Trumps election staff was wiretapped......Well so much for no wiretap

[JakeStarkey]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

Jim Himes said it was illegal. Are you saying a Democrat member of the House Intel committee is wrong?

Of course he could be wrong. Hell, in that same interview, he said the leak stemmed from the White House after they were informed that Flynn was in communication with Russians and could be blackmailable. And that's wrong because the leak first appeared in the Washington Post prior to that.

But it's cute watching your brain spin. You actually thought because he's a Democrat, I would take his word as gospel.

Wrong again. I knew you would dismiss it since it doesn't line up with what you want to believe.

You are describing yourself, hawk, and it does not fly.

 

[Bassman007]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

Only in the mind of a determined schizophrenic like Jake Starkey, extraordinaire

Show me in the law where I am wrong: you can't.

Here is the law you dumb schitzo ****. Not that you can understand anything over a third grade level

• § 791 - Repealed. Pub. L. 87–369, § 1, Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 795]

• § 792 - Harboring or concealing persons

• § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

• § 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

• § 795 - Photographing and sketching defense installations

• § 796 - Use of aircraft for photographing defense installations

• § 797 - Publication and sale of photographs of defense installations

• § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

• § 798A - Temporary extension of section 794

• § 799 - Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and Space Administration

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of your links apply, bassman007. No law was broken, or presumed broken, until the investigation is finished.

 

[Bassman007]

None of your links apply, bassman007. No law was broken, or presumed broken, until the investigation is finished.

Again revealing anything about a FISA warrant is illegal unless a court approves this information be revealed. Even after a conviction is there is one, which there is not here, in fact there is not anything here, and if there was you would not know about it, UNLESS SOMEONE ILLEGALLY REVEALED THAT INFORMATION.

PS. Jake no one here has to prove anything to a schizo like you. Are you aware that you have NEVER ONCE denied being schizophrenic?

Now take your meds

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of your links apply, bassman007. No law was broken, or presumed broken, until the investigation is finished.

Again revealing anything about a FISA warrant is illegal unless a court approves this information be revealed. Even after a conviction is there is one, which there is not here, in fact there is not anything here, and if there was you would not know about it, UNLESS SOMEONE ILLEGALLY REVEALED THAT INFORMATION. PS. Jake no one here has to prove anything to a schizo like you. Are you aware that you have NEVER ONCE denied being schizophrenic? Now take your meds

You are wrong, as usual, bassman. No law has been broken until the proper authorities decide to pursue the violation. The investigation is not over. None of your material makes a lick of sense.

 

[Thinker101]

None of your links apply, bassman007. No law was broken, or presumed broken, until the investigation is finished.

So, you're saying a crook is not a crook until they get caught?

 

[Bassman007]

None of your links apply, bassman007. No law was broken, or presumed broken, until the investigation is finished.

Again revealing anything about a FISA warrant is illegal unless a court approves this information be revealed. Even after a conviction is there is one, which there is not here, in fact there is not anything here, and if there was you would not know about it, UNLESS SOMEONE ILLEGALLY REVEALED THAT INFORMATION. PS. Jake no one here has to prove anything to a schizo like you. Are you aware that you have NEVER ONCE denied being schizophrenic? Now take your meds

You are wrong, as usual, bassman. No law has been broken until the proper authorities decide to pursue the violation. The investigation is not over. None of your material makes a lick of sense.

So you are disagreeing that NUNES broke the law in revealing the warrants?

LOL LOL LOL

Nunes just broke the law- revealing FISA warrants - Discussionist

PS. Jake Starkey still has never denied being schitzo

 

[JakeStarkey]

what is Nunes just broke the law- revealing FISA warrants - Discussionist

What does that have to do with you?

 

[Bassman007]

what is Nunes just broke the law- revealing FISA warrants - Discussionist

What does that have to do with you?

Jake your schitzophrenia is acting up as you now seem to think that this discussion is about me....

Take the pills

Now revealing info is a crime
Devin Nunes Could Be Facing an Ethics Probe for Spilling Secrets

Give up and get your Vaseline and whack off again

 

[JakeStarkey]

what is Nunes just broke the law- revealing FISA warrants - Discussionist

What does that have to do with you?

Jake your schitzophrenia is acting up as you now seem to think that this discussion is about me....

Take the pills

Now revealing info is a crime
Devin Nunes Could Be Facing an Ethics Probe for Spilling Secrets

Give up and get your Vaseline and whack off again

Someone who agrees with you in another board (are you nuts?) does not make you right.

Show me the charges and indictment.

 

[theHawk]

None of your links apply, bassman007. No law was broken, or presumed broken, until the investigation is finished.

Again revealing anything about a FISA warrant is illegal unless a court approves this information be revealed. Even after a conviction is there is one, which there is not here, in fact there is not anything here, and if there was you would not know about it, UNLESS SOMEONE ILLEGALLY REVEALED THAT INFORMATION. PS. Jake no one here has to prove anything to a schizo like you. Are you aware that you have NEVER ONCE denied being schizophrenic? Now take your meds

You are wrong, as usual, bassman. No law has been broken until the proper authorities decide to pursue the violation. The investigation is not over. None of your material makes a lick of sense.

Interesting that it's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" when the suspect is a Democrat. Yet if anyone accuses Trump of anything, he is automatically guilty despite zero evidence being presented.

 

[JBond]

Interesting read. All this, and they still haven't found anything. I found the part about foreign intelligence services being involved very interesting. Seems to validate what others have been saying regarding the Brits.

EXCLUSIVE: FBI 'Granted FISA Warrant' Covering Trump Camp's Ties To Russia

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of your links apply, bassman007. No law was broken, or presumed broken, until the investigation is finished.

Again revealing anything about a FISA warrant is illegal unless a court approves this information be revealed. Even after a conviction is there is one, which there is not here, in fact there is not anything here, and if there was you would not know about it, UNLESS SOMEONE ILLEGALLY REVEALED THAT INFORMATION. PS. Jake no one here has to prove anything to a schizo like you. Are you aware that you have NEVER ONCE denied being schizophrenic? Now take your meds

You are wrong, as usual, bassman. No law has been broken until the proper authorities decide to pursue the violation. The investigation is not over. None of your material makes a lick of sense.

Interesting that it's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" when the suspect is a Democrat. Yet if anyone accuses Trump of anything, he is automatically guilty despite zero evidence being presented.

That is insane. Was Clinton guilty?

 

[theHawk]

None of your links apply, bassman007. No law was broken, or presumed broken, until the investigation is finished.

Again revealing anything about a FISA warrant is illegal unless a court approves this information be revealed. Even after a conviction is there is one, which there is not here, in fact there is not anything here, and if there was you would not know about it, UNLESS SOMEONE ILLEGALLY REVEALED THAT INFORMATION. PS. Jake no one here has to prove anything to a schizo like you. Are you aware that you have NEVER ONCE denied being schizophrenic? Now take your meds

You are wrong, as usual, bassman. No law has been broken until the proper authorities decide to pursue the violation. The investigation is not over. None of your material makes a lick of sense.

Interesting that it's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" when the suspect is a Democrat. Yet if anyone accuses Trump of anything, he is automatically guilty despite zero evidence being presented.

That is insane. Was Clinton guilty?

Which crime were you thinking of? She's been involved in so many crimes.

 

[Faun]

The leak, in fact, is legal until otherwise determined to be illegal.

Jim Himes said it was illegal. Are you saying a Democrat member of the House Intel committee is wrong?

Of course he could be wrong. Hell, in that same interview, he said the leak stemmed from the White House after they were informed that Flynn was in communication with Russians and could be blackmailable. And that's wrong because the leak first appeared in the Washington Post prior to that.

But it's cute watching your brain spin. You actually thought because he's a Democrat, I would take his word as gospel.

Wrong again. I knew you would dismiss it since it doesn't line up with what you want to believe.

LOLOL

Oh? What did I dismiss? You asked if he was wrong and I answered. Not only did I answer, I even provided evidence to back up my answer. You just don't like the answer.