Reply With Quote
Report of closed testimony.
Funny how we can't see that either, isn't it?
Why are you solely and completely trusting an unofficial memo from a member of the Trump transition team, CC?
Team Red's talking points are already prepared regardless.
No mention of possible political motivation: "The memo is vindicated! #MAGA"
Mention of possible political motivation: "Witch hunt! Bias proven! #MAGA"
Report of closed testimony.
Funny how we can't see that either, isn't it?
Why are you solely and completely trusting an unofficial memo from a member of the Trump transition team, CC?
I mean come on -- the memo admits the Trump/Russia investigation started before Carter Page. So why would anyone think the FBI wouldn't look into a guy who was no longer on the Trump campaign but already had been the subject of a FISA warrant for his Russian contacts only two years before?
What lies? The end of memo clearly states that Papadopoulos was probable cause for the warrant.
And you seem to fail to understand the difference between bias and a lie. Not surprising. It is quite obvious you are regurgitating another's take.
Jealous? You could be tranny slob if you want. We all figure you're that kind of a tranny, anyways.Thinking calling anyone slob is a witty insult.
meanwhile read this article from the NYT
Heads rolling. Chumpettes call this a nothing burger.
Actually the annotated memo has commentary from FISA experts you will never read or admit to reading since they take another direct on your narrative.meanwhile read this article from the NYT
Whose heads?Heads rolling. Chumpettes call this a nothing burger.
Deputy FBI director for one.
The guy that was gonna retire from the fbi this year any way.
Trump pushing hard on McCabe could ultimately backfire in an obstruction case
What other heads are rolling?
Not what it is, bro.
Not yet
Then your point was . FBM getting exposed.
Derptacular's point is .
Figured
It took one day to destroy all your team's conspiracies.
When the first sentence of the referenced article stomps on your
“The court that approved surveillance of a former campaign adviser to President Trump was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrant request was paid for by a political en y, although the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.”
You think four Republican FISA judges couldn't figure out it was an en y opposed to Trump?When the first sentence of the referenced article stomps on your
“The court that approved surveillance of a former campaign adviser to President Trump was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrant request was paid for by a political en y, although the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.”
Not everyone is as stupid as you, TSA.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions