When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

[The Original Tree]

Impeach 44? You understand Obama hasn't been president for a while, and you can't impeach someone who isn't in office, don't you goober?

he can still be impeached.

Please list all the times anyone has ever been impeached after leaving office.

what's that got to do with anything? LOL. your question should be is it allowed.

I'll decide what my question should be, if you don't mind.

had nothing to do with my statement. But go figure you'd respond correctly. you responded with a question that had no meaning. I was redirecting you to ask a question with meaning, but you aren't interested in meaning.

Obama Should and Will be The First President to be both Impeached after leaving office, Face Criminal Trial and spend the rest of his life in prison.

Trying to overthrow our Democracy will not be taken lightly.

 

[jc456]

he can still be impeached.

Please list all the times anyone has ever been impeached after leaving office.

what's that got to do with anything? LOL. your question should be is it allowed.

I'll decide what my question should be, if you don't mind.

had nothing to do with my statement. But go figure you'd respond correctly. you responded with a question that had no meaning. I was redirecting you to ask a question with meaning, but you aren't interested in meaning.

The question has meaning. I can't help it if that meaning makes you uncomfortable.

there has never been a need in the past. Now there may be a need. You are working from the premise that it hasn't been done rather than can it be done.

 

[BULLDOG]

he can still be impeached.

Please list all the times anyone has ever been impeached after leaving office.

what's that got to do with anything? LOL. your question should be is it allowed.

I'll decide what my question should be, if you don't mind.

had nothing to do with my statement. But go figure you'd respond correctly. you responded with a question that had no meaning. I was redirecting you to ask a question with meaning, but you aren't interested in meaning.

Obama Should and Will be The First President to be both Impeached after leaving office, Face Criminal Trial and spend the rest of his life in prison.

Trying to overthrow our Democracy will not be taken lightly.

Oh goodie. When will that happen?

 

[bendog]

Even the Hill is finally taking notice.

As more of the secret evidence used to justify the Russia probe becomes public, an increasingly dark portrait of the FBI’s conduct emerges.

The bureau, under a Democratic-controlled Justice Department, sought a warrant to spy on the duly nominated GOP candidate for president in the final weeks of the 2016 election, based on evidence that was generated under a contract paid by his political opponent.

That evidence, the Steele dossier, was not fully vetted by the bureau and was deemed unverified months after the warrant was issued.

At least one news article was used in the FISA warrant to bolster the dossier as independent corroboration when, it fact, it was traced to a news organization that had been in contact with Steele, creating a high likelihood it was circular-intelligence reporting.

And the entire warrant, the FBI’s own text message shows, was being rushed to approval by two agents who hated Trump and stated in their own texts that they wanted to “stop” the Republican from becoming president.

If ever there were grounds to investigate the investigators, these facts provide the justification.

FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet

Damn that Obama for spreading LIES and flipping the election to Hillary. Damn him

 

[BULLDOG]

Please list all the times anyone has ever been impeached after leaving office.

what's that got to do with anything? LOL. your question should be is it allowed.

I'll decide what my question should be, if you don't mind.

had nothing to do with my statement. But go figure you'd respond correctly. you responded with a question that had no meaning. I was redirecting you to ask a question with meaning, but you aren't interested in meaning.

The question has meaning. I can't help it if that meaning makes you uncomfortable.

there has never been a need in the past. Now there may be a need. You are working from the premise that it hasn't been done rather than can it be done.

So what are you going for? You wanna kick him out of office, or do you intend to keep him from running for office again? That's all an impeachment can do, ya know.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What are you talking about?

Post some links.

you want links cause you're too lazy to look up the facts. too fking funny. can't you leftists figure out the internet yet? look up rosenstein firing. see what you get. I'll help you to the water horsie.

I want links because your posts are unintelligible.

Rosenstein wasn't fired, dope.

I never said he was. You're a lazy fk.

Rep. Jordan, Rep. Meadows Introduce Articles of Impeachment Against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

You said the "rosenstein firing".
Where did those impeachment plans go, dope?

nowhere. I was merely backing up my previous statement that the congress subpoena'd the warrant.

So what's your point?

 

[jc456]

what's that got to do with anything? LOL. your question should be is it allowed.

I'll decide what my question should be, if you don't mind.

had nothing to do with my statement. But go figure you'd respond correctly. you responded with a question that had no meaning. I was redirecting you to ask a question with meaning, but you aren't interested in meaning.

The question has meaning. I can't help it if that meaning makes you uncomfortable.

there has never been a need in the past. Now there may be a need. You are working from the premise that it hasn't been done rather than can it be done.

So what are you going for? You wanna kick him out of office, or do you intend to keep him from running for office again? That's all an impeachment can do, ya know.

Congress can keep him from holding any further government jobs.

 

[jc456]

you want links cause you're too lazy to look up the facts. too fking funny. can't you leftists figure out the internet yet? look up rosenstein firing. see what you get. I'll help you to the water horsie.

I want links because your posts are unintelligible.

Rosenstein wasn't fired, dope.

I never said he was. You're a lazy fk.

Rep. Jordan, Rep. Meadows Introduce Articles of Impeachment Against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

You said the "rosenstein firing".
Where did those impeachment plans go, dope?

nowhere. I was merely backing up my previous statement that the congress subpoena'd the warrant.

So what's your point?

to keep him from holding any other government job and money.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'll decide what my question should be, if you don't mind.

had nothing to do with my statement. But go figure you'd respond correctly. you responded with a question that had no meaning. I was redirecting you to ask a question with meaning, but you aren't interested in meaning.

The question has meaning. I can't help it if that meaning makes you uncomfortable.

there has never been a need in the past. Now there may be a need. You are working from the premise that it hasn't been done rather than can it be done.

So what are you going for? You wanna kick him out of office, or do you intend to keep him from running for office again? That's all an impeachment can do, ya know.

Congress can keep him from holding any further government jobs.

I'm pretty sure that's not gonna be a problem.

 

[jc456]

had nothing to do with my statement. But go figure you'd respond correctly. you responded with a question that had no meaning. I was redirecting you to ask a question with meaning, but you aren't interested in meaning.

The question has meaning. I can't help it if that meaning makes you uncomfortable.

there has never been a need in the past. Now there may be a need. You are working from the premise that it hasn't been done rather than can it be done.

So what are you going for? You wanna kick him out of office, or do you intend to keep him from running for office again? That's all an impeachment can do, ya know.

Congress can keep him from holding any further government jobs.

I'm pretty sure that's not gonna be a problem.

ensures it. I'll bet there many other things he could lose.

 

[BULLDOG]

The question has meaning. I can't help it if that meaning makes you uncomfortable.

there has never been a need in the past. Now there may be a need. You are working from the premise that it hasn't been done rather than can it be done.

So what are you going for? You wanna kick him out of office, or do you intend to keep him from running for office again? That's all an impeachment can do, ya know.

Congress can keep him from holding any further government jobs.

I'm pretty sure that's not gonna be a problem.

ensures it. I'll bet there many other things he could lose.

Enough. You're just being a whiny bitch. No rational meaning in any of your latest posts.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I want links because your posts are unintelligible.

Rosenstein wasn't fired, dope.

I never said he was. You're a lazy fk.

Rep. Jordan, Rep. Meadows Introduce Articles of Impeachment Against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

You said the "rosenstein firing".
Where did those impeachment plans go, dope?

nowhere. I was merely backing up my previous statement that the congress subpoena'd the warrant.

So what's your point?

to keep him from holding any other government job and money.

LOL.
What does that have to do with what I said about when the investigation started? ...

 

[jc456]

there has never been a need in the past. Now there may be a need. You are working from the premise that it hasn't been done rather than can it be done.

So what are you going for? You wanna kick him out of office, or do you intend to keep him from running for office again? That's all an impeachment can do, ya know.

Congress can keep him from holding any further government jobs.

I'm pretty sure that's not gonna be a problem.

ensures it. I'll bet there many other things he could lose.

Enough. You're just being a whiny bitch. No rational meaning in any of your latest posts.

asked and answered.

 

[jc456]

I never said he was. You're a lazy fk.

Rep. Jordan, Rep. Meadows Introduce Articles of Impeachment Against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

You said the "rosenstein firing".
Where did those impeachment plans go, dope?

nowhere. I was merely backing up my previous statement that the congress subpoena'd the warrant.

So what's your point?

to keep him from holding any other government job and money.

LOL.
What does that have to do with what I said about when the investigation started? ...

yep, my bad wrong poster. happens. Doesn't bother me to apologize for an error.

 

[jc456]

You said the "rosenstein firing".
Where did those impeachment plans go, dope?

nowhere. I was merely backing up my previous statement that the congress subpoena'd the warrant.

So what's your point?

to keep him from holding any other government job and money.

LOL.
What does that have to do with what I said about when the investigation started? ...

yep, my bad wrong poster. happens. Doesn't bother me to apologize for an error.

Hutch Starskey you're a man with no class at all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

nowhere. I was merely backing up my previous statement that the congress subpoena'd the warrant.

So what's your point?

to keep him from holding any other government job and money.

LOL.
What does that have to do with what I said about when the investigation started? ...

yep, my bad wrong poster. happens. Doesn't bother me to apologize for an error.

Hutch Starskey you're a man with no class at all.

Yeah, well, you're a dope. We all have our burdens.

 

[dudmuck]

Only thing this article says is the FBI had concerns about the main evidence used to support the warrant. But fast-forward to today, we've found much of whats in that dossier turned up true. So effectively this is like "the issue is NOT that we were colluding with Russia, the issue is that YOU found out!"
Additionally, just look at John F Solomon... repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.

name one thing from the dossier proven. I'll wait.

• Cohen played a "key role" in the Trump–Russia relationship by maintaining a "covert relationship with Russia", arranging cover-ups and "deniable cash payments", and that his role had grown after Manafort had left the campaign. (Dossier, pp. 18, 30, 32, 34–35)
  
  
• "COHEN now was heavily engaged in a cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of TRUMP's relationship with Russia being exposed." (Dossier, p. 32)

you should look up the word covert. LOL. Trump was doing business in Russia. We do that as part of globalization laws. Cohen was his lawyer. Ever buy a house? you should have a lawyer. just in case you didn't know. And again, look up what covert means. and then you can tell me how trump was having a covert relationship.
bullet two: huh? wtf are you talking about and how is that on the dossier exactly?

Covert? because Cohen lied about it. Purpose of lying is to keep something covert. Even Trump himself said no business in Russia.

bullet two: page number provided. see here.

not when he was running, nope. it isn't a lie either. it isn't a crime either. you all making up crimes to make up crimes. funny shit I tell you.

The project fell through, before the election.

Keep telling yourself that offering a $50 million penthouse to Putin is legal. There are so many lies surround this, it all stinks.

As far as attorney-client privilege; it doesnt apply when laws are broken.

 

[Crepitus]

Where was The Hill wrong?

They were dead on.

Yeah... Nope.

Yet you refuse to point out where The Hill is wrong.

Which makes you a pathetic partisan liar.

For starters, it's an Op/Ed by a conservative, not a news article. Second, it's just a re-hash of crap the conservatives have been pushing for months to keep.their kinds offa the real stuff.

Newsflash: Papers only allow editorials they agree with.

Not true, well not true for non-rwnj sites at least.

^^^^^^^STUPID^^^^^^^^

can't get any more stupid than your post here.

Really? How many of the rwnj conspiracy theories you see on those sites have come true?

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah, nope.

Where was The Hill wrong?

They were dead on.

Yeah... Nope.

LOL you just proved you’re a clueless hack yet again.

Wrong again kid. You gullible fools are allowing yourselves to be led around by the nose as usual.

no, I think he was spot on, you're a clueless hack.

Were your ears burning when I said "gullible fools"?

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah... Nope.

Yet you refuse to point out where The Hill is wrong.

Which makes you a pathetic partisan liar.

For starters, it's an Op/Ed by a conservative, not a news article. Second, it's just a re-hash of crap the conservatives have been pushing for months to keep.their kinds offa the real stuff.

Newsflash: Papers only allow editorials they agree with.

Not true, well not true for non-rwnj sites at least.

Oh? How many columns has any newspaper given you?

Several in fact, what does that have to do with anything?