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.
After being wrong over and over and over about just about everything....a more rational person might pause to wonder if he is saying stupid shit a lot.don't know if Benghazi will be investigated again, do you? It should, and those responsible should be prosecuted.
Took one post to get you to abandon your claim...He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.Is that a Constitutional quote too?
If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue
Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.
Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied on, you congenital moron.
Yes he did. A big mistake. I'm sure a bunch of sleazy establishment Republicans told him he had to.President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization billI know you will excuse anything the Obama administration does, even if it's staight out of Stalin's playbook. Any law that allows the an administration to spy on the campaign of the opposing party is obviously not constitutional. Only servile stalinist bootlickers would disagree.Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.
Only a Fascist would lie like you do in order to protect your Dear Leader.
The names of former campaign members were unmasked- legally- as part of an investigation.
Unmasking is not the same thing as wire tapping- but like your Fascist heroes- you certainly like 'alternative facts'
President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill
Because of course Donald Trump is just a gullible fool and doesn't know what he signs....
Rightwingnuts is nuts.After being wrong over and over and over about just about everything....a more rational person might pause to wonder if he is saying stupid shit a lot.don't know if Benghazi will be investigated again, do you? It should, and those responsible should be prosecuted.
I mean, really.....how long can a person go on whining and pissing and moanong that the whole world except for him has gone mad, and that's why what he thinks should happen never happens? I guess you're going to show us.
I am fully opposed to this. Mueller in on a witch hunt and it's time to bring him up short. But, here is what the article @ WH Attorney Says Trump Has No Plans to Fire Mueller - Here's What's Being Considered Instead says:
The Mueller probe is likely far from over, but there are also growing calls for a second special counsel to investigate allegations of abuse in the FBI and Department of Justice.
Sessions is considering the possibility.
Yes he did. A big mistake. I'm sure a bunch of sleazy establishment Republicans told him he had to.President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization billI know you will excuse anything the Obama administration does, even if it's staight out of Stalin's playbook. Any law that allows the an administration to spy on the campaign of the opposing party is obviously not constitutional. Only servile stalinist bootlickers would disagree.Only a Fascist would lie like you do in order to protect your Dear Leader.
The names of former campaign members were unmasked- legally- as part of an investigation.
Unmasking is not the same thing as wire tapping- but like your Fascist heroes- you certainly like 'alternative facts'
President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill
Because of course Donald Trump is just a gullible fool and doesn't know what he signs....
You really are desperate to get me to agree with one of you insulting characterizations of Trump.
Took one post to get you to abandon your claim...He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue
Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.
Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied on, you congenital moron.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign.
And ... * poof *
Just like that, it’s gone. Even you don’t believe it anymore.
Yes he did. A big mistake. I'm sure a bunch of sleazy establishment Republicans told him he had to.President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization billI know you will excuse anything the Obama administration does, even if it's staight out of Stalin's playbook. Any law that allows the an administration to spy on the campaign of the opposing party is obviously not constitutional. Only servile stalinist bootlickers would disagree.
President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill
Because of course Donald Trump is just a gullible fool and doesn't know what he signs....
You really are desperate to get me to agree with one of you insulting characterizations of Trump.
trumptards are desperate.
and you sound unhinged.
Who was spied on without a warrant?The evidence wasn't legally obtained, dumbshit. You can't spy on Americans without a warrant, and a FISA court is not a real court where its actions can be observed by the public. Secret courts and secret warrants do not meet constitutional muster. They are an obscenity as far as the constitution is concerned.No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.
So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.
You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;
You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.
You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.
No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.
In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.
The one I just quoted. Can you pay attention for more than 1 post?Took one post to get you to abandon your claim...He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.
Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied on, you congenital moron.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign.
And ... * poof *
Just like that, it’s gone. Even you don’t believe it anymore.
What claim am I abandoning?
One thing we know is that you aren't denying that, like a huge fucking dumbass, you claimed that none of Trump's campaign members were spied on.
You’re lying again. Obama did not spy on the campaign of the opposing party. Shit, not even Nutty Nunes even made such a ludicrous claim.He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.
Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied, you congenital moron.
They were spied on before they were unmasked, you retarded partisan buffoon.
So you admit they were spied on.
Former campaign members were 'spied upon' as part of surveillance against Russia- sure.
Of course Trump wasn't.
Nor were his campaign members.
Nor was Trump wiretapped.
All lies promoted by you.
What's the difference between "former campaign members" and "campaign members?" Is that campaign still in progress? Somehow you imagine your fictional distinction makes a difference.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration spied on the campaign of the opposing party. If the tables were turned, all you snowflakes would be screaming bloody murder.
Trump was spied on
His campaign staff was spied on.
The use of the term "wiretap" is irrelevent.
Stop kazzing, Flynn was never wiretapped.Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.Is that a Constitutional quote too?
If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue
Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.
No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone at DoJ or CIA in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason to have done it.
You already admitted that Flynn was wiretapped by the Feds pretending to wiretap a Russian who he talked to
The evidence wasn't legally obtained, dumbshit. You can't spy on Americans without a warrant, and a FISA court is not a real court where its actions can be observed by the public. Secret courts and secret warrants do not meet constitutional muster. They are an obscenity as far as the constitution is concerned.So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.
You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;
You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.
You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.
No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.
In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.
Yes it was ignoramus. Kysliak's lines were 100% legally wiretaped.
How can you rightwingers be so wrong, so often? It's an art form.
Haha...we got us another Trumpkin legal expert who is always wrong...However, making Flynn's part in the conversation public was illegal.
You’re lying again. Obama did not spy on the campaign of the opposing party. Shit, not even Nutty Nunes even made such a ludicrous claim.Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied, you congenital moron.
They were spied on before they were unmasked, you retarded partisan buffoon.
So you admit they were spied on.
Former campaign members were 'spied upon' as part of surveillance against Russia- sure.
Of course Trump wasn't.
Nor were his campaign members.
Nor was Trump wiretapped.
All lies promoted by you.
What's the difference between "former campaign members" and "campaign members?" Is that campaign still in progress? Somehow you imagine your fictional distinction makes a difference.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration spied on the campaign of the opposing party. If the tables were turned, all you snowflakes would be screaming bloody murder.
Trump was spied on
His campaign staff was spied on.
The use of the term "wiretap" is irrelevent.
You’re truly a fucking moron. You even admitted it yourself.
The one I just quoted. Can you pay attention for more than 1 post?Took one post to get you to abandon your claim...He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.
Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied on, you congenital moron.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign.
And ... * poof *
Just like that, it’s gone. Even you don’t believe it anymore.
What claim am I abandoning?
One thing we know is that you aren't denying that, like a huge fucking dumbass, you claimed that none of Trump's campaign members were spied on.
Took one post to get you to abandon your claim...He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue
Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.
Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied on, you congenital moron.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign.
And ... * poof *
Just like that, it’s gone. Even you don’t believe it anymore.
Took one post to get you to abandon your claim...He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue
Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.
Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied on, you congenital moron.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign.
And ... * poof *
Just like that, it’s gone. Even you don’t believe it anymore.
The evidence wasn't legally obtained, dumbshit. You can't spy on Americans without a warrant, and a FISA court is not a real court where its actions can be observed by the public. Secret courts and secret warrants do not meet constitutional muster. They are an obscenity as far as the constitution is concerned.You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;
You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.
You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.
No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.
In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.
Yes it was ignoramus. Kysliak's lines were 100% legally wiretaped.
How can you rightwingers be so wrong, so often? It's an art form.
Who's talking about Flynn? However, making Flynn's part in the conversation public was illegal.
The evidence wasn't legally obtained, dumbshit. You can't spy on Americans without a warrant, and a FISA court is not a real court where its actions can be observed by the public. Secret courts and secret warrants do not meet constitutional muster. They are an obscenity as far as the constitution is concerned.You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;
You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.
You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.
No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.
In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.
Yes it was ignoramus. Kysliak's lines were 100% legally wiretaped.
How can you rightwingers be so wrong, so often? It's an art form.
Who's talking about Flynn? However, making Flynn's part in the conversation public was illegal.
