|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 01 2018 23:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 22:50 Plansix wrote:
We are a nation of laws, unless the court says you can’t pick your voters. This reads like complete insanity Are they trying to say that the state government does not have a map with district borders? How can you hold an election like that. Why is the map they drew last time not on record. what the fuck.
Because these Republican clowns hate government and operate under the Andrew Jackson system of law. Or more importantly, they see government as the enemy and anyone trying to uphold the process as the enemy. This shit has been going on since early 2000s, it’s just that they the people willing to see what they can get away with are now the majority of the party.
|
On February 01 2018 22:57 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 14:52 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 14:46 Plansix wrote:On February 01 2018 14:38 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 12:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 01 2018 11:02 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:On February 01 2018 10:24 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 10:05 Plansix wrote:
Most of the violations people believe exist have to do with reporting the risks of assets or activities. There were loans handed out to people with no income. It is like tha a Wells Fargo opening all those accounts. People in executive positions knew it was happening, they just didn’t care.
Edit: Nunes ran to the White House with classified information about the investigation last year. The man is a shill and not to be trusted. He let the White House know breathtaking news about the prior administration surveiling his campaign using the foreign intelligence surveillance act. The ethics committee cleared him of any wrongdoing. And democrats plus allies have continued to act coy when Hillary-funded research was used to wiretap her presidential opponent. The real question is if this is more or less concerning than Democrats saying an unelected bureaucracy must not be held accountable to any elected body. FISA warrants are reviewed by the Judiciary and can be reviews by congress. And the White House helped draft that memo. Or won’t deny they helped. But hey, hang your hat on carter page to discredit the FBI and the renewal of a FISA warrant. Can’t make you look any more partisan, right? Nunes denied in official committee testimony that the White House had a hand. But who cares about fake news, right? Well, he said as far as he knew, no, and then clammed up and forced them to move onto other questions once Quigley asked if any staff were connected. It's not really clear which of Quigley's questions he was responding to. You can read it here on page 23. So, he's on the record for not having any knowledge of White House influence. And some mice hold on to hope some staff acted without his knowledge to coordinate. That should be an easy “no”. Nunes won’t answer. Also should be a neat “nope.” Hilarious. He answers 'no' to any personal knowledge, and the conspiracy theorists hold out hope that he's still hiding something. I'm guessing you and others hope to find employment with Louise Mensch or others in her camp. So you consider Nunes to be a highly creditable, above reproach source of information on this matter? And you see nothing at all dubious about the whole 'substantial edits' to the memo after it had been reviewed, as linked by Claus up above? Don't get me wrong, if the memo is as big a deal as Nunes is making it out to be then it needs to be out there, but his pattern of behaviour strikes me as highly suspect. If a Democrat was pulling these shadow games would you consider them trustworthy at this point? As a general question; how big a deal is this memo likely to be? I'm not quite clear on what's supposed to be in it, other than it's supposedly way bigger than Watergate? I hear a generic 'list of abuses by the FBI and Justice Department'. Do we have a time frame on that, or is it going back a long way?
I want to see the memo and what it was based on. And the best the Democrats have. And whatever the FBI says was omitted that changes something. I don’t have to rely on faith in Nunes.
Schiff’s zero hour claims of changes should get a discussion before the committee to see if he’s just being the slimy partisan hack again, or if he really has something now.
|
The memo was drafted by an unreliable source. And asking for the source documents are part of an ongoing investigation. Both of them could come out with the investigation completes and we could judge with full context. There isn’t much of a justification to release them early.
|
can we take that as meaning when the memo is published without any support you won’t be using it to immediately again claim there’s a secret society in the FBI?
will you even be skeptical of its contents sans back-up?
i look forward to this release. it’ll be a hell of a trumpeting.
|
On February 01 2018 23:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 22:57 iamthedave wrote:On February 01 2018 14:52 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 14:46 Plansix wrote:On February 01 2018 14:38 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 12:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 01 2018 11:02 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:On February 01 2018 10:24 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 10:05 Plansix wrote:
Most of the violations people believe exist have to do with reporting the risks of assets or activities. There were loans handed out to people with no income. It is like tha a Wells Fargo opening all those accounts. People in executive positions knew it was happening, they just didn’t care.
Edit: Nunes ran to the White House with classified information about the investigation last year. The man is a shill and not to be trusted. He let the White House know breathtaking news about the prior administration surveiling his campaign using the foreign intelligence surveillance act. The ethics committee cleared him of any wrongdoing. And democrats plus allies have continued to act coy when Hillary-funded research was used to wiretap her presidential opponent. The real question is if this is more or less concerning than Democrats saying an unelected bureaucracy must not be held accountable to any elected body. FISA warrants are reviewed by the Judiciary and can be reviews by congress. And the White House helped draft that memo. Or won’t deny they helped. But hey, hang your hat on carter page to discredit the FBI and the renewal of a FISA warrant. Can’t make you look any more partisan, right? Nunes denied in official committee testimony that the White House had a hand. But who cares about fake news, right? Well, he said as far as he knew, no, and then clammed up and forced them to move onto other questions once Quigley asked if any staff were connected. It's not really clear which of Quigley's questions he was responding to. You can read it here on page 23. So, he's on the record for not having any knowledge of White House influence. And some mice hold on to hope some staff acted without his knowledge to coordinate. That should be an easy “no”. Nunes won’t answer. Also should be a neat “nope.” Hilarious. He answers 'no' to any personal knowledge, and the conspiracy theorists hold out hope that he's still hiding something. I'm guessing you and others hope to find employment with Louise Mensch or others in her camp. So you consider Nunes to be a highly creditable, above reproach source of information on this matter? And you see nothing at all dubious about the whole 'substantial edits' to the memo after it had been reviewed, as linked by Claus up above? Don't get me wrong, if the memo is as big a deal as Nunes is making it out to be then it needs to be out there, but his pattern of behaviour strikes me as highly suspect. If a Democrat was pulling these shadow games would you consider them trustworthy at this point? As a general question; how big a deal is this memo likely to be? I'm not quite clear on what's supposed to be in it, other than it's supposedly way bigger than Watergate? I hear a generic 'list of abuses by the FBI and Justice Department'. Do we have a time frame on that, or is it going back a long way? I want to see the memo and what it was based on. And the best the Democrats have. And whatever the FBI says was omitted that changes something. I don’t have to rely on faith in Nunes. Schiff’s zero hour claims of changes should get a discussion before the committee to see if he’s just being the slimy partisan hack again, or if he really has something now.
Schiff's claims of changes have already been confirmed by Nunes's staffers. They are claiming it is just "grammatical fixes" but given Nunes's previous lies, I see no reason to take him or his spokesperson at their word.
Schiff's claims have already been substantiated by the accused. It's just a question of degree, not substance, at this point.
|
On February 01 2018 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Unsurprisingly he's lying about numbers again Oh look this article from 2010Show nested quote +President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 was viewed by slightly more than 48 million people, according to figures from The Nielsen Company. Viewership of President Obama’s first State of the Union was down 7% from the 51.7 million people who watched President Bush’s first official State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, but up 5% from the 45.8 million people who watched President Clinton’s first official address on January 25, 1994. So all 3 previous presidents had higher ratings o_O the ratings table quoted in the article http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/viewers-watch-president-trump-s-state-of-the-union-2018.html'Highest number in history!' * *excluding actual history I'm not sure whether this is him lying flat out because his base will eat up anything he says, or his aides lying to him because they were scared to tell Obama, Bush and Clinton had more. Or can he simply not count? Stuff like this really baffles me...
Someone likely told him all this. We have tons of sources saying one of the biggest jobs in the white house is providing Trump with false glorifying news and data.
|
Just wanted to let everyone in this thread know about Lawfare. It's a great site that has lots of well-written commentary on national security law. Best of all, it's written by people who actually know what they are talking about. For example, one of their writers was an NSA lawyer for years, one is a Harvard law professor, etc. Real experts, as opposed to twenty-something journalists with degrees in 4 years of literary analysis and not much else.
|
On February 02 2018 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Unsurprisingly he's lying about numbers again https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/959034299222843394Oh look this article from 2010President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 was viewed by slightly more than 48 million people, according to figures from The Nielsen Company. Viewership of President Obama’s first State of the Union was down 7% from the 51.7 million people who watched President Bush’s first official State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, but up 5% from the 45.8 million people who watched President Clinton’s first official address on January 25, 1994. So all 3 previous presidents had higher ratings o_O the ratings table quoted in the article http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/viewers-watch-president-trump-s-state-of-the-union-2018.html'Highest number in history!' * *excluding actual history I'm not sure whether this is him lying flat out because his base will eat up anything he says, or his aides lying to him because they were scared to tell Obama, Bush and Clinton had more. Or can he simply not count? Stuff like this really baffles me... Someone likely told him all this. We have tons of sources saying one of the biggest jobs in the white house is providing Trump with false glorifying news and data.
Which begs the question what happens when/if he is given basic facts and reality sets in on him?
|
On February 02 2018 00:18 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Just wanted to let everyone in this thread know about Lawfare. It's a great site that has lots of well-written commentary on national security law. Best of all, it's written by people who actually know what they are talking about. For example, one of their writers was an NSA lawyer for years, one is a Harvard law professor, etc. Real experts, as opposed to twenty-something journalists with degrees in 4 years of literary analysis and not much else.
Literarily analysts have really gotten a bad rap for the last decade. It used to be under water basket weaving, modern art and poetry. What did literary critique do to become a pejorative?
|
On February 02 2018 00:09 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2018 23:33 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 22:57 iamthedave wrote:On February 01 2018 14:52 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 14:46 Plansix wrote:On February 01 2018 14:38 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 12:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 01 2018 11:02 Danglars wrote:On February 01 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:On February 01 2018 10:24 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
He let the White House know breathtaking news about the prior administration surveiling his campaign using the foreign intelligence surveillance act. The ethics committee cleared him of any wrongdoing.
And democrats plus allies have continued to act coy when Hillary-funded research was used to wiretap her presidential opponent.
The real question is if this is more or less concerning than Democrats saying an unelected bureaucracy must not be held accountable to any elected body. FISA warrants are reviewed by the Judiciary and can be reviews by congress. And the White House helped draft that memo. Or won’t deny they helped. But hey, hang your hat on carter page to discredit the FBI and the renewal of a FISA warrant. Can’t make you look any more partisan, right? Nunes denied in official committee testimony that the White House had a hand. But who cares about fake news, right? Well, he said as far as he knew, no, and then clammed up and forced them to move onto other questions once Quigley asked if any staff were connected. It's not really clear which of Quigley's questions he was responding to. You can read it here on page 23. So, he's on the record for not having any knowledge of White House influence. And some mice hold on to hope some staff acted without his knowledge to coordinate. That should be an easy “no”. Nunes won’t answer. Also should be a neat “nope.” Hilarious. He answers 'no' to any personal knowledge, and the conspiracy theorists hold out hope that he's still hiding something. I'm guessing you and others hope to find employment with Louise Mensch or others in her camp. So you consider Nunes to be a highly creditable, above reproach source of information on this matter? And you see nothing at all dubious about the whole 'substantial edits' to the memo after it had been reviewed, as linked by Claus up above? Don't get me wrong, if the memo is as big a deal as Nunes is making it out to be then it needs to be out there, but his pattern of behaviour strikes me as highly suspect. If a Democrat was pulling these shadow games would you consider them trustworthy at this point? As a general question; how big a deal is this memo likely to be? I'm not quite clear on what's supposed to be in it, other than it's supposedly way bigger than Watergate? I hear a generic 'list of abuses by the FBI and Justice Department'. Do we have a time frame on that, or is it going back a long way? I want to see the memo and what it was based on. And the best the Democrats have. And whatever the FBI says was omitted that changes something. I don’t have to rely on faith in Nunes. Schiff’s zero hour claims of changes should get a discussion before the committee to see if he’s just being the slimy partisan hack again, or if he really has something now. Schiff's claims of changes have already been confirmed by Nunes's staffers. They are claiming it is just "grammatical fixes" but given Nunes's previous lies, I see no reason to take him or his spokesperson at their word. Schiff's claims have already been substantiated by the accused. It's just a question of degree, not substance, at this point.
And Schiff’s previous lies make me very skeptical of the various claims he’s making (and come on, if you’re correcting grammar, you’re a hack to bring that up under unreviewed changes). I already called for further committee review to see if he’s doing a stupid dance again. Schiff is the guy that claimed Nunes went to the White House in a midnight run, in the dead of night, to avoid detection. It was later discovered he met with a national security staffer in the middle of the day. Schiff claimed Nunes quietly started a committee investigation without informing the minority ... after Nunes had already issued subpoenas and held votes on the matter in the committee ... and him and Ryan had publicly accused the DOJ and FBI of obstructing the subpoenas.
Basically, he’s a weasel. I trust Nunes more, but that’s immaterial compared to my desire to evaluate the memo for myself that all my party’s congressmen are saying is newsworthy for FBI corruption. Since it’s of course subject to partisan construction, I want to see the underlying documents to discover if it’s a fair summary of the FISA court hullabaloo (to, you know, get at less biased source material). The Hillary campaign funding an operation that culminated in government spying on the Trump campaign is a serious enough matter to merit further releases. I suspect even the forums large stock of hyperpartisans recognize this at some level within themselves, though they won’t admit it.
|
On February 02 2018 00:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 01 2018 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Unsurprisingly he's lying about numbers again https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/959034299222843394Oh look this article from 2010President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 was viewed by slightly more than 48 million people, according to figures from The Nielsen Company. Viewership of President Obama’s first State of the Union was down 7% from the 51.7 million people who watched President Bush’s first official State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, but up 5% from the 45.8 million people who watched President Clinton’s first official address on January 25, 1994. So all 3 previous presidents had higher ratings o_O the ratings table quoted in the article http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/viewers-watch-president-trump-s-state-of-the-union-2018.html'Highest number in history!' * *excluding actual history I'm not sure whether this is him lying flat out because his base will eat up anything he says, or his aides lying to him because they were scared to tell Obama, Bush and Clinton had more. Or can he simply not count? Stuff like this really baffles me... Someone likely told him all this. We have tons of sources saying one of the biggest jobs in the white house is providing Trump with false glorifying news and data. Which begs the question what happens when/if he is given basic facts and reality sets in on him?
He rejects the basic facts and reality.
Not like this would be the first time.
His massive case of Narcissism doesn't allow him to be wrong or lesser.
|
On February 02 2018 00:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 00:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On February 02 2018 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 01 2018 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Unsurprisingly he's lying about numbers again https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/959034299222843394Oh look this article from 2010President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 was viewed by slightly more than 48 million people, according to figures from The Nielsen Company. Viewership of President Obama’s first State of the Union was down 7% from the 51.7 million people who watched President Bush’s first official State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, but up 5% from the 45.8 million people who watched President Clinton’s first official address on January 25, 1994. So all 3 previous presidents had higher ratings o_O the ratings table quoted in the article http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/viewers-watch-president-trump-s-state-of-the-union-2018.html'Highest number in history!' * *excluding actual history I'm not sure whether this is him lying flat out because his base will eat up anything he says, or his aides lying to him because they were scared to tell Obama, Bush and Clinton had more. Or can he simply not count? Stuff like this really baffles me... Someone likely told him all this. We have tons of sources saying one of the biggest jobs in the white house is providing Trump with false glorifying news and data. Which begs the question what happens when/if he is given basic facts and reality sets in on him? He rejects the basic facts and reality. Not like this would be the first time. His massive case of Narcissism doesn't allow him to be wrong or lesser.
Is it the highest number to watch a State of the Union by a Republican President? Black Democratic Presidents obviously don't count.
You can always bend shit around for your own convenience.
|
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
|
I still don't understand why it's appropriate to demand classified material in an ongoing investigation (with sentencing that was recently extended into May) be released early. What does it materially change besides potentially informing foreign agents or targets of the investigation what the FBI knew at that point? If it was unlawful, it will come up during the actual trials and indictments.
On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
Danglars is desperately holding onto the hope that there's something besides Page in this memo, I think. That's why he never says Page or mentions that the Steele dossier was demonstrably correct about him by Page's own admission.
|
On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
Yeah. I mean, I'm typically super critical of institutions like the FBI/CIA (and their Dutch equivalents) and the Russian witch hunt in general. But I don't think the notion that they were looking into Carter and Manafort while they were at Trump Tower is something to object to. It's a fairly reasonable level of surveillance as far as that goes.
Also, did everyone catch the news that the Dutch agencies were literally filming Russians as they hacked into the DNC? Haha. No real doubt left about the notion whether or not the Russians accessed the DNC servers along with all the other potential breaches the DNC suffered.
The Cozy Bear hackers are in a space in a university building near the Red Square. The group's composition varies, usually about ten people are active. The entrance is in a curved hallway. A security camera records who enters and who exits the room. The AIVD hackers manage to gain access to that camera. Not only can the intelligence service now see what the Russians are doing, they can also see who's doing it. Pictures are taken of every visitor. In Zoetermeer, these pictures are analyzed and compared to known Russian spies. Again, they've acquired information that will later prove to be vital.
|
On February 02 2018 00:36 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 00:33 Gorsameth wrote:On February 02 2018 00:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On February 02 2018 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 01 2018 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Unsurprisingly he's lying about numbers again https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/959034299222843394Oh look this article from 2010President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 was viewed by slightly more than 48 million people, according to figures from The Nielsen Company. Viewership of President Obama’s first State of the Union was down 7% from the 51.7 million people who watched President Bush’s first official State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, but up 5% from the 45.8 million people who watched President Clinton’s first official address on January 25, 1994. So all 3 previous presidents had higher ratings o_O the ratings table quoted in the article http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/viewers-watch-president-trump-s-state-of-the-union-2018.html'Highest number in history!' * *excluding actual history I'm not sure whether this is him lying flat out because his base will eat up anything he says, or his aides lying to him because they were scared to tell Obama, Bush and Clinton had more. Or can he simply not count? Stuff like this really baffles me... Someone likely told him all this. We have tons of sources saying one of the biggest jobs in the white house is providing Trump with false glorifying news and data. Which begs the question what happens when/if he is given basic facts and reality sets in on him? He rejects the basic facts and reality. Not like this would be the first time. His massive case of Narcissism doesn't allow him to be wrong or lesser. Is it the highest number to watch a State of the Union by a Republican President? Black Democratic Presidents obviously don't count. You can always bend shit around for your own convenience.
No, Bush>Obama>Clinton>Trump
|
On February 02 2018 00:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:I still don't understand why it's appropriate to demand classified material in an ongoing investigation (with sentencing that was recently extended into May) be released early. What does it materially change besides potentially informing foreign agents or targets of the investigation what the FBI knew at that point? If it was unlawful, it will come up during the actual trials and indictments. Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
Danglars is desperately holding onto the hope that there's something besides Page in this memo, I think. That's why he never says Page or mentions that the Steele dossier was demonstrably correct about him by Page's own admission.
That is what annoys me most of all. If the FISA warrant was unlawful or politically motivated, it would come out at trial. Any defense attorney will raise that issue. This whole thing is being painted at a spying effort on Trump, rather than an investigation into a specific person in the Trump campaign who may have done something unlawful. Nunes pushing to release this before will likely have a negative impact on the prosecution. It’s like carter pages gets to have the Republicans in the house raise defense so before the charges are even filed.
Also, the FISA court, NSA and FBI are prohibited from publicly responding to the memo in detail. Nunes is attacking them with full knowledge they can’t fight back or correct the record.
|
On February 02 2018 00:37 Plansix wrote:
I like how Danglars continues to repeat the same false claim over and over, good old fashion Big Lie style.
The surveillance on people in the Trump camp did not start with the Steele dossier. It predates it. The FISA warrant was already issued for Carter Page. The approval in question is for a renewal of that warrant. It was renewed based on evidence from several sources, including the stuff from Steele. If the stuff from Steele didn’t exist, they would have received the same evidence from other sources. Once again, this entire theory relies on time travel to be true.
I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact.
|
Is there a bet on when the memo comes out with no context behind it and no sources that Danglars forgets the part about how he really wants sources and takes it as whole truth no matter what?
|
On February 02 2018 01:17 IyMoon wrote:
Is there a bet on when the memo comes out with no context behind it and no sources that Danglars forgets the part about how he really wants sources and takes it as whole truth no matter what?
Is there a bet that when it's verified, Democrats say they always suspected the FBI acted improperly and needs reforms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
