Anonymous
Post 11/02/2019 01:14     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Can a new president give Andrew McCabe his retirement? Can that be done?

He'll have a long wait.


The next President can, and she will. Trump can read about it from his cell.


Please please please let this be our future.

Why?
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2019 19:05     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Meanwhile, McCabe has not been indicted for lack of candor, despite Barr's best efforts. The deadline is November 15 to put up or shut up.

Only Qanon knows if Durham will be indicting him or anyone else soon.
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2019 19:03     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
DOJ has responded to McCabe's wrongful termination suit with a motion to dismiss.

https://mobile.twitter.com/big_cases/status/1190374020937588736

Their arguments are pretty woeful. Glad I didn't have to sign that.

https://mobile.twitter.com/big_cases/status/1190374804920111107
Anonymous
Post 11/01/2019 14:55     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
NY Times

Prosecutors provide 302 of interview that shows former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe did not pressure anyone to change Flynn 302.

https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1190301740702355456
Anonymous
Post 10/27/2019 15:35     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Can a new president give Andrew McCabe his retirement? Can that be done?

He'll have a long wait.


The next President can, and she will. Trump can read about it from his cell.


Please please please let this be our future.
Anonymous
Post 10/27/2019 13:00     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Can a new president give Andrew McCabe his retirement? Can that be done?

He'll have a long wait.


The next President can, and she will. Trump can read about it from his cell.
Anonymous
Post 10/27/2019 12:46     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:Can a new president give Andrew McCabe his retirement? Can that be done?

He'll have a long wait.
Anonymous
Post 10/27/2019 12:30     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Can a new president give Andrew McCabe his retirement? Can that be done?
Anonymous
Post 10/27/2019 12:21     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Didn’t McCabe lie under oath?

He's accused of "lack of candor" not lying. Lack of candor means that he knowingly failed to be 100% clear or failed to provide 100% of the relevant facts. It's a much more stringent standard than lying, but it's also harder to prove. It's harder to prove because it's somewhat subjective. Was he unclear or just misunderstood? If he left something out, was it intentional? Was it really relevant?


Translation, he lied.

Exactly. Poor little Andy.

Funny how you think everyone is a liar who belongs in jail, except Trump, who is always unfairly accused, even when he lies on TV with instant fact checking.
Anonymous
Post 10/27/2019 11:00     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Didn’t McCabe lie under oath?

He's accused of "lack of candor" not lying. Lack of candor means that he knowingly failed to be 100% clear or failed to provide 100% of the relevant facts. It's a much more stringent standard than lying, but it's also harder to prove. It's harder to prove because it's somewhat subjective. Was he unclear or just misunderstood? If he left something out, was it intentional? Was it really relevant?


Translation, he lied.

Exactly. Poor little Andy.
The Grand Jury disagrees with you.
Anonymous
Post 10/27/2019 10:55     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Didn’t McCabe lie under oath?

He's accused of "lack of candor" not lying. Lack of candor means that he knowingly failed to be 100% clear or failed to provide 100% of the relevant facts. It's a much more stringent standard than lying, but it's also harder to prove. It's harder to prove because it's somewhat subjective. Was he unclear or just misunderstood? If he left something out, was it intentional? Was it really relevant?


Translation, he lied.

Exactly. Poor little Andy.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2019 11:28     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't know that there's a place for this but I just wanted to say it: Andrew McCabe is SO hot.


Agree


I want him to interrogate me.

Omg lol. Yes, he is super hot. I also think Rosenstein is hot. I think it's just anyone who stands up to Trump is hot to me.

Rosenstein is a twit.


Barf to Rosenstein.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2019 00:53     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Didn’t McCabe lie under oath?

He's accused of "lack of candor" not lying. Lack of candor means that he knowingly failed to be 100% clear or failed to provide 100% of the relevant facts. It's a much more stringent standard than lying, but it's also harder to prove. It's harder to prove because it's somewhat subjective. Was he unclear or just misunderstood? If he left something out, was it intentional? Was it really relevant?


Translation, he lied.

No. You don't understand law. It's okay, you don't need to understand.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2019 00:42     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Little snake.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2019 00:42     Subject: Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Didn’t McCabe lie under oath?

He's accused of "lack of candor" not lying. Lack of candor means that he knowingly failed to be 100% clear or failed to provide 100% of the relevant facts. It's a much more stringent standard than lying, but it's also harder to prove. It's harder to prove because it's somewhat subjective. Was he unclear or just misunderstood? If he left something out, was it intentional? Was it really relevant?


Translation, he lied.