It Behooves You Democrat Supporters....

"..so what?"

I bet you wouldn't have that view if the Republicans had paid for same with a Democrat in the cross hairs.

Was the FISA judge told who paid for the 'research'?????


the FISC was informed the nature of that one particular source and it was taken into full consideration.

surveillance warrants were issued with full legal justification.

now trumptards would like to dismiss what the surveillance revealed because trump apologists wrote some "memos".

:laugh2:
 
5. FBI found classified data on Huma and Anthony Weiner’s laptop….so they gave them a pass
And Petraeus intentionally took MARKED top secret classified documents and gave them to his lover and writer of his biography and lied 3 separate times to the FBI about it, and only got a misdemeanor charge.

What he did was intentional, was clearly MARKED CLASSIFIED which was much much much much much worse....

you want Hillary to be locked up for something unintentional, and for NOT lying to the FBI while letting Patraeus gets to walk the streets? REALLY?

you must hate women and hate yourself deep down inside??


What does the law say about it?

Or....in one of your limited view, does it depend on whom it is breaking the law?


I do despise hypocrites....
Raise your paw.
the rules say one thing,

the LAW says another.... the espionage act REQUIRES that you took top secret documents from the ''proper place'' in storage on gvt top secret servers and distributed them to the enemy....

her team did NOTHING OF THE SORT....

their info being passed to each other, was not gotten from the gvt's top secret server.... they received the information from a civilian source, syd bloomenthal.... they did not think it was top secret, because a civilian was able to get the info and pass it on to them...

Simultaneously the CIA had their own CIA source for the same info and unknown to the Clinton staffers, the CIA classified it.

That's why none of the 4 top secret email chains on her server were MARKED CLASSIFIED.... they wuld have been if they came from the gvt's ''proper place''.
 
It's almost like democrats don't realize that the next democrat president is going to be treated even worse than Trump is now. That president will have no authority whatsoever.
You mean like Congress will not allow him to appoint a Supreme Court justice?
 
The implication is apparently that partisan information was used to request surveillance of a Trump campaign aide when it shouldn’t have been. This argument — assuming it’s the argument made by the memo! — is contingent on a lot of shaky assumptions, several of which were parsed by Orin Kerr at Lawfare. For example: Steele’s background made him a credible source to the FBI, and judges are used to considering motivation when determining whether to grant a warrant.

Assuming, that is, that it’s fair to consider Steele a biased source. There’s no indication that Steele knew who the client was for whom he was indirectly working. In his testimony before the Senate last year, Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson said that Steele was told only to “see if you can find out what Donald Trump’s been doing on these trips to Russia.”

But the broader question that’s important to answer is if there was other evidence, besides what Steele provided, that might have prompted the FBI to seek a warrant to surveil Page’s activities. After all, if there were 40 pieces of evidence cited, one of which came from Steele, even if Steele’s evidence were somehow inappropriate to include (again, not necessarily a fair assumption) there would still be 39 other reasons that a warrant might be justified.


Analysis | What we know about the warrant to surveil Carter Page
 
The memo was released as part of an investigation House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has been conducting over the past year into what HE characterizes as bias and corruption within the FBI and DOJ.

In particular, the Nunes memo, which was declassified Friday by President Donald Trump, alleges that top DOJ officials concealed the political motives behind a dossier they submitted as part of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to wiretap Carter Page, who worked as an early foreign-policy adviser on Trump's campaign.

The claim fueled accusations from Trump and his loyalists that the Russia investigation is not an independent inquiry into potential collusion between the campaign and Russia, but a Democrat-led "witch hunt" meant to undermine his presidency.

But The Washington Post reported late Friday night that the court that approved the warrant was aware at the time that the dossier's production was politically motivated.


One official with knowledge of the matter told The Post that the DOJ made "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" to the FISC which revealed "the research was being paid for by a political entity."

"No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion" other than that the dossier's production was carried out "at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump," they added.

The revelation appears to corroborate claims made in a 10-page rebuttal memo crafted by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. Sources told The New York Times on Friday that the Democratic memo also says the FBI informed the FISC that the dossier was politically motivated, but did not reveal which political entity specifically financed it.

The dossier, which was compiled by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele and alleges a number of improper ties between Trump and Russia, has become a central point of controversy as the Russia investigation picks up steam.

It was originally funded by a group of Republicans who opposed Trump during the Republican primaries. After Trump became the party's nominee, Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired the Perkins Coie law firm, which in turn retained the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS to fund the dossier's production.

Though Trump and his allies have slammed the document as "fake" and "phony" — and while it does contain some dubious allegations that have not been corroborated — both the FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee are using it as a "roadmap" in their investigations and have verified a number of its claims.

The central argument in the Nunes memo may have just been debunked
 
8. FBI agents Strzok and Page and McCabe talked over a plan to overturn the election….an ‘insurance policy’
you don't know that.... without context of the comment....

AND the Inspector general IS running an Investigation to find out....so hold your horses, young filly!
 
10. Obama knew about Hillary’s use of unsecured emails, as he conversed with her on same…kept his name out of the reports.
yes, he knew she was using a personal account, but he also knew the government set up a fax in her home to receive CLASSIFIED info on....

and yes, Obama has executive privilege with his cabinet.... the emails of his can be held back legally, fr a specific amount of time.... like with all presidents.
 
Last edited:
"..so what?"

I bet you wouldn't have that view if the Republicans had paid for same with a Democrat in the cross hairs.

Was the FISA judge told who paid for the 'research'?????


the FISC was informed the nature of that one particular source and it was taken into full consideration.

surveillance warrants were issued with full legal justification.

now trumptards would like to dismiss what the surveillance revealed because trump apologists wrote some "memos".

:laugh2:



Link or lie.
 
…and lots of evidence of associations of Democrats with the Kremlin….
like what? link?
And this:

3. "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal


...the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.


....major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.


Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,...."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html



And


4. "Both Hillary Clinton And John Podesta Made Millions From Russia & Putin"

Both Hillary Clinton And John Podesta Made Millions From Russia & Putin » Liberty Alliance


And


5. "EXCLUSIVE: Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank"

EXCLUSIVE: Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank



6. News anchor highlights all of the known links to Russia





-------------------------------------------------------------


Democrat collusion???



7. "Claire McCaskill Used Undisclosed Foundation to Pay for Dinner at Russian Ambassador’s House


Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) used a personal foundation to pay for a dinner she attended at Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak's Washington, D.C., residence. The senator had failed to disclose her role in the foundation until earlier this month.



McCaskill came under fire this March after she told the Washington Post she never had a "call or meeting" with Kislyak even though she had publicly announced both a call and meeting with him. This week, CNN reportedthat McCaskill also attended a black-tie reception at Kislyak's D.C. residence in November 2015.



McCaskill's attendance at the dinner was accompanied by an $873 payment to the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation, where Kislyak serves on its board of directors as honorary chairman."


Claire McCaskill Used Undisclosed Foundation to Pay for Dinner at Russian Ambassador's House




8. Podesta Group retroactively files more DOJ disclosures for pro-Putin work


...the powerful Washington lobbying firm run by Clinton ally Tony Podesta filed a document admitting its work for the pro-Russia European Centre for a Modern Ukraine may have principally benefited a foreign government. New disclosures revealed dozens of previously unreported interactions the firm made with influential government offices, including Hillary Clinton's State Department and the office of former Vice President Joe Biden, while lobbying on behalf of the center. Embattled ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort failed to disclose his extensive lobbying efforts on behalf of the center at the time as well.


How do you say 'whoops' in Russian? Podesta Group retroactively files more DOJ disclosures for pro-Putin work




9. And we now know.....

..

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.


b. Bill was slipped $500,000 to give a fake speech.
See a. above.

c. " Former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta exits after ... a company that received $35 million from the Russian government..."
http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/

d. "WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller,...violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA."
Mueller now investigating Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta
Russian spies influencing the Obama/Clinton administration via bribes.

e. In 11 months of thorough investigations, there has not been a smidgen of evidence of any connections of Trump to the Russians.




10. The ONLY ones with any collusion with Russia are Democrats.

The Democrats colluded, collaborated, conspired with Moscow, the Kremlin, Putin.....to sink the Trump candidacy.

And the Kremlin was happy to do so: they wanted the candidate that they had a history of bribing, to be President.


The only group that we know has colluded with, conspired with, contracted with, been bribed by, paid the Russians, the Kremlin, Moscow....


...are Democrats.
 
11. BTW…..Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein were all government officials when Hillary received the $145 million bribe for the sale of our uranium.
there was no bribe, period.

plus Hillary did not make the decision.

And this:

3. "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal


...the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.


....major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.


Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,...."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html



And


4. "Both Hillary Clinton And John Podesta Made Millions From Russia & Putin"

Both Hillary Clinton And John Podesta Made Millions From Russia & Putin » Liberty Alliance


And


5. "EXCLUSIVE: Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank"

EXCLUSIVE: Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank



6. News anchor highlights all of the known links to Russia





-------------------------------------------------------------


Democrat collusion???



7. "Claire McCaskill Used Undisclosed Foundation to Pay for Dinner at Russian Ambassador’s House


Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) used a personal foundation to pay for a dinner she attended at Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak's Washington, D.C., residence. The senator had failed to disclose her role in the foundation until earlier this month.



McCaskill came under fire this March after she told the Washington Post she never had a "call or meeting" with Kislyak even though she had publicly announced both a call and meeting with him. This week, CNN reportedthat McCaskill also attended a black-tie reception at Kislyak's D.C. residence in November 2015.



McCaskill's attendance at the dinner was accompanied by an $873 payment to the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation, where Kislyak serves on its board of directors as honorary chairman."


Claire McCaskill Used Undisclosed Foundation to Pay for Dinner at Russian Ambassador's House




8. Podesta Group retroactively files more DOJ disclosures for pro-Putin work


...the powerful Washington lobbying firm run by Clinton ally Tony Podesta filed a document admitting its work for the pro-Russia European Centre for a Modern Ukraine may have principally benefited a foreign government. New disclosures revealed dozens of previously unreported interactions the firm made with influential government offices, including Hillary Clinton's State Department and the office of former Vice President Joe Biden, while lobbying on behalf of the center. Embattled ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort failed to disclose his extensive lobbying efforts on behalf of the center at the time as well.


How do you say 'whoops' in Russian? Podesta Group retroactively files more DOJ disclosures for pro-Putin work




9. And we now know.....

..

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.


b. Bill was slipped $500,000 to give a fake speech.
See a. above.

c. " Former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta exits after ... a company that received $35 million from the Russian government..."
http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/

d. "WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller,...violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA."
Mueller now investigating Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta
Russian spies influencing the Obama/Clinton administration via bribes.

e. In 11 months of thorough investigations, there has not been a smidgen of evidence of any connections of Trump to the Russians.




10. The ONLY ones with any collusion with Russia are Democrats.

The Democrats colluded, collaborated, conspired with Moscow, the Kremlin, Putin.....to sink the Trump candidacy.

And the Kremlin was happy to do so: they wanted the candidate that they had a history of bribing, to be President.


The only group that we know has colluded with, conspired with, contracted with, been bribed by, paid the Russians, the Kremlin, Moscow....


...are Democrats.
 
You seem to ignore the fact that the Democrat voting base is 90% useful idiots who will deny (without logic) that anything and everything proposed, said or thought by conservatives is full of lies. The puerile useful idiot, nat4900 is a perfect example.



derrrp the FBI is a "conservative" agency.

comey and mueller were life-long registered republicans with highly esteemed law enforcement careers propelled by republicans.

YOU claim that "anything and everything" proposed by those men to DO THEIR JOBS, is "full of lies" because "politics"..??

and teflon don, who has made a living talking out of both sides of his mouth for personal gain, is just an innocent victim..??


:laugh2: go back to bed, you're dreaming........
 
1.The Hillary campaign paid for an anti-Trump Russian creation called the dossier
the DNC and the Clinton campaign did pay for opposition research, like everyone else out there, so what?


"..so what?"

I bet you wouldn't have that view if the Republicans had paid for same with a Democrat in the cross hairs.

Was the FISA judge told who paid for the 'research'?????
here, educate yourself on the topic... read more, at the link...


The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo

Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.

How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.

Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.

The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?

According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.

In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.

The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."

Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background information about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
 
....to point out, document, be able to dispute the facts that have come to light about this scandal, rather than the tantrums and 'is not, isssssss noootttttttt!' posts that have been provided.


Please....have a go:

1. “… the dossier was used by government officials to justify a spy warrant against Page,…. the FISA application “extensively” cited an Sept. 23, 2016 news article that was in effect planted by Fusion GPS.

2.That is significant because the article, written by veteran reporter Michael Isikoff, is itself based on the unverified dossier.
No evidence has emerged validating the claims made about Page in the dossier.

3. The FISA application made no mention of the link between the Isikoff article and the dossier. Instead, the article was treated as corroborating evidence for the dossier. The memo says that the FISA application “incorrectly assesse[d]” that the Isikoff article was based on information separate from the dossier.

4. …McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee in December that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”



5. The memo, which was crafted by House Republicans, also says that the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, told Congress that a FISA warrant against the campaign adviser, Carter Page, would not have been granted without use of the dossier. That despite the FBI later determining that very little of the Democrat-funded document was corroborated.



6. And in another stunning revelation, the memo asserts that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr was used to pass information from the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, to the DOJ.
Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked at the time for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm research firm that commissioned the dossier. Bruce Ohr, who worked closely with Deputy Attorney Generals Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, passed his wife’s opposition research on Trump to the FBI, the memo says.

7. Steele at one point told Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”



8.The memo notes that the Papadopoulos information “triggered” the FBI investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion.
It says that there is no evidence that Page and Papadopoulos engaged in a conspiracy. “
Spy Warrant Granted Based On Dossier And News Stories Planted By Fusion GPS




And let's agree from the start that, should you be unable to dispute the above.....the Right has proven its case vis-a-vis the great damage that the Obama era has done to the intell infrastructure, the faith citizens should have in their government, and Democrats in particular.



I fervently await your defense.....



no worries, shameless trumpette... rest assured, no matter the USMB posts herein, the FBI WILL make their case.


it behooooves trumptards to COOPERATE with (as in cease obstructing) our chief law enforcement agency.

again i ask, did clinton make them ALL lie to the FBI ??

:laugh2:
 
You seem to ignore the fact that the Democrat voting base is 90% useful idiots who will deny (without logic) that anything and everything proposed, said or thought by conservatives is full of lies. The puerile useful idiot, nat4900 is a perfect example.



derrrp the FBI is a "conservative" agency.

comey and mueller were life-long registered republicans with highly esteemed law enforcement careers propelled by republicans.

YOU claim that "anything and everything" proposed by those men to DO THEIR JOBS, is "full of lies" because "politics"..??

and teflon don, who has made a living talking out of both sides of his mouth for personal gain, is just an innocent victim..??


:laugh2: go back to bed, you're dreaming........
Just as we have RINOs in Congress, we have left leaning "conservatives" among us. Comey shielded bitchillary on orders from his liberal boss.
 
1815312_3

The Memo Doesn’t Vindicate Trump. It’s More Proof of Obstruction.
 
....to point out, document, be able to dispute the facts that have come to light about this scandal, rather than the tantrums and 'is not, isssssss noootttttttt!' posts that have been provided.


Please....have a go:

1. “… the dossier was used by government officials to justify a spy warrant against Page,…. the FISA application “extensively” cited an Sept. 23, 2016 news article that was in effect planted by Fusion GPS.

2.That is significant because the article, written by veteran reporter Michael Isikoff, is itself based on the unverified dossier.
No evidence has emerged validating the claims made about Page in the dossier.

3. The FISA application made no mention of the link between the Isikoff article and the dossier. Instead, the article was treated as corroborating evidence for the dossier. The memo says that the FISA application “incorrectly assesse[d]” that the Isikoff article was based on information separate from the dossier.

4. …McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee in December that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”



5. The memo, which was crafted by House Republicans, also says that the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, told Congress that a FISA warrant against the campaign adviser, Carter Page, would not have been granted without use of the dossier. That despite the FBI later determining that very little of the Democrat-funded document was corroborated.



6. And in another stunning revelation, the memo asserts that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr was used to pass information from the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, to the DOJ.
Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked at the time for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm research firm that commissioned the dossier. Bruce Ohr, who worked closely with Deputy Attorney Generals Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, passed his wife’s opposition research on Trump to the FBI, the memo says.

7. Steele at one point told Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”



8.The memo notes that the Papadopoulos information “triggered” the FBI investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion.
It says that there is no evidence that Page and Papadopoulos engaged in a conspiracy. “
Spy Warrant Granted Based On Dossier And News Stories Planted By Fusion GPS




And let's agree from the start that, should you be unable to dispute the above.....the Right has proven its case vis-a-vis the great damage that the Obama era has done to the intell infrastructure, the faith citizens should have in their government, and Democrats in particular.



I fervently await your defense.....



no worries, shameless trumpette... rest assured, no matter the USMB posts herein, the FBI WILL make their case.


it behooooves trumptards to COOPERATE with (as in cease obstructing) our chief law enforcement agency.

again i ask, did clinton make them ALL lie to the FBI ??

:laugh2:
The FBI has no case. Mueller and his minions are frantically searching for something that will serve as basis for indictment. They have been under this futile effort for 11 months now. The only "thing" they have at this time is based on made up shit.
 
The smarter democrats are abandoning their party. I’ve talked with several who are disgusted with what they’ve been doing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top