Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ saying that the sharing of the texts while the investigation was ongoing was not authorized

http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts-was-not-authorized-2017-12

Someone is going down.

I gotta say, the more I hear about Strozk, the more right he sounds. I wonder why he's off Mueller's team.

The fact that you wonder this shows exactly how partisan you are.

So in your world, are all investigators supposed to be Trump supporters?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ saying that the sharing of the texts while the investigation was ongoing was not authorized

http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts-was-not-authorized-2017-12

Someone is going down.

I gotta say, the more I hear about Strozk, the more right he sounds. I wonder why he's off Mueller's team.

The fact that you wonder this shows exactly how partisan you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ saying that the sharing of the texts while the investigation was ongoing was not authorized

http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts-was-not-authorized-2017-12

Someone is going down.

I gotta say, the more I hear about Strozk, the more right he sounds. I wonder why he's off Mueller's team.

Anonymous wrote:DOJ saying that the sharing of the texts while the investigation was ongoing was not authorized

http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts-was-not-authorized-2017-12

Someone is going down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the FBI agents in question was also texting against Holder, Bernie and other dems.

Oh That means that Mueller's investigation isn't motivated by partisanship, as some seem to be implying. That means his investigation is for real.

Then why did he need a special ethics waver?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the FBI agents in question was also texting against Holder, Bernie and other dems.

Oh That means that Mueller's investigation isn't motivated by partisanship, as some seem to be implying. That means his investigation is for real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. complete obfuscation and nonsense from the trump admin on this. Great. what happens next? we just call off the Mueller investigation and everyone goes home? trump continues to f*ck our country? too close for comfort right? probing of the finances, which would surely lead to guilt is too much right? all enabled by fox news loonies. what a world we live in. yellow journalism everywhere. propaganda still rules the day. ha we think we're such a first world country and then trump takes over and shows how f*cked up things are.

Only in a third world country, a ruling party will use its law enforcement power to surveil the opposition party's candidate during a national election. That's what Obama and his DOJ/FBI did. We had an election. Your party lost. Get over it and try it in 3 years. That's how it's done in a first world country.

Except that isn't what happened, so the rest of your assumptions fall flat, because your opening facts, that the Obama Administration was surveiling the opposition party during a national election.

Come up with a different set of facts and the resulting portfolio unfolds differently.

At the moment, there isn't one shred of truth or evidence that the Obama Administration was listening in on Trump Tower. None.

The FISA warrants were obtained in the summer of 2016. Russia investigation of an opposing party's candidate started in the summer of 2016 during the heat of the campaign. That's a fact. Your misdirection about quote and unquote "wiretap" doesn't change the fact that our government obtained FISA warrants to spy on American citizens associated with an opposing party's presidential campaign.

Yes, this is correct. I infer from your post that you prefer the ostrich approach to national security.

What are you talking about? We have the biggest NSA and CIA operations in the entire world. Obama should focus the national security on foreign adversaries not on Americans. We don't need a made-up warrant for spying Americans from your opponent's campaign by the ruling party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. complete obfuscation and nonsense from the trump admin on this. Great. what happens next? we just call off the Mueller investigation and everyone goes home? trump continues to f*ck our country? too close for comfort right? probing of the finances, which would surely lead to guilt is too much right? all enabled by fox news loonies. what a world we live in. yellow journalism everywhere. propaganda still rules the day. ha we think we're such a first world country and then trump takes over and shows how f*cked up things are.

Only in a third world country, a ruling party will use its law enforcement power to surveil the opposition party's candidate during a national election. That's what Obama and his DOJ/FBI did. We had an election. Your party lost. Get over it and try it in 3 years. That's how it's done in a first world country.

Except that isn't what happened, so the rest of your assumptions fall flat, because your opening facts, that the Obama Administration was surveiling the opposition party during a national election.

Come up with a different set of facts and the resulting portfolio unfolds differently.

At the moment, there isn't one shred of truth or evidence that the Obama Administration was listening in on Trump Tower. None.

The FISA warrants were obtained in the summer of 2016. Russia investigation of an opposing party's candidate started in the summer of 2016 during the heat of the campaign. That's a fact. Your misdirection about quote and unquote "wiretap" doesn't change the fact that our government obtained FISA warrants to spy on American citizens associated with an opposing party's presidential campaign.

Yes, this is correct. I infer from your post that you prefer the ostrich approach to national security.

What are you talking about? We have the biggest NSA and CIA operations in the entire world. Obama should focus the national security on foreign adversaries not on Americans. We don't need a made-up warrant for spying Americans from your opponent's campaign by the ruling party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. complete obfuscation and nonsense from the trump admin on this. Great. what happens next? we just call off the Mueller investigation and everyone goes home? trump continues to f*ck our country? too close for comfort right? probing of the finances, which would surely lead to guilt is too much right? all enabled by fox news loonies. what a world we live in. yellow journalism everywhere. propaganda still rules the day. ha we think we're such a first world country and then trump takes over and shows how f*cked up things are.

Only in a third world country, a ruling party will use its law enforcement power to surveil the opposition party's candidate during a national election. That's what Obama and his DOJ/FBI did. We had an election. Your party lost. Get over it and try it in 3 years. That's how it's done in a first world country.

Except that isn't what happened, so the rest of your assumptions fall flat, because your opening facts, that the Obama Administration was surveiling the opposition party during a national election.

Come up with a different set of facts and the resulting portfolio unfolds differently.

At the moment, there isn't one shred of truth or evidence that the Obama Administration was listening in on Trump Tower. None.

The FISA warrants were obtained in the summer of 2016. Russia investigation of an opposing party's candidate started in the summer of 2016 during the heat of the campaign. That's a fact. Your misdirection about quote and unquote "wiretap" doesn't change the fact that our government obtained FISA warrants to spy on American citizens associated with an opposing party's presidential campaign.

Yes, this is correct. I infer from your post that you prefer the ostrich approach to national security.

Anonymous wrote:So the FBI agents in question was also texting against Holder, Bernie and other dems.

Anonymous wrote:So the FBI agents in question was also texting against Holder, Bernie and other dems.