Reply With Quote
True. However, even an impeachment process would take a while, and somebody has to man the wheel while the child is tweeting in the back room.
How does a person with zero FISA experience feel confident saying they know more about Woods procedures than FBI officials and agents who have actual FISA experience?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.
True. However, even an impeachment process would take a while, and somebody has to man the wheel while the child is tweeting in the back room.
Also, how can you say Woods procedures were followed when you have not seen the unredacted Page FISA application?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.
I read them.
And your quote is actually pretty ambiguous.
You've gone on about Woods procedures for a solid year and didn't even think to look them up.
lol
How can you say they weren't followed?
The renewals tell me all I need to know
And the unredacted Page FISA application?
I’m putting faith in the people who have read the unredacted applications that said the Woods procedures weren’t followed.
Are you putting faith that the people who filed the applications didn’t lie or omit relevant information? The same people who were fired/demoted/removed and are currently under investigation?
Your blogs didn't read them.
Rosenstein was fired?
News to me.
Link?
Rosentein didn’t file the application. Try again.
Are you putting faith that the people who filed the applications didn’t lie or omit relevant information? The same people who were fired/demoted/removed and are currently under investigation?
Biasello is far from a unbiased source, tbh...
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/tag/michael-biasello/
But let's pretend that he's indeed right. What makes you think this would somehow stop the collusion investigation? For example, it clearly didn't had much, if anything, to do with the indictment of Russian agents.
At most, it would make certain items inadmissible in a potential criminal trial (which has been dubious since the get go, but certainly the worst case scenario for POTUS).
The renewals, TSA. Three of them.
Explain.
these guys did.
The questions, Pavlov. Two of them.
Are you putting faith that the people who filed the applications didn’t lie or omit relevant information? The same people who were fired/demoted/removed and are currently under investigation?
Explain.
And?
You don't even know what Woods procedures are.
I never said the collusion investigation should be shut down not sure what you are talking about. And what do the indictments of the Russian agents have to do with Trump and collusion?
Renewed three times.
During the Trump administration.
That's all I need tbh.
If you knew anything about this subject you wouldn't be whining so much.
Your ignorance is your only weapon at this point.
I’m putting faith in the people who have read the unredacted applications that said the Woods procedures weren’t followed.And?
You don't even know what Woods procedures are.
Partisan hacks?
That has worked so well for you in the past.
Pizza.
How many dodges is that in a row? Try again. We’ll go yes or no to make it simpler for your pussy ass.
Are you putting faith that the people who filed the applications didn’t lie or omit relevant information yes or no?
The same people who were fired/demoted/removed and are currently under investigation yes or no?
I'm putting my faith in the renewals that ran well into the Trump administration.
Pretty simple.
It's an Intel warrant.
You don't understand because you choose to be ignorant and let others tell you what to believe.
You're easily influenced. Plain and simple.
Pizza.
Q.
Cat Stevens.
See a pattern, TSA?
Yes or no.
You've been saying we should "watch for this whole thing to crumble" for months... what are you talking about?
And indictments of Russian agents obviously do have everything to do with a collusion investigation:
1) You can't have collusion to affect an election if there was no election tampering (or attempts)
2) You can't claim he colluded with Russia if you don't demonstrate there was a Russian side to this.
The same people filed the renewals.
Are you putting your faith in the people who filed the applications/renewals that they didn’t lie or omit relevant information yes or no?
The same people who were fired/demoted/removed and are currently under investigation yes or no?
Rosenstien was not there for the first application.
He was appointed by Donald J. Trump.
Try again TSA.
The “Russia collusion” set up is being exposed.
Where in the indictments of the Russian agents is anyone from Trump’s campaign mentioned? Where in the indictments is any collusion even mentioned?And indictments of Russian agents obviously do have everything to do with a collusion investigation:
1) You can't have collusion to affect an election if there was no election tampering (or attempts)
2) You can't claim he colluded with Russia if you don't demonstrate there was a Russian side to this.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions