Flynn Jr. re-tweetedwhy do you follow her twitter?
to wiretap trump
I'm mocking TSA.
In fairness though, the Times “matched” Page based on an emailed statement.
“Court do ents do not identify Mr. Page, but the details in a statement he emailed to reporters on Tuesday match the individual described as “Male-1” in the court case. Mr. Page’s contact with the Russian spy was first reported on Monday by BuzzFeed News.”
But, other people engaged in the same exercise, you are labeling conspira s.
A le I FISA warrant would include surveillance of any contact of Page past and present...would that include Trump yes or no?
link?
redacted vs unredacted Grassley memos
please research and prove up my claim for me
Yeah, I already posted all about it. On this very forum.
You never even read any of the previous link, so I can't consider you to be serious about any of this.
“The referral also provides the clearest evidence yet that the FBI represented that a September 2016 Yahoo! News article independently corroborated Steele’s dossier claims about Page. But unknown to the Bureau, Steele was the very same source of the information in that Yahoo! report.”
Pavlov
ive read everything you posted today, so you're just dodging now. sad!
if you've posted it before, shouldn't be too hard to repost it. you'd know where to look
You really don't follow anything but anti-Trump blogs, do you?
I'm going to venture a guess you never read the le I vs. le II links I posted.
You certainly didn't read any of my posts here on le I from a few days ago.
Dodge #2
So you didn't read it.
lol
This is good information to have. Shows just how unimportant actual do ents are to you in comparison with blogs written about those do ents.
Strangely, none of your echo chamber blogs or djohn tweets said anything about it.
Thanks, spurraider21!
you're trying to be cute and imitate chump, but i've been answering your questions directly. even spurminator pointed that out to you earlier, and you continued to dodge.
you brought up FISA le i and made a claim about its ramifications. if le i did what you said, it wouldn't be hard to direct me to it. but you just keep dodging and playing games, using chump's lines in situations where they dont fit.
starting to question why you even post here at all if you aren't going to engage in discussion about the very things you post
honestly though I already posted the difference between le I and le VII, if you were really curious you could look it up just like I did. And thank you I guess ??? for answering directly a question posed to djohn2oo8
The Unraveling
love me some strange
you copypasted a sundance "article" where he talks about le i and le vii, but there's no source material he refers to. and nowhere does that make the claim you did that le i would allow them to surveil "any contact of page past or present"
the main distinction is le VII would occur if Page was "swept up" under the serveillance of somebody else, whereas le I would be a scenario where they got probable cause to surveil Page himself. we already know that happened, because the FISA applications were specifically targeting Page. this isn't some crazy revelation. we already knew Page was the target, and we've known that for quite some time. you are making the leap that they therefore have the ability to surveil any contact of Page past or present. back it up.
so if you're going to make that specific claim, you're going to have to back it up. you keep dodging because you can't
https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/...ions-compared/
Explain to me how a court was convinced Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power AND that the facility or place to be surveilled is about to be used by the target. Also, was the court aware Carter Page previously worked undercover for the FBI?
Senator Ron Johnson interim report
The Clinton Email scandal and the FBI's investigation of it
https://t.co/5znf1KKZ4B
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
