Comrade TSA never gives up the fight for mother russia!
Seemed like you brought up the fact it was disclosed as oppo research to FISC was something honorable or something. I really have no clue why you brought it up I just found it funny you brought up it was disclosed to the FISC without bringing up everything that wasn't disclosed to the FISC about it.
Goalpost change noted, but both Mueller and Durham work with the FBI and for all we know had access to the same info.
You simply cannot claim incompetence, negligence or conspiracies on any one part because charges were filed now instead of a year, two, three or four ago. If you do, then logically the contention clearly applies just as equally to Mueller as it does to Durham who's been on the case for over a year now.
You're also taking a leap of faith that this particular person lying automatically means collusion or conspiracy, despite that a lot of people lied to the FBI (and were caught and tried thanks to Mueller) and yet Mueller conclusion was that there was no evidence of collusion.
So maybe it's time to take a step back, stop falling for every twitterazi out there and let the pros do their job.
Of course it was at the very least the right thing to do. There was never anything hidden to the FISC judge about what the purpose of the report was. That clearly put the FBI in much more legal solid ground as far as their request for a FISA warrant.
I brought it up because this case actually centers on the Steele report, doesn't it? Isn't your fake outrage all about Mueller allegedly not looking into the sourcing of the report?
There was no goal post move by me. You were confused by sr21's mistake and ran with it, I'll forgive you.
Again, it's not about the charges for me that make me claim incompetence or negligence. And I didn't call it on any one part I called it on Steele/Sussman/Danchenko. Mueller and Durham had access to the same info, and I'm totally confident claiming incompetence or negligence on the part of Mueller's team for either not investigating or investigating and leaving out of report.You simply cannot claim incompetence, negligence or conspiracies on any one part because charges were filed now instead of a year, two, three or four ago. If you do, then logically the contention clearly applies just as equally to Mueller as it does to Durham who's been on the case for over a year now.
Clinton campaign definitely cooked up a conspiracy, and it's laughable to deny that. It's also looking like Clinton campaign were the one's colluding with Russians lol.You're also taking a leap of faith that this particular person lying automatically means collusion or conspiracy, despite that a lot of people lied to the FBI (and were caught and tried thanks to Mueller) and yet Mueller conclusion was that there was no evidence of collusion.
The pros are doing their job now. Senile Mueller and his hyper partisan team are thankfully are no longer on the case.So maybe it's time to take a step back, stop falling for every twitterazi out there and let the pros do their job.
The purpose of the report was to Trump. There was nothing honorable about what the FBI did in seeking out the warrant against Page. They hid and omitted plenty from the FISC and lied to the court on all four applications.
You bring less than Derp. That is tough to do.
This is silly, let me remind you once again people can read your previous posts in this thread.
It doesn't matter what you are confident about, this isn't about your hunches. And you sure did frame it directly as such:
According to you, Durham also knew about this lying since last year, but he's only pressing charges now (on the Steele/Sussman/Danchenko matter). Is his investigation also incompetent or negligent? Why the double standard?
And pressing charges is entirely material to the discussion since it's how we find out about these things, seeing that Durham released no reports so far.
It's laughable because Techno says so? Or is it Q chilling next to Airforce One? lmao
What's sort of weird is that you called into question Durham's own credibility...
It was oppo research. It implies that it was created to indeed Trump chances to become President. That's what oppo research is.
The only reason it was elevated to a formal investigation is that there were alleged national security implications if some of it was true. That's why we have secret courts to explore natsec issues.
"They" was in reference to the FBI, before Mueller was appointed. People can clearly read that, well, except for you and sr21. You are again wrongly conflating the two, just like sr21 did. Your conflation leads you to ask dumb questions like what about muh double standard.
Mueller did release a report, there was nothing in it about Steele/Sussman/Danchenko. If Mueller's team was competent they would have investigated that aspect as they were tasked to investigate collusion with Russians. Danchenko was already investigated by the FBI in 2009, while Mueller was the FBI director
can you remind me what was lied about on all 4? from what i recall know clinesmith's email thingy only made it into the 4th application
Long time Clinton advisor feeds allegations to Danchenko. Danchenko feeds allegations to Steele. Steele feeds allegations to Fusion and FBI. Fusion feeds allegations to media. FBI uses allegations from Steele and media stories to apply for FISA warrants all the while having so many misstatements and omissions in the applications that the FISC would later say there was no probable cause to issue the warrants on Page.
Pardon the formatting
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
As more fully described in Chapter Five, based
upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016,
the first application contained the following seven
significant inaccuracies and omissions:
1.Omitted information the FBI had obtained from
another U.S. government agency detailing its
prior relationship with Page, including that Page
had been approved as an "operational contact"
for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and
that Page had provided information to the other
agency concerning his prior contacts with certain
Russian intelligence officers, one of which
overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA
application;
2.Included a source characterization statement
asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been
"corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,"which overstated the significance of Steele's past
reporting and was not approved by Steele's
handling agent, as required by the Woods
Procedures;
3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of
Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was
attributed with providing the information in
Report 95 and some of the information in
Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the
application), namely that ( 1) Steele himself told
members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that
Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and
" may engage in some embellishment" and (2)
the FBI had opened a counterintelligence
investigation on Person 1 a few days before the
FISA application was filed;
4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele
did not directly provide to the press information
in the September 23 Yahoo News article based
on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that
he only shared his election-related research with
the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; t his premise
was incorrect and contradicted by do entation
in the Woods File-Steele had told the FBI that
he also gave his information to the State
Department;
5. Omitted Papadopou los's consensually monitored
statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016
denying that anyone associated wit h the Trum p
campaign was collaborating with Russia or with
outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of
emails;
6. Omitted Page 's consensually monitored
statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that
Page had " literally never met" or "said one word
to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not
responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those
statements were in t ension with cla ims in Report
95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy
with Russia by acting as an intermediary for
Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and
7. Included Page's consensually monitored
statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that
the FBI believed supported its theory that Page
was an agent of Russia but omitted other
statements Page made that were inconsistent
with its theory, includ ing denying having met
with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who
Divyekin was; if true, those statements
co ntradicted the claims in Report 94 that Pa ge had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about
future cooperation with Russia and shared
derogatory information about ca ndidate Clinton.
None of these inaccuracies and omissions were
brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA
application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these
failures were repeated in all three r enewal applications.
Fu rther, as we discuss lat er, we identified 10 additional
significant errors in the renewa l applications.
========
The Three Renewal Ap plicat ion s f or
Continued FI SA Authority o n Ca rte r Page
As noted above, t he FBI filed three renewal
applications wit h t he FISC, on January 12, April 7, and
June 29, 2017. In addition to repeat ing the seven
significant errors contained in the first FISA application
and outlined above, we identified 10 additional significant errors in t he three renewal applications,
based upon information known to t he FBI after the first
applica tion and before one or more of the renewals. We
describe the cir stances surrou nding these 10 errors
in Chapter Eight, and provide a chart list ing additional
errors in Appendix One. As more fully described in
Chapter Eight, the renewal applications:
8. Om itted the fact that Steele's Primary Sub-
source, who the FBI fou nd credible, had made
statements in January 2017 raisi ng significant
questions about the re li ability of allegations
included in the FISA applications, in cluding, for
example, that he/she d id not reca ll any
discussion wit h Person 1 concerning Wikileaks
and there was "nothing bad " about t he
communications between the Kremlin and t he
Trump team, and that he/she did not report to
Steele in July 2016 that Page had met with
Sechin;
9. Omitted Page's prior relationship with another
U.S. government agency, despite being
reminded by the other agency in June 2017,
prior to the fil ing of the fi nal renewal
appl ication, about Page's past st atus with t hat
other agency; instead of including this
information in the f inal renewal application, the
OGC Attorney altered an email from the other
agency so t hat the email stated t hat Page was
" not a sou rce" for the other agency, which the
FBI affiant relied upon in signing t he final
renewal application;
10. Omitted information from persons who
previously had professional contacts w it h Steele
or had direct knowledge of his work-related
performance, i ncludi ng statements that Steele
had no history of reporting in bad faith but
"[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor
judgment," "pursued people with polit ical risk
but no intelligence value," "didn't a lways
exercise g reat judgment," and it was " not clear
what he would have done to va lidate" his
reporting;
11. Omitted information obtained from Ohr about
Steele and his election reporting, including that
( 1) Steele's reporting was going to Clinton's
presidential campaign and others, (2) Simpson
was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with
t he media, and (3) Steele was " desperate t hat
Donald Trump not get elected and was
passio nate about him not being the U.S.
President";
12. Failed to update the description of Steele after
information became known to the Crossfire
Hurricane t eam, from Ohr and others, that
provided greater clarity on t he political origins
and connections of Steele's reporting, including
t hat Simpson was hired by someone associated
with the Democratic Party and/or the DNC;
13. Failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA
application that the FBI did not believe that
Steele directly provided info rmation to the
reporter who wrote the September 23 Yahoo
News article, even though there was no
information in the Woods File to support this
claim and even after certain Crossfire Hurricane
officials learned in 2017, before t he third
renewal applicatio n, of an admission that Steele
made in a court filing about his interactions with
the news media in the late summer and ea rly
fall of 2016;
14. Omitted the finding from a FBI source validation
report that Steele was suitable for continued
operation but that his past contribu tions to the
FBI's criminal program had been " minimally
corroborated," and instead continued to assert
in the source characterization statement that
Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated
and used in cr iminal proceedings";
15. Omitted Papadopoulos's statements to an FBI
CHS in late October 2016 denying that the
Trump ca mpaign was involved in t he
cir stances of the DNC email hack;
16. Omitted Joseph Mifsud's denials to the FBI that
he suppli ed Papadopoulos with the information
Papadopoulos sha red with the FFG (suggesting
that the campaign received an offer or
suggestion of assistance from Russia); and
17. Omitted info rmation indicating that Page played
no role in the Republican platform change on
Russia's annexation of Ukraine as alleged in the
Report 95, which was inconsistent w ith a factual
assertion relied upon to support probable cause
in all four FISA applications.
Among the most serio us of the 10 additional
errors we found in the renewal applications was the
FBI's fai lure to advise OJ or the court of the
inconsistences, described in detail in Chapter Six,
between Steele and his Primary Sub- source on t he
reporting relied upon in the FISA applications. Although
the Primary Sub-source's account of these
communications, if t rue, was not consistent with and, in
fact, contradicted the allegations of a "well- developed conspiracy" in Reports 95 and 102 attributed to Person
1 the FBI did not share this information with 01. The
FBI also fa il ed to share other inconsistencies with OJ,
including the Primary Sub-source's account of the
alleged meeting between Page and Sechin in Steele's
Report 94 and his/her descriptions of the source
network. The fact that the Primary Sub- sou rce's
account contradicted key assertions attri buted to
his/her own sub-sources in Steele's Reports 94, 95, and
102 shou ld have generated significant discussions
between t he Crossfire Hurricane team and OJ prior to
submitting the next FISA renewal application.
Accord ing to Evans, had OJ been made aware of the
information, such discussions might have included the
possibility of foregoi ng the renewal request altogether,
at least unt il the FBI reconciled the differences between
Steele's accou nt and the Primary Sub-source's account
to the satisfaction of 01. However, we found no
evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team ever
considered whether any of the inconsistencies
warrant ed reconsideration of the FBI's assessment of
the re liability of the Steele reports or notice to OJ
before the subseque nt renewal applications were filed.
Instead, the second and third renewal
applications provid ed no substantive information
concerning the Primary Sub- source's interview, and
offered only a brief conclusory statement that the FBI
met with the Primary Su b-sour ce "[i]n an effort to
fu rther corroborate Steele's reporting " and found the
Primary Sub-source to be "truthful and cooperat ive."
We believe that including this st atement, w it hout also
informing OJ and the court that the Primary Sub-
source's account of events contradicted key assertions
in Steele's reporting, left a misimpression that the
Primary Sub- source had corroborated the Steele
reporting. I ndeed, in a letter to the FISC in July 2018,
before learn ing of t hese inconsistencies from us during
this review, t he Department defended the reliability of
Steele's reporting and the FISA applications by citing, in
part, to the Primary Sub-source's interview as
"additional information co r roborating [Steele's]
reporting" and noting the FBI's determinat ion that
he/she was "truthful and cooperative."
=================
Danchenko told the FBI in 2017 that Steele and his dossier were full of and they ignored that, hid it from the FISC, and pressed on.
i didnt need a copypasta, you could have just written somethin out
There were 10 more instances on top of the 7 from the first app. Was much easier to just copy paste in a ty format.i didnt need a copypasta, you could have just written somethin out
You got confused for derp. Bravo.
I'm sure everyone here can't wait to dive into this wall salad.Pardon the formatting
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
As more fully described in Chapter Five, based
upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016,
the first application contained the following seven
significant inaccuracies and omissions:
1.Omitted information the FBI had obtained from
another U.S. government agency detailing its
prior relationship with Page, including that Page
had been approved as an "operational contact"
for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and
that Page had provided information to the other
agency concerning his prior contacts with certain
Russian intelligence officers, one of which
overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA
application;
2.Included a source characterization statement
asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been
"corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,"which overstated the significance of Steele's past
reporting and was not approved by Steele's
handling agent, as required by the Woods
Procedures;
3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of
Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was
attributed with providing the information in
Report 95 and some of the information in
Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the
application), namely that ( 1) Steele himself told
members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that
Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and
" may engage in some embellishment" and (2)
the FBI had opened a counterintelligence
investigation on Person 1 a few days before the
FISA application was filed;
4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele
did not directly provide to the press information
in the September 23 Yahoo News article based
on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that
he only shared his election-related research with
the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; t his premise
was incorrect and contradicted by do entation
in the Woods File-Steele had told the FBI that
he also gave his information to the State
Department;
5. Omitted Papadopou los's consensually monitored
statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016
denying that anyone associated wit h the Trum p
campaign was collaborating with Russia or with
outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of
emails;
6. Omitted Page 's consensually monitored
statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that
Page had " literally never met" or "said one word
to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not
responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those
statements were in t ension with cla ims in Report
95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy
with Russia by acting as an intermediary for
Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and
7. Included Page's consensually monitored
statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that
the FBI believed supported its theory that Page
was an agent of Russia but omitted other
statements Page made that were inconsistent
with its theory, includ ing denying having met
with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who
Divyekin was; if true, those statements
co ntradicted the claims in Report 94 that Pa ge had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about
future cooperation with Russia and shared
derogatory information about ca ndidate Clinton.
None of these inaccuracies and omissions were
brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA
application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these
failures were repeated in all three r enewal applications.
Fu rther, as we discuss lat er, we identified 10 additional
significant errors in the renewa l applications.
========
The Three Renewal Ap plicat ion s f or
Continued FI SA Authority o n Ca rte r Page
As noted above, t he FBI filed three renewal
applications wit h t he FISC, on January 12, April 7, and
June 29, 2017. In addition to repeat ing the seven
significant errors contained in the first FISA application
and outlined above, we identified 10 additional significant errors in t he three renewal applications,
based upon information known to t he FBI after the first
applica tion and before one or more of the renewals. We
describe the cir stances surrou nding these 10 errors
in Chapter Eight, and provide a chart list ing additional
errors in Appendix One. As more fully described in
Chapter Eight, the renewal applications:
8. Om itted the fact that Steele's Primary Sub-
source, who the FBI fou nd credible, had made
statements in January 2017 raisi ng significant
questions about the re li ability of allegations
included in the FISA applications, in cluding, for
example, that he/she d id not reca ll any
discussion wit h Person 1 concerning Wikileaks
and there was "nothing bad " about t he
communications between the Kremlin and t he
Trump team, and that he/she did not report to
Steele in July 2016 that Page had met with
Sechin;
9. Omitted Page's prior relationship with another
U.S. government agency, despite being
reminded by the other agency in June 2017,
prior to the fil ing of the fi nal renewal
appl ication, about Page's past st atus with t hat
other agency; instead of including this
information in the f inal renewal application, the
OGC Attorney altered an email from the other
agency so t hat the email stated t hat Page was
" not a sou rce" for the other agency, which the
FBI affiant relied upon in signing t he final
renewal application;
10. Omitted information from persons who
previously had professional contacts w it h Steele
or had direct knowledge of his work-related
performance, i ncludi ng statements that Steele
had no history of reporting in bad faith but
"[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor
judgment," "pursued people with polit ical risk
but no intelligence value," "didn't a lways
exercise g reat judgment," and it was " not clear
what he would have done to va lidate" his
reporting;
11. Omitted information obtained from Ohr about
Steele and his election reporting, including that
( 1) Steele's reporting was going to Clinton's
presidential campaign and others, (2) Simpson
was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with
t he media, and (3) Steele was " desperate t hat
Donald Trump not get elected and was
passio nate about him not being the U.S.
President";
12. Failed to update the description of Steele after
information became known to the Crossfire
Hurricane t eam, from Ohr and others, that
provided greater clarity on t he political origins
and connections of Steele's reporting, including
t hat Simpson was hired by someone associated
with the Democratic Party and/or the DNC;
13. Failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA
application that the FBI did not believe that
Steele directly provided info rmation to the
reporter who wrote the September 23 Yahoo
News article, even though there was no
information in the Woods File to support this
claim and even after certain Crossfire Hurricane
officials learned in 2017, before t he third
renewal applicatio n, of an admission that Steele
made in a court filing about his interactions with
the news media in the late summer and ea rly
fall of 2016;
14. Omitted the finding from a FBI source validation
report that Steele was suitable for continued
operation but that his past contribu tions to the
FBI's criminal program had been " minimally
corroborated," and instead continued to assert
in the source characterization statement that
Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated
and used in cr iminal proceedings";
15. Omitted Papadopoulos's statements to an FBI
CHS in late October 2016 denying that the
Trump ca mpaign was involved in t he
cir stances of the DNC email hack;
16. Omitted Joseph Mifsud's denials to the FBI that
he suppli ed Papadopoulos with the information
Papadopoulos sha red with the FFG (suggesting
that the campaign received an offer or
suggestion of assistance from Russia); and
17. Omitted info rmation indicating that Page played
no role in the Republican platform change on
Russia's annexation of Ukraine as alleged in the
Report 95, which was inconsistent w ith a factual
assertion relied upon to support probable cause
in all four FISA applications.
Among the most serio us of the 10 additional
errors we found in the renewal applications was the
FBI's fai lure to advise OJ or the court of the
inconsistences, described in detail in Chapter Six,
between Steele and his Primary Sub- source on t he
reporting relied upon in the FISA applications. Although
the Primary Sub-source's account of these
communications, if t rue, was not consistent with and, in
fact, contradicted the allegations of a "well- developed conspiracy" in Reports 95 and 102 attributed to Person
1 the FBI did not share this information with 01. The
FBI also fa il ed to share other inconsistencies with OJ,
including the Primary Sub-source's account of the
alleged meeting between Page and Sechin in Steele's
Report 94 and his/her descriptions of the source
network. The fact that the Primary Sub- sou rce's
account contradicted key assertions attri buted to
his/her own sub-sources in Steele's Reports 94, 95, and
102 shou ld have generated significant discussions
between t he Crossfire Hurricane team and OJ prior to
submitting the next FISA renewal application.
Accord ing to Evans, had OJ been made aware of the
information, such discussions might have included the
possibility of foregoi ng the renewal request altogether,
at least unt il the FBI reconciled the differences between
Steele's accou nt and the Primary Sub-source's account
to the satisfaction of 01. However, we found no
evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team ever
considered whether any of the inconsistencies
warrant ed reconsideration of the FBI's assessment of
the re liability of the Steele reports or notice to OJ
before the subseque nt renewal applications were filed.
Instead, the second and third renewal
applications provid ed no substantive information
concerning the Primary Sub- source's interview, and
offered only a brief conclusory statement that the FBI
met with the Primary Su b-sour ce "[i]n an effort to
fu rther corroborate Steele's reporting " and found the
Primary Sub-source to be "truthful and cooperat ive."
We believe that including this st atement, w it hout also
informing OJ and the court that the Primary Sub-
source's account of events contradicted key assertions
in Steele's reporting, left a misimpression that the
Primary Sub- source had corroborated the Steele
reporting. I ndeed, in a letter to the FISC in July 2018,
before learn ing of t hese inconsistencies from us during
this review, t he Department defended the reliability of
Steele's reporting and the FISA applications by citing, in
part, to the Primary Sub-source's interview as
"additional information co r roborating [Steele's]
reporting" and noting the FBI's determinat ion that
he/she was "truthful and cooperative."
=================
Danchenko told the FBI in 2017 that Steele and his dossier were full of and they ignored that, hid it from the FISC, and pressed on.
I can smell the cuck hurt from California.
Whatever you say, Cuck.
I don't think your conspiracy is very clear at all. So the FBI are the ones that lied and didn't tell Mueller, but once Brandon got the right people at the FBI, they did told Durham?
Or the FBI told both, and both of them sit on it for a long ass time? Which one is it?
We're going in circles. Steele/Sussman/Danchenko (and Clinton) were not part of any investigation at the time. Again, the allegations at the time were that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, which was reinforced after it was known that Flynn lied to the VP about talking to the Russian ambassador.Mueller did release a report, there was nothing in it about Steele/Sussman/Danchenko. If Mueller's team was competent they would have investigated that aspect as they were tasked to investigate collusion with Russians. Danchenko was already investigated by the FBI in 2009, while Mueller was the FBI director
Mueller and Durham are not investigating the same thing either. I have zero problem with Durham's investigation, and I'll read his conclusions whenever they come up or when he speaks (just like I did with Mueller).
The problem I see here are useful idiots that try to spread fake news to establish a narrative by consistently jumping to conclusions that end up making them look stupid. Happened with the Mueller report, happened with the OIG report, happened with GUCCIFER 2.0, happened with Pizzagate, etc, etc, etc
People with room temperate IQ and above generally realize they've been used as fools, take a step back and use some critical thinking to avoid falling for the same thing over and over again. But if you enjoy constant embarrassment, I'm not going to talk you out of it.
The FBI gets allegations all the time. They don't all make it to the FISC, and they have to justify it in front of the FISC judge.
The FISC coming later on and saying "our bad" doesn't change the fact that they approved all of them.
Nor it changes the fact that the OIG himself, who looked at this in depth, also concluded that there was no evidence (outside of clinesmith, who was indicted, tried and sentenced) of intentional misconduct:
While we did not find do entary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified.
And therein lies the problem. Everybody can make allegations, proving them is a whole different ballgame.
Been saying the same thing to TDSA for four years while he continued to push bull from the same sources that had him believing companies were branding themselves with pizza-shaped logos to communicate that they were safe spaces for pedophilia.
He's lost. It's not worth engaging. You're doing yeoman's work here but I can't fathom spending any more time on these walls of text than it takes to scroll past them.
I don't understand the psyche of people like this, tbh, sound both fascinating and extremely sad at the same time.
People like Qhris or derp, poor fellas, you can tell they're missing a chromosome, but TSA never struck me as somebody like that. Completely partisan, sure, but what drives them to this same stuff over and over is strange, tbh...
Plain and simple, entertainment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
