Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
every time she does gowdy should just look at her and scream MY TIME, MY TIME and ignore her.Goudy butchered Strzok already, and Maxine couldn't resist blurting nonsense out of turn.
I know this might be hard to believe... but 100% of the time, an investigation doesn't start until some kind of intelligence information has been gathered to cause a need to start it. For Gowdy to argue that Strzok had no reason to think Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians because the investigation hadn't started yet is about as dumb as it could possibly be.
The Chairman of this hearing a is a joke.
what is shelia jackson even doing there? she still thinks the emancipation constitution constipation was written 400 years ago
where's the microphone?where is maxine waters?
can't make this kind of shit up.Republicans: “While you were discovering rampant treason in the Trump campaign... HOW DARE YOU TEXT YOUR BOO THAT YOU LIKE HILLARY????? WITCH HUNT!!! WIIITCH HUUUUUNT!!!!!”
I know this might be hard to believe... but 100% of the time, an investigation doesn't start until some kind of intelligence information has been gathered to cause a need to start it. For Gowdy to argue that Strzok had no reason to think Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians because the investigation hadn't started yet is about as dumb as it could possibly be.
The Chairman of this hearing a is a joke.
If true, he should have stated that. He could said "I didn't interview anyone, here is why". He doesn't have to give specifics of the case, in fact, nobody should expect him to. I do think though, that the potential higher ups demanding an investigation which at some level follows down from the President is strong.
Now, I can tell you, from personal experience, that authorities outside of America are not the same. If the FBI relied on intel from Britiain, Canada, NZ, Australia they have to understand that it is extremely dangerous in the context of an election.
What I am suggesting and accusing "allies" of, is doing what is in their best interests, they couldn't give a damn about U.S laws and liberty I know this as a fact. The CIA and FBI had better understand this. I'm not saying in an ongoing investigation, where U.S intel have started that these countries can't be of value, but to BEGIN an investigation of a potential future president? It can't happen.
Let me go down a foxhole for a moment. Obama interferred in the Brexit vote. Remember his "Britain would be at the bottom of the list in trade"? Well, might the British have repaid that comment with a fraudulent dossier?
I think this is the key to this debate. If the intel came from Britain, I wouldn't trust it. If it came from the CIA or FBI, then you have a legitimate case. That is coming from a guy who KNOWS how Canada operates. If another nation sees a massive difference in their ability to exploit America in Trump vs Clinton, I wouldn't trust it.
If Dems or anyone don't understand this, you had better. This isn't your grandpas world, the whole world was against Trump, these allies care little of U.S law.
They’ve always been that level of scum.Why are the filthy ass Democrats trying to run cover for this asshole?
Have they reduced themselves to that level of scum?
yeah rampant treason....you have no idea what treason is........socialism over patriotism.Republicans: “While you were discovering rampant treason in the Trump campaign... HOW DARE YOU TEXT YOUR BOO THAT YOU LIKE HILLARY????? WITCH HUNT!!! WIIITCH HUUUUUNT!!!!!”
I know this might be hard to believe... but 100% of the time, an investigation doesn't start until some kind of intelligence information has been gathered to cause a need to start it. For Gowdy to argue that Strzok had no reason to think Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians because the investigation hadn't started yet is about as dumb as it could possibly be.
The Chairman of this hearing a is a joke.
If true, he should have stated that. He could said "I didn't interview anyone, here is why". He doesn't have to give specifics of the case, in fact, nobody should expect him to. I do think though, that the potential higher ups demanding an investigation which at some level follows down from the President is strong.
Now, I can tell you, from personal experience, that authorities outside of America are not the same. If the FBI relied on intel from Britiain, Canada, NZ, Australia they have to understand that it is extremely dangerous in the context of an election.
What I am suggesting and accusing "allies" of, is doing what is in their best interests, they couldn't give a damn about U.S laws and liberty I know this as a fact. The CIA and FBI had better understand this. I'm not saying in an ongoing investigation, where U.S intel have started that these countries can't be of value, but to BEGIN an investigation of a potential future president? It can't happen.
Let me go down a foxhole for a moment. Obama interferred in the Brexit vote. Remember his "Britain would be at the bottom of the list in trade"? Well, might the British have repaid that comment with a fraudulent dossier?
I think this is the key to this debate. If the intel came from Britain, I wouldn't trust it. If it came from the CIA or FBI, then you have a legitimate case. That is coming from a guy who KNOWS how Canada operates. If another nation sees a massive difference in their ability to exploit America in Trump vs Clinton, I wouldn't trust it.
If Dems or anyone don't understand this, you had better. This isn't your grandpas world, the whole world was against Trump, these allies care little of U.S law.
The lawyer for the FBI TOLD HIM he could not answer it. That's all that needs to be said.
Republicans: “While you were discovering rampant treason in the Trump campaign... HOW DARE YOU TEXT YOUR BOO THAT YOU LIKE HILLARY????? WITCH HUNT!!! WIIITCH HUUUUUNT!!!!!”
Shit the fuck up, fascistyeah rampant treason....you have no idea what treason is........socialism over patriotism.Republicans: “While you were discovering rampant treason in the Trump campaign... HOW DARE YOU TEXT YOUR BOO THAT YOU LIKE HILLARY????? WITCH HUNT!!! WIIITCH HUUUUUNT!!!!!”
this hearing is already just as funny as the soup nazi episode.all we need is the soup nazi to grill peter stokeRepublicans: “While you were discovering rampant treason in the Trump campaign... HOW DARE YOU TEXT YOUR BOO THAT YOU LIKE HILLARY????? WITCH HUNT!!! WIIITCH HUUUUUNT!!!!!”
Rampant treason? Do tell!!
I know this might be hard to believe... but 100% of the time, an investigation doesn't start until some kind of intelligence information has been gathered to cause a need to start it. For Gowdy to argue that Strzok had no reason to think Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians because the investigation hadn't started yet is about as dumb as it could possibly be.
The Chairman of this hearing a is a joke.
If true, he should have stated that. He could said "I didn't interview anyone, here is why". He doesn't have to give specifics of the case, in fact, nobody should expect him to. I do think though, that the potential higher ups demanding an investigation which at some level follows down from the President is strong.
Now, I can tell you, from personal experience, that authorities outside of America are not the same. If the FBI relied on intel from Britiain, Canada, NZ, Australia they have to understand that it is extremely dangerous in the context of an election.
What I am suggesting and accusing "allies" of, is doing what is in their best interests, they couldn't give a damn about U.S laws and liberty I know this as a fact. The CIA and FBI had better understand this. I'm not saying in an ongoing investigation, where U.S intel have started that these countries can't be of value, but to BEGIN an investigation of a potential future president? It can't happen.
Let me go down a foxhole for a moment. Obama interferred in the Brexit vote. Remember his "Britain would be at the bottom of the list in trade"? Well, might the British have repaid that comment with a fraudulent dossier?
I think this is the key to this debate. If the intel came from Britain, I wouldn't trust it. If it came from the CIA or FBI, then you have a legitimate case. That is coming from a guy who KNOWS how Canada operates. If another nation sees a massive difference in their ability to exploit America in Trump vs Clinton, I wouldn't trust it.
If Dems or anyone don't understand this, you had better. This isn't your grandpas world, the whole world was against Trump, these allies care little of U.S law.
The lawyer for the FBI TOLD HIM he could not answer it. That's all that needs to be said.
Untrue. Congress has Constitutional oversight of the FBI. A lawyer at the FBI does not have the authority to override the Constitution.
Signed frank church democrat from idahoSincerely,Lol first question should have been Mr Strzok are you a partisan hack?
Partisan Hack