|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 3, 2017 20:38:59 GMT -5
Yahoo News/BloombergSo, the FBI, including Rod Rosenstein, Cristopher Wray, and Robert Mueller are in trouble for failing to keep congress up to date on the Russia probe, and apparently hiring a Hillary flack to investigate. Oh, and Sessions? Yeah, the partisans made sure he recused himself from their witch hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 4, 2017 11:08:23 GMT -5
The entire "investigation" is a scam. There was nothing to 'investigate' as regards Trump or his campaign. It was all based on a fake "dossier" that the FBI knew, from the get go, was fake. It was bought and paid for by the Party of the KKK, and if there was 'collusion', it was from the Party of the KKK and The Felon. The faked "hacking" of the Party of the KKK server, the hiring of Awan, and keeping him on even after they knew he was under investigation, all of it is a criminal enterprise from bottom to top.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 4, 2017 17:32:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 5, 2017 9:57:03 GMT -5
He's also the one that "interviewed" Mills and Aberdine. If Flynn is being prosecuted for lying to the FBI, why aren't they? They were lying the second they said "good morning", and continued until they left. Why isn't there a warrant out for them? |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 5, 2017 11:51:18 GMT -5
Why? To replace them with equally partisan operatives from the other side? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 5, 2017 12:09:54 GMT -5
Why? To replace them with equally partisan operatives from the other side? I know, I know, it’s imperative to you that highly partisan Democrats like Strzok continue to run the FBI. But it’s not healthy for the country or the FBI. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 5, 2017 12:12:06 GMT -5
No, RJ, it's actually imperative that non-partisan people run the agency. But I'm sure that, if you were the one replacing, you'd go for highly partisan Republican operatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 5, 2017 12:28:58 GMT -5
No, RJ, it's actually imperative that non-partisan people run the agency. But I'm sure that, if you were the one replacing, you'd go for highly partisan Republican operatives. Sorry, but you're clearly just fine with the Democrats running it now. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 5, 2017 12:52:44 GMT -5
Which Democrats are you talking about? Sessions? Rosenstein? Mueller?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 5, 2017 13:36:19 GMT -5
Which Democrats are you talking about? Sessions? Rosenstein? Mueller? It's right there in the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 5, 2017 21:03:37 GMT -5
Why? To replace them with equally partisan operatives from the other side? To replace them with actual Americans, instead of Party of the KKK traitors, moles, and criminals. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Dec 5, 2017 21:04:25 GMT -5
Which Democrats are you talking about? Sessions? Rosenstein? Mueller? It's right there in the OP. He can't read, and his keeper refuses to read anything that doesn't castigate Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 6, 2017 11:47:25 GMT -5
No, RJ, it's actually imperative that non-partisan people run the agency. But I'm sure that, if you were the one replacing, you'd go for highly partisan Republican operatives. Sorry, but you're clearly just fine with the Democrats running it now. Delete |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Dec 6, 2017 11:50:19 GMT -5
Sorry, but you're clearly just fine with the Democrats running it now. So leave it as it is is your solution because they can impede Trump for another 3 years? As much as I didn't like Trump... he was spot on with the "Swamp". Frag it for all I care along with the reptilians that dwell in it. You have me confused with palealeman. |
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 6, 2017 11:52:41 GMT -5
So leave it as it is is your solution because they can impede Trump for another 3 years? As much as I didn't like Trump... he was spot on with the "Swamp". Frag it for all I care along with the reptilians that dwell in it. You have me confused with palealeman. My error, I apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 6, 2017 11:53:48 GMT -5
Why? To replace them with equally partisan operatives from the other side? So leave it as it is is your solution because they can impede Trump for another 3 years? As much as I didn't like Trump... he was spot on with the "Swamp". Frag it for all I care along with the reptilians that dwell in it. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 6, 2017 12:18:03 GMT -5
No, 3000, I already answered. See above.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 6, 2017 12:48:25 GMT -5
No, 3000, I already answered. See above. Where do you suspect you might find a non partisan? The FBI and IRS were SUPPOSEDLY beyond reproach, seems obama had the Midas touch for stuff. How does one FIRST remove the fox in the hen house and find this unbiased fox, armed resurrection? I suspect the cupcakes of the left wouldn't like the end result. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 6, 2017 13:34:41 GMT -5
Armed resurrection? I'm only aware of one prior resurrection, and it wasn't armed! Be interested in learning more about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 6, 2017 13:38:11 GMT -5
3000, maybe you should ask Ranger John. He seems to be the person who's convinced that the FBI has become a partisan (read: Democrat) organization, and he wants to get rid of the partisans. I'd like to know who he wants to replace them with.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 6, 2017 13:49:00 GMT -5
3000, maybe you should ask Ranger John. He seems to be the person who's convinced that the FBI has become a partisan (read: Democrat) organization, and he wants to get rid of the partisans. I'd like to know who he wants to replace them with.Odd, that's exactly what I asked you. For starters why not persecute to the full extent of the law? Learner comes to mine, Clinton's whore as well. If Trump is in fact guilty of anything other than being an brown eye go after him as well. |
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 6, 2017 13:51:19 GMT -5
Armed resurrection? I'm only aware of one prior resurrection, and it wasn't armed! Be interested in learning more about this. My bad.... insurrection, we're over populated anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 6, 2017 13:55:18 GMT -5
Odd, 3000fps, I just posted elsewhere the oft-repeated adage, "Reading is fundamental." If you'd read, you'd see that I did answer your question. "No, RJ, it's actually imperative that non-partisan people run the agency."
And I think the Clintons have been persecuted enough. I don't think that's the government's business. (spelling and proofreading are also critical skills).
|
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Dec 6, 2017 14:04:33 GMT -5
Odd, 3000fps, I just posted elsewhere the oft-repeated adage, "Reading is fundamental." If you'd read, you'd see that I did answer your question. "No, RJ, it's actually imperative that non-partisan people run the agency." And I think the Clintons have been persecuted enough. I don't think that's the government's business. (spelling and proofreading are also critical skills). Sorry, you're obviously wrong. She committed several felonies, wasn't charges or punished at all. You BTW didn't answer anything I asked you too. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Dec 6, 2017 14:17:29 GMT -5
I did answer. Look at the sentence in quotes. Reading is fundamental.
And so is spelling. I think the Clintons have been PERSECUTED enough. The right has been after Mrs. Clinton for 30 or more years. Now, if you mean PROSECUTED, that's another issue. And, just out of curiosity, what would you PROSECUTE her for?
|
|
