Reply With Quote
TSA posting about "conspiracy theory culture"
Have you looked around and seen who you're on the same page with here?
Probably not a great idea to make "has a similar opinion as X poster" an attack strategy when you've got some embarrassing bedfellows yourself.
For s sake how many times can they try to revive this already debunked story
as often as you defend Trash with bull .
I bet Mueller will debunk TSA
Another one of djohn’s conspiracy theories eats
As many times as you revive FISA "abuse."
Rudy Giuliani just contradicted nearly all the Trump team’s past collusion denials
This is at least the 10th time the denials have been watered down. It might be the most significant rollback.
Wednesday night appeared to
grant the possibility that members of Trump’s campaign did, in fact, collude with the Russians
during the 2016 presidential election campaign.
he contradicted dozens of previous denials that both the Trump team (and Trump himself) have offered.
the Trump team has moved the goal posts on this question no fewer than 10 times after initially denying any contact at all with “foreign en ies.”
Trump has said dozens of times that there was “no collusion,” full stop.
This appears to be the first time anyone has acknowledged the possibility that someone colluded without Trump’s knowledge.Giuliani suggested that it was possible Manafort did something wrong but that he was on the campaign for too short a time for anyone to know what he was up to.
“He was only there for six months or four months,” Giuliani said.
Let’s walk through the de-evolution of the Trump team’s collusion denials — a list we’ve updated below.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nl_most&wpmm=1
(why was a guy connected to a Pootin-puppet even hired?)
note that almost everybody hired in Trash's mafiya were connected, communicated with Russians.
Explain how something can be revived when the report from Horowitz on FISA abuse hasn't even come out.
Because nothing you have ever said about it points to anything resembling abuse. You've said the same thing over and over and over -- the judge wouldn't have approved a surveillance warrant if they knew who exactly funded the dossier -- and it's been proved that the judge knew everything he was required to know.
Call your shot -- what are you saying will be found by Horowitz about the FISA warrants?
Who will be penalized?
What will be the penalties?
And
Explain.
I haven't thrown dirt and every single aspect of the Mueller investigation. Why do you lie so much? Your other questions were answered yesterday.Because nothing you have ever said about it points to anything resembling abuse. You've said the same thing over and over and over -- the judge wouldn't have approved a surveillance warrant if they knew who exactly funded the dossier -- and it's been proved that the judge knew everything he was required to know.
Call your shot -- what are you saying will be found by Horowitz about the FISA warrants?
Who will be penalized?
What will be the penalties?
And
Explain.
can you point to any legal basis or authority which states that beyond informing the FISA judge of the bias or potential bias in a source, that they must identify the nature of the bias to some certain specificity which you think they haven't?
Oh, which aspects do you support?
Your other questions were answered yesterday.
I support the completion of the investigation and have never once called for it to be shut down. And yes your questions were already answered, you just didn’t like it so you keep asking thinking it’s going to change.Oh, which aspects do you support?
“We certainly consider it our obligation, because of our trust relationship with federal judges, to present evidence that would paint a materially different picture of what we're presenting,” Comey testified on Dec. 7, 2018. “You want to present to the judge reviewing your application a complete picture of the evidence, both its flaws and its strengths.”
What aspects of the investigation have you posted positively about?
List them.
And yes your questions were already answered, you just didn’t like it so you keep asking thinking it’s going to change.
That's not going to change.
I’m not getting in the weeds with you because you lied.What aspects of the investigation have you posted positively about?
List them.
That's not going to change.
You never spoke positively about any aspect of the Mueller investigation except when your conspiracy theory had Mueller working with Trump to pwn the Dems.
You know nothing is going to happen with muh Horowitz FISA abuse.
lol TSA
Hate to break it to you but here is the truth;
Trump is a russian asset and has committed crimes and the USA intel caught him -and will prosecute him and all the people that conspired to rig this election and sell out the usa -
other than ^THAT ^
100% OF THE REST OF YOUR SPERMSHIELD existence = IS THE WEEDS!
a) what comey said is binding law/regulation?
b) regardless, informing the judge that the information was paid for political opposition research aimed at discrediting candidate trump accomplishes that
TSA still playing about the fact that names of US persons that aren't targets of the warrants are routinely left out of the warrant applications.
Or he's really that stupid.
Hate to break it to you but here is the truth;
Trump is a russian asset and has committed crimes and the USA intel caught him -and will prosecute him and all the people that conspired to rig this election and sell out the usa -
other than ^THAT ^
100% OF THE REST OF YOUR SPERMSHIELD existence = IS THE WEEDS!
yeah, them adding "... and apparently Steele is full of and hates Trump" would have made zero difference to the judge
You asked for a legal basis OR authority on the subject. Would the head of the FBI not be an authority? The FBI hid evidence that would have painted a materially different picture than what they presented. The application as submitted was not a complete picture of the evidence.
every word he speaks is not binding law that defines what is or isn't FISA abuse
Never claimed it was binding law. Again, you asked for a legal basis OR an authority on the subject. If that isn't where you wanted the conversation headed you should have thought about that before saying it. The head of the FBI would be considered an authority on the subject.
Did the FBI hide evidence that would have painted a materially different picture than what they presented?
Was the application submitted a complete picture of the evidence?
Define what is or isn't FISA abuse.
There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 9 guests)
Posting Permissions