Anonymous wrote:More evidence turned over to the defense today.

Can't wait until this is all made public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. There is evidence that the previous administration was interested in defending our national security, why isn’t the current one?

If by "defending our national security," you mean that they illegally spied on the opposition campaign and the incoming administration, filed false FISA applications, and continued to advance a narrative they knew was false in an effort to overturn the votes of the American people - then, yeah, they did that. Hard to call that a defense of our national security.

And, millions of us want to know Joe's role in this illegal activity.

Wasn't it Robert Gates who said that Joe has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades?" This is yet another.

Honey, sweetie... no. None of that happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. There is evidence that the previous administration was interested in defending our national security, why isn’t the current one?

If by "defending our national security," you mean that they illegally spied on the opposition campaign and the incoming administration, filed false FISA applications, and continued to advance a narrative they knew was false in an effort to overturn the votes of the American people - then, yeah, they did that. Hard to call that a defense of our national security.

And, millions of us want to know Joe's role in this illegal activity.

Wasn't it Robert Gates who said that Joe has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades?" This is yet another.

Honey, sweetie... no. None of that happened.

Uh-huh. Sure.
Ignore the evidence.

If the previous administration broke so many laws, why aren't any of them being charged for a crime? This issue has been investigated, has it not? If not, why not?

Investigation is ongoing.....Durham.
Graham's committee has subpoenaed many of the players.

The House? Ha. They aren't interested in real wrongdoing. The House is a joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. There is evidence that the previous administration was interested in defending our national security, why isn’t the current one?

If by "defending our national security," you mean that they illegally spied on the opposition campaign and the incoming administration, filed false FISA applications, and continued to advance a narrative they knew was false in an effort to overturn the votes of the American people - then, yeah, they did that. Hard to call that a defense of our national security.

And, millions of us want to know Joe's role in this illegal activity.

Wasn't it Robert Gates who said that Joe has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades?" This is yet another.

Honey, sweetie... no. None of that happened.

Uh-huh. Sure.
Ignore the evidence.

If the previous administration broke so many laws, why aren't any of them being charged for a crime? This issue has been investigated, has it not? If not, why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. There is evidence that the previous administration was interested in defending our national security, why isn’t the current one?

If by "defending our national security," you mean that they illegally spied on the opposition campaign and the incoming administration, filed false FISA applications, and continued to advance a narrative they knew was false in an effort to overturn the votes of the American people - then, yeah, they did that. Hard to call that a defense of our national security.

And, millions of us want to know Joe's role in this illegal activity.

Wasn't it Robert Gates who said that Joe has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades?" This is yet another.

Honey, sweetie... no. None of that happened.

Uh-huh. Sure.
Ignore the evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. There is evidence that the previous administration was interested in defending our national security, why isn’t the current one?

If by "defending our national security," you mean that they illegally spied on the opposition campaign and the incoming administration, filed false FISA applications, and continued to advance a narrative they knew was false in an effort to overturn the votes of the American people - then, yeah, they did that. Hard to call that a defense of our national security.

And, millions of us want to know Joe's role in this illegal activity.

Wasn't it Robert Gates who said that Joe has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades?" This is yet another.

Honey, sweetie... no. None of that happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. There is evidence that the previous administration was interested in defending our national security, why isn’t the current one?

If by "defending our national security," you mean that they illegally spied on the opposition campaign and the incoming administration, filed false FISA applications, and continued to advance a narrative they knew was false in an effort to overturn the votes of the American people - then, yeah, they did that. Hard to call that a defense of our national security.

And, millions of us want to know Joe's role in this illegal activity.

Wasn't it Robert Gates who said that Joe has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades?" This is yet another.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. There is evidence that the previous administration was interested in defending our national security, why isn’t the current one?

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile former U.S. attorney Brett Tolman claims the targeting of Flynn was manipulated at the highest levels of the Obama Administration.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tolman-flynn-case-manipulated-fbi-obama-biden.amp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn was fired as DNI by Obama and like many created a consultant firm dealing with foreign governments doing business with America. Unlike Hunter Biden, he actually was qualified and followed the law.. After every trip overseas Flynn would debrief the IC on his findings, just like Carter Page.

No he didn't. He didn't disclose payments because then he would have lost his clearance. He cheated because he thinks the rules don't apply to him.

And, in this administration, he's right. But at least he won't keep his clearance, when this is over.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/9/14868680/trump-adviser-michael-flynn-foreign-agent-turkey-lobby

The Justice Department filings state that Flynn’s firm had ceased operations in November, which means he wasn’t receiving money from the company with ties to the Turkish government while he was Trump’s national security adviser.

But it was pretty damn close — he was literally acting as an agent of a foreign government right up to the point that he became Trump’s national security adviser, and during a time when he was acting as a top Trump campaign surrogate.

Maybe acting as an unregistered foreign agent isn't strictly illegal, but it isn't a job that the National Security Advisor should be doing, especially not three days before his job as NSA began. Don't you agree?

Tony Podesta (Paul Manafords partner) also didn't register, yet crickets... When you name is affiliated with a Democrat power player, the law looks the other way.

Anonymous wrote:This case will be dismissed. Rao closely aligned her majority opinion to that if Justice Ginsberg in a previous 9-0 SC opinion (Sinneng-Smith) on judicial adversarial overreach where Ginsberg wrote that judges do not have "inquisitorial Powers" which was a rebuke of the 9th circuit for improper amicus briefing. This may be drug out if the ninth circuit makes a poor decision to hear this en banc, but it will be, and should be, upheld at the SC if it goes that far.