Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election. Do you see the irony of that statement?
No. How could I? It's not even a complete sentence....It's a long run-on that's missing a subject.
This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.
Again, to prove Russian collusion, the source did not come from a government agency like the CIA. At least the CIA has the resources and knowledge, to determine if an actual collusion can be established without financial input from one political party. The NSA wasn’t even used as part of a reliable means to obtain a FISA warrant. The truth you don’t want to admit is this - To obtain the ability to authorize government surveillance to uncover foreign influence by a political party, Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS relied on the findings of a paid retired BRITISH agent. This paid foreign source is what was used to begin an investigation into political meddling and collusion, with a foreign government. It’s rather interesting, the truth you find, when you take the time to follow the facts.
Oh I’m sorry. What was it you were saying about using this really “exceptionally high bar”, when conducting a raid on a personal attorney, or putting a United States citizen under surveillance for an investigation?
This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.
Actually, no, it isn't. It's the response
you received from me with regard to that particular question because you wrote a run-on sentence that I cannot be certain of what it means, and then you asked me about that run-on sentence as though I can read your f*cking mind and know what it was supposed to mean.
You wrote this run-on sentence that has no subject:
Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election.
And then you asked:
Do you see the irony of that statement?
How the hell could I? The run-on sentence lacks a subject about which the supposed irony is to apply.
Rephrase, rewrite, add a subject, or something so that your so-called ironic run-on sentence is actually a complete sentences so I know what it means, and then I can answer the question you asked about it.
Then there's the fact that the first thing you mentioned was some BS about Cohen's house being raised.
Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation?
And I answered your dumbass question.
What? To answer your question directly, no, I cannot identify such an occurrence. That said, AFAIK, Cohen's house is still standing.
And then you shifted your topic and disregarded your initial assertion that Cohen's house had by the FBI been raised....You just flat out moved on as though you'd never made the assertion about the man's house being torn down.
So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.
That's how your comport yourself discursively and you have the gall to talk about "the response you could expect" with regard to my responses? I responded to your remarks with rigor, without premature predicates and inferences, and using nothing but objective references, and this childish "what you could expect" tone is how you reply to me.
Dude, when you figure out how to string together and express your thoughts coherently, you can talk to me and expect to get a substantive reply.
