"It's not theirs, Its mine"

[Sixties Fan]

FIRED Strzok says you can trust the FBI, but 14 current FBI agency whistleblowers say the FBI is still corrupt / criminal as hell.

Snowflakes prefer to believe Strzok.

The Facts

Jim Jordan is a staunch Trump ally, claiming that authorities have been "out to get [Trump] after he left the White House."

Jordan has previously suggested that Republicans could impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland, if the GOP gains a majority in Congress; Garland confirmed earlier this month that he personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago.

However, the clip of Jordan shared on social media misleadingly implies that he was speaking about communications received from FBI whistleblowers after the Mar-a-Lago raid.
---------------------

Fact Check: Did Jim Jordan Say 14 FBI Agents Spoke to Him About Trump Raid?

A clip of Ohio Rep Jim Jordan was shared in which he appeared to claim that more than a dozen FBI agents had contacted him about the Mar-a-Lago search.

www.newsweek.com

Many are also pushing for proof of the matter.

"If Jim Jordan really has 14 FBI whistleblowers, he can make the paperwork they are required to file public," one Twitter user said. "If he cannot do that, well, he doesn't have 14 FBI whistleblowers."

Some approached the topic with similar skepticism but showed a level of trust in Jordan's claim.

One user wrote, "If Jim Jordan has 14 FBI whistleblowers going to his office, many more are probably going to other places as well. Hopefully, the Democrat Party's activities at the FBI will be exposed and people will be held accountable."

The majority, however, questioned Jordan's legitimacy.

Jim Jordan's '14 FBI Whistleblowers' Claim Met With Jokes, Skepticism

"Why would these alleged or phantom 14 FBI whistleblowers even WANT to go to Jim Jordan to report anything?" a Twitter user wrote.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

You have no idea what is contained in the 30 million pages of documents maobama kept, do ya commie?

.

NARA knows, as they are in control of all of them and not Obama.

 

[easyt65]

The Facts

Jim Jordan is a staunch Trump ally, claiming that authorities have been "out to get [Trump] after he left the White House."

Jordan has previously suggested that Republicans could impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland, if the GOP gains a majority in Congress; Garland confirmed earlier this month that he personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago.

However, the clip of Jordan shared on social media misleadingly implies that he was speaking about communications received from FBI whistleblowers after the Mar-a-Lago raid.
---------------------

Fact Check: Did Jim Jordan Say 14 FBI Agents Spoke to Him About Trump Raid?

A clip of Ohio Rep Jim Jordan was shared in which he appeared to claim that more than a dozen FBI agents had contacted him about the Mar-a-Lago search.

www.newsweek.com

Many are also pushing for proof of the matter.

"If Jim Jordan really has 14 FBI whistleblowers, he can make the paperwork they are required to file public," one Twitter user said. "If he cannot do that, well, he doesn't have 14 FBI whistleblowers."

Some approached the topic with similar skepticism but showed a level of trust in Jordan's claim.

One user wrote, "If Jim Jordan has 14 FBI whistleblowers going to his office, many more are probably going to other places as well. Hopefully, the Democrat Party's activities at the FBI will be exposed and people will be held accountable."

The majority, however, questioned Jordan's legitimacy.

Jim Jordan's '14 FBI Whistleblowers' Claim Met With Jokes, Skepticism

"Why would these alleged or phantom 14 FBI whistleblowers even WANT to go to Jim Jordan to report anything?" a Twitter user wrote.

www.newsweek.com

Funny, snowflakes who defended Schiff even after he was exposed as having completely made up a non-existent whistleblowet to use in an attempt to treasonously remove Trump from office as President now questioning Jordan for claiming he has had numerous whistle blowers contact him.

Why not allow Jordan to testify before the 6 Jan Committee? Oh yeah, because he might actually be telling the truth.

 

[OKTexas]

They do not care on how the government has worked under all Presidents. It is what the former President says that matters to them, only. Right or wrong.

Yeah, it matters how it worked under other presidents.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute

Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.

justthenews.com

.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Funny, snowflakes who defended Schiff even after he was exposed as having completely made up a non-existent whistleblowet to use in an attempt to treasonously remove Trump from office as President now questioning Jordan for claiming he has had numerous whistle blowers contact him.

Why not allow Jordan to testify before the 6 Jan Committee? Oh yeah, because he might actually be telling the truth.

Oops, you were saying?

Jim Jordan Refuses to Cooperate With Jan. 6 Panel (Published 2022)

The Republican congressman from Ohio, a close ally of former President Donald Trump’s, denounced the House investigation of the Capitol riot as one of the Democrats’ “partisan witch hunts.”

www.nytimes.com

Jan. 6 panel gives Jim Jordan deadline to comply with subpoena

The committee is giving Jordan more time to comply.

spectrumnews1.com

Jordan is just "dying " to testify to the committee, right?

 

[The Duke]

Nothing but unsubstantiated rumors. This is not "news." It is gossip.

The younger generation has not been taught correctly and incapable of realizing that. This is what they've done. How can we fix this easily? I don't see a way. Not without dedicated remedial classes.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Yeah, it matters how it worked under other presidents.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute

Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.

justthenews.com

.

This is not a matter of personal documents or items.

This is a matter of Classified and Top Secret documents.

 

[easyt65]

Oops, you were saying?

Jim Jordan Refuses to Cooperate With Jan. 6 Panel (Published 2022)

The Republican congressman from Ohio, a close ally of former President Donald Trump’s, denounced the House investigation of the Capitol riot as one of the Democrats’ “partisan witch hunts.”

www.nytimes.com

Jan. 6 panel gives Jim Jordan deadline to comply with subpoena

The committee is giving Jordan more time to comply.

spectrumnews1.com

Jordan is just "dying " to testify to the committee, right?

Jordan and other Republicans wanted to BE on the committee, but Pelosi only wanted the appearance of it being bipartisan, which is why Cheney & Kinzinger were allowed in it.

The committee then turns around and wants to force Republicans to appear before their witch hunt / Kabuki Theater?

I agree with those who have told the 6 Jan Committee to go f* themselves. After the Red Wave the GOP can hold legitimate Committee's and get real answers.

 

[easyt65]

This is not a matter of personal documents or items.

This is a matter of Classified and Top Secret documents.

How do you know? How do you know what Trump had?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jordan and other Republicans wanted to BE on the committee, but Pelosi only wanted the appearance of it being bipartisan, which is why Cheney & Kinzinger were allowed in it.

The committee then turns around and wants to force Republicans to appear before their witch hunt / Kabuki Theater?

I agree with those who have told the 6 Jan Committee to go f* themselves. After the Red Wave the GOP can hold legitimate Committee's and get real answers.

Different issue. He was not on the committee because he might end up as a witness. How would that have worked out?

 

[OKTexas]

Presidents don’t get security clearance. They’re granted access on account of their office.

Trump does not hold office. He has no security clearance.

Yet former presidents are authorized to receive classified security briefings. Go freaking figure.

.

 

[skye]

How do you know? How do you know what Trump had?

She doesn't know.

 

[easyt65]

Different issue. He was not on the committee because he might end up as a witness. How would that have worked out?

Pelosi refused to allow any real non-partisan Republicans on the committee. I guess you think that's because Pelosi saw all non-Trump hating Republicans as possible 'witnesses'.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Yet former presidents are authorized to receive classified security briefings. Go freaking figure.

.

Why do former presidents and officials continue to receive intelligence?

In addition to meeting with foreign leaders, former presidents and intelligence officials are expected to receive intelligence briefings for a number of other reasons.

One of the most obvious reasons is so that they can continue to advise the sitting administration and officials on incidents that may either be ongoing or reflect those of the past.

"Having former senior officials hold active security clearances can be critically important for those currently charged with defending our nation," Jamil N. Jaffer, who was associate counsel to President George W. Bush and founder of George Mason University's National Security Institute, told The Washington Post in a recent interview.

"It allows them to turn rapidly to people with significant experience, context and contacts to help interpret the activity of our opponents and to provide wise counsel and guidance, whether that's in the terrorism, foreign policy or any national security context," he said.

Do former US presidents have the right to receive daily CIA briefings?

In Michael Moore's 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11 a person named Dan Briody says the following: George H.W. Bush is a man who has obviously incredible reach into the White House. He receives daily CIA

politics.stackexchange.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Pelosi refused to allow any real non-partisan Republicans on the committee. I guess you think that's because Pelosi saw all non-Trump hating Republicans as possible 'witnesses'.

The ones not approved were going to be possible witness as to what had happened that day.

Can possible criminals be allowed to be on the Jury or committee against themselves? Not anywhere I know.

 

[The Duke]

NARA knows, as they are in control of all of them and not Obama.

Ofc not, it's Valerie Jarret in control, you betcha.

 

[easyt65]

Why do former presidents and officials continue to receive intelligence?

Why did a former Sect of State need TS/SCI data, the need to send and receive classified info, the need to Bleach Bit-wipe her server, and to illegally destroy classified govt devices with hammers?

 

[OKTexas]

This is not a matter of personal documents or items.

This is a matter of Classified and Top Secret documents.

You do know the supreme court will likely throw out the warrant as unconstitutional, right? General warrants are a big no no, try reading the 4th amendment.

.

 

[Sixties Fan]

She doesn't know.

Do you Skye? Do you not read the news?
Do you not pay attention as to what was in the news about what was returned in those boxes?

This is a continuing story, so you will get your wish at some point as to all that was in all of those 27 boxes.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Why did a former Sect of State need TS/SCI data, the need to send and receive classified info, the need to Bleach Bit-wipe her server, and to illegally destroy classified govt devices with hammers?

Start a thread about it.