Reply With Quote
More lies from you.
I'm sure you are lying about what I posted at the time and just reposted minutes ago.Not sure how I missed a bombs like that three times can you provide three links? Even one link will do just fine.
This is how someone posts when they are clearly winning an argument and should be taken seriously
More lies from you.
I'm sure you are lying about what I posted at the time and just reposted minutes ago.Not sure how I missed a bombs like that three times can you provide three links? Even one link will do just fine.
*Risitas
Actually it's how someone reminds a you that you used a guy who believes in Cat Stevens mind control to support your argument.
SPOILER ALERT: You did not win that argument.
Thanks for admitting you never addressed CC’s claim.
I did. Then and now. You just can't stand that you got caught in another lie.
It's what you do now.
but but but remember that argument from last year
Can you link your quote where you address the FISC being told the opposition research being submitted for the FISA was funded by the DNC. K thx
I already explained then that it's a red herring since revealing the iden ies of sources is not usually done on FISA warrant applications. If they say it's oppo research, that's good enough for FISC.
I did not cite my source then since CC left, but the IJR interview I posted explains it fully.
Did you read that?
Yes or no.
Chump unhinged / #StillWithHer
I understand the conversation is too advanced for you and you feel frustrated.
Umm you said you read the memo but insist the inviestigation was triggered by the DNC and the dossier which the memo itself refutes.
Go sit along side Koriwhat and Mikeariano.
Blake won this without having to do anything.
There's a reason why your're ST's derp in chief.
Tranny jumping in with blanket declarations. So desperate for W's.Blake won this without having to do anything.
There's a reason why your're ST's derp in chief.
You quoted me, so no, I'm not jumping in, derptacular.Tranny jumping in with blanket declarations. So desperate for W's.
Is McCabe retiring/resigning/fired whatever you want to call it without full benefits?
Because according to you, if he was let go because of this memo, he wouldn't be enjoying the perks of retirement benefits.
He gone b/c the heat was on. And he retired b/c those benefits don't get revoked or lessened once they're instated.You quoted me, so no, I'm not jumping in, derptacular.
Is McCabe retiring/resigning/fired whatever you want to call it without full benefits?
Because according to you, if he was let go because of this memo, he wouldn't be enjoying the perks of retirement benefits.
What are you talking about, gimp?He gone b/c the heat was on. And he retired b/c those benefits don't get revoked or lessened once they're instated.
He pulled a wool out from under Trump. What's worse is that Wray threatened to resigned if McCabe was pushed out.
He used his ac ulated unclaimed leave time to reach the retirement with benefits threshold.
McCabe retired early to have his retirement benefit enacted. Your tweet only makes my point. you dumb, tranny.What are you talking about, gimp?
He pulled a wool out from under Trump. What's worse is that Wray threatened to resigned if McCabe was pushed out.
He used his ac ulated unclaimed leave time to reach the retirement with benefits threshold.
Do I even need to say more?
Heads be rolling.....oh wait...no no I meant he's just retiring with full benefits.
You don't really understand how retirement works. Or personal leave.
Rolling his own headDo I even need to say more?
Heads be rolling.....oh wait...no no I meant he's just retiring with full benefits.
REP. RATCLIFFE: POTENTIAL FISA ABUSES IN DECLASSIFIED MEMO ARE SUPPORTED BY SOURCE DO ENTS
WASHINGTON – Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) issued the following statement on the release and declassification of a memo prepared by the majority members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence regarding oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He is one of just a handful of members of Congress to have reviewed the underlying source do ents for the potential FISA abuses outlined in the majority memo:
“As a former U.S. Attorney and federal terrorism prosecutor with considerable FISA experience, I am more than just troubled by the revelations outlined in this memo. Subsequent to my initial review of the memo, I also reviewed, in detail, the still-classified, underlying source do ents upon which the initial warrant application and all subsequent warrant renewal applications to surveil an American citizen were made. I believe the memo unfortunately but accurately highlights questionable actions and departures from required legal standards and practices under FISA by a discrete number of senior agents and officials, who appear to have allowed politics to contaminate our apolitical justice system.
“It is my hope that the revelations of this memo will not be misconstrued as a condemnation of the tens of thousands of brave women and men who nobly serve the public with distinction and integrity in the DOJ and FBI. This memo can and should, however, be viewed as an appropriate expression of Congress’ oversight responsibilities of these vital ins utions. Further oversight and accountability for the individuals in question is necessary to ensure that the American people can have confidence in these important ins utions going forward.”
https://ratcliffe.house.gov/media-ce...ed-highlighted
Nothing was "outlined" in a Repug propagana hit peice
Texas
ING hole EAST TEXAS
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
