add that to you own personal list of baseless claims. I know you guys love that word.

A lot of Russians own big boats. Now why was Smirnov working with the FBI anyway???? ??

So prove me wrong. This CNN story if just full of prosecutor hearsay. I'm with the judge on this one. If he's guilty fine. But Smirnov does not account for all of the evidence that Comer is talking about.

You really are barking up the wrong tree. In a forest far away.

Bottom line is that you constantly claim stuff without backing it up.

It matters that nobody can prove that Smirnov was acting for the Russians - paid or not. If he was such a bad guy how come the FBI didn't ring the alarm? Similarly nobody has proven that Comer was aware that the Smirnov "information" was suspect. Apart from that, Comer says there is a lot of other evidence to warrant this impeachment - I'd like to see that.

If you can link enough convincing information to prove all that then I'd be pleased to look.

Typical plate of tripe. All you have I guess.

Not so. That's just your own biased conclusion.

My observation was not a question. The claim that Smirnov actually worked for Russia is still not proven.

He did not confess that he worked for the Russians.

Except for being so shocked, he really has nothing

That quote is from six months ago, was almost certainly sarcastic, and was nothing to do with this topic. Do you have a point here or are you just trying to cheat for effect?

Thanks for the tip.

Dan Goldman seems to like making stuff up, similar to that which I see here everyday.

More precisely that does not prove he was working for Russia.

You might think you know but I still can't find one story that proves that Smirnov was actually working for the Russians.

So why is it so important now?