Reply With Quote
WH staffers ignoring POTUS, removing papers from his desk and generally going rogue is not good news.
However much one would wish DJT reined in, his underlings subs uting their judgment for his is improper and dangerous in its own right.
the best news to come out of WH since 20 Jan 17, but the Exec branch is doing nearly all the damage, not Trash, damage that would continue w/o Trash
WH staffers ignoring POTUS, removing papers from his desk and generally going rogue is not good news.
However much one would wish DJT reined in, his underlings subs uting their judgment for his is improper and dangerous in its own right.
Prosecutors use grand jury as investigation of Andrew McCabe intensifies
“Federal prosecutors have for months been using a grand jury to investigate former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...mpression=true
TSA kicks the can as predicted.
spurraider21 said no charges have been brought per OIG investigation. I post an article showing federal prosecutors are using a grand jury and still investigating McCabe hence no charges because it’s ongoing and that is somehow kicking the can?
i said there have been no charges and you posted an article confirming there have been no charges
What an astute observation counselor. Were you aware a grand jury had been convened concerning McCabe?
So it's at the exact same point you mock the Mueller investigation for being RE: Russia, except your investigation is actually behind the Mueller investigation.
OK.
lol TSA
Actually no, it’s not at the exact same point. Mueller has no grand jury convened for Trump/Russia election collusion.
Considering CIA mouthpiece fake news WaPo has reported that there is a grand jury, it must be false, right?
Sit back and enjoy watching it all crumble.
Yup. That white house is imploding from within. Rats turning on each other. The mentally unstable cult leader even more paranoid now.
How would you know?
the faith you put in anonymous Twitter.
Pizza.
“Former FBI officials and agents with experience in FISA warrants say the affidavits for Page appear to be “material misrepresentations” and failed to properly follow so-called Woods Procedures requiring accuracy of facts by the sworn declarants. Those procedures were strengthened in 2003 by then-FBI director Robert Mueller, now the special counsel pursuing the Trump-Russia affair.
Withholding material and exculpatory evidence from the FISA applications may also have violated Page’s Fourth Amendment protections against omissions of material facts that would undermine or negate probable cause to search.
“It is illegal,” said veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello. “The affiant" -- the person swearing to the affidavit -- "cannot cherry-pick only information favorable to the case.”
https://www.realclearinvestigations...._as_idiot.html
Excellent rebuttal of a factual summary of the Hill article 10/10
Pizza.
Iol how many echo chamber sites do you visit a day, TSA?
It's a warrant.
Did you actually read the Woods procedures?
Yes or no.
Another excellent rebuttal. On fire today 10/10.
Have you read the Woods procedures, TSA?
Yes or no.
No I didn’t read the link you provided been in Hong Kong all week, but I’m glad you took the time to read them. Are you Pavlov, a person with zero experience obtaining a FISA, disagreeing with these FBI officials and agents? Are you claiming Woods procedures were followed yes or no?
““Former FBI officials and agents with experience in FISA warrants say the affidavits for Page appear to be “material misrepresentations” and failed to properly follow so-called Woods Procedures requiring accuracy of facts by the sworn declarants. Those procedures were strengthened in 2003 by then-FBI director Robert Mueller, now the special counsel pursuing the Trump-Russia affair.
Withholding material and exculpatory evidence from the FISA applications may also have violated Page’s Fourth Amendment protections against omissions of material facts that would undermine or negate probable cause to search.
“It is illegal,” said veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello. “The affiant" -- the person swearing to the affidavit -- "cannot cherry-pick only information favorable to the case.”
"appear"
You fall for it every time.
So you'll never read them?
I do millions of business a year in Asia and had to prep for meetings and sleep so no, didn’t have time on my flight over. I fly back tonight so maybe I’ll get around to it. You have read them so I’m not sure why you dodged my questions."appear"
You fall for it every time.
So you'll never read them?
Are you Pavlov, a person with zero experience obtaining a FISA, disagreeing with these FBI officials and agents? Are you claiming Woods procedures were followed yes or no?
Yes, I am.
You know all about them. Trying to big time your ignorance is hilarious though.
Keep it up. You're too important to know what you're talking about.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions