Why is the M5M largely ignoring the FBI agent texts?

ColonelAngus

Diamond Member
Feb 25, 2015
51,243
50,719
3,615
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
 
You left wing useless sheep need to wake up and read Alinsky”s 12 rules radicals.

HILLARY CLINTON’S MENTOR

 
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
So feeling the need to take out personal liability insurance is a "smoking gun"?

Is that always true or just in this case? Is it true for instance in the case of a White House staffer who's afraid he or she will be called to testify before congress?

If so I can assure you the Trump administration has lots of smoking guns.

See you take out an insurance like that when you fear you might be called to defend your actions. Considering the fact that this entire investigation has been the target of at least 3 separate investigations, not an outrageous assumption.

I understand the need to give the most nefarious explanation for everything to push a narrative but the reason it's not covered is because the need to defend your actions is not the same as admitting or even being likely guilty. Luckely for your candidate I would assert.
 
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
So feeling the need to take out personal liability insurance is a "smoking gun"?

Is that always true or just in this case? Is it true for instance in the case of a White House staffer who's afraid he or she will be called to testify before congress?

If so I can assure you the Trump administration has lots of smoking guns.



See you take out an insurance like that when you fear you might be called to defend your actions. Considering the fact that this entire investigation has been the target of at least 3 separate investigations, not an outrageous assumption.


Go ahead and excuse it all away. Read the entire article and explain it all away.

Did you even Mueller? Trump and Putin colluding to steal the electon was a big fat fucking lie, perpetuated by the lying media and left wing useless sheep who slurp up the lies from the MSM.

Read all the texts,you dolt.
 
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
So feeling the need to take out personal liability insurance is a "smoking gun"?

Is that always true or just in this case? Is it true for instance in the case of a White House staffer who's afraid he or she will be called to testify before congress?

If so I can assure you the Trump administration has lots of smoking guns.

See you take out an insurance like that when you fear you might be called to defend your actions. Considering the fact that this entire investigation has been the target of at least 3 separate investigations, not an outrageous assumption.

I understand the need to give the most nefarious explanation for everything to push a narrative but the reason it's not covered is because the need to defend your actions is not the same as admitting or even being likely guilty. Luckely for your candidate I would assert.
if you are acting inside the accordance of the law, then you shouldn't be worried about having to defend your actions. the legal system does that.

anything else is acting OUTSIDE that system and you need "insurance" for when it all falls down on you.
 
You are kidding right? No one that deserves it goes to jail in D.C.
Maybe if people demand long enough and hard enough they may throw some junior agent under the bus and pretend that it is all taken care of.
D.C. was literally corrupt and has been for years. It did get a lot worse under 44.
 
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
So feeling the need to take out personal liability insurance is a "smoking gun"?

Is that always true or just in this case? Is it true for instance in the case of a White House staffer who's afraid he or she will be called to testify before congress?

If so I can assure you the Trump administration has lots of smoking guns.



See you take out an insurance like that when you fear you might be called to defend your actions. Considering the fact that this entire investigation has been the target of at least 3 separate investigations, not an outrageous assumption.


Go ahead and excuse it all away. Read the entire article and explain it all away.

Did you even Mueller? Trump and Putin colluding to steal the electon was a big fat fucking lie, perpetuated by the lying media and left wing useless sheep who slurp up the lies from the MSM.

Read all the texts,you dolt.
What do you think I need to excuse? FBI agents fearing they will need legal representation when investigating the campaign of someone running for president? Not for nothing do you feel the need to excuse anyone taking a lawyer when giving testimony under oath.

As for the article. No as a matter of fact I didn't. I read the actual report as I read the actual Mueller report. The entire thing and then proceded to form my own opinion. Maybe you should try it?
 
“We have some loose ends to tie up, and we all need to meet to discuss what to do with each case (he said shut down Razor),” one agent texted, referring to Crossfire Razor, the FBI’s internal code name for the investigation of Flynn.

o glad they’re closing Razor,” an agent responded.


NOTHING TO SEE HERE. :laughing0301: :auiqs.jpg:
 
Last edited:
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
So feeling the need to take out personal liability insurance is a "smoking gun"?

Is that always true or just in this case? Is it true for instance in the case of a White House staffer who's afraid he or she will be called to testify before congress?

If so I can assure you the Trump administration has lots of smoking guns.

See you take out an insurance like that when you fear you might be called to defend your actions. Considering the fact that this entire investigation has been the target of at least 3 separate investigations, not an outrageous assumption.

I understand the need to give the most nefarious explanation for everything to push a narrative but the reason it's not covered is because the need to defend your actions is not the same as admitting or even being likely guilty. Luckely for your candidate I would assert.
if you are acting inside the accordance of the law, then you shouldn't be worried about having to defend your actions. the legal system does that.

anything else is acting OUTSIDE that system and you need "insurance" for when it all falls down on you.
Really it does? That's why a judge if you appear before him strongly discourages anyone from representing themself?
 
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
So feeling the need to take out personal liability insurance is a "smoking gun"?

Is that always true or just in this case? Is it true for instance in the case of a White House staffer who's afraid he or she will be called to testify before congress?

If so I can assure you the Trump administration has lots of smoking guns.

See you take out an insurance like that when you fear you might be called to defend your actions. Considering the fact that this entire investigation has been the target of at least 3 separate investigations, not an outrageous assumption.

I understand the need to give the most nefarious explanation for everything to push a narrative but the reason it's not covered is because the need to defend your actions is not the same as admitting or even being likely guilty. Luckely for your candidate I would assert.
if you are acting inside the accordance of the law, then you shouldn't be worried about having to defend your actions. the legal system does that.

anything else is acting OUTSIDE that system and you need "insurance" for when it all falls down on you.
Really it does? That's why a judge if you appear before him strongly discourages anyone from representing themself?
what does getting legal council have to do with buying insurance for your actions?

do you often go "shit, i'm going to go buy groceries, i better get some liability insurance in case i do something wrong"?

crock of shit. sorry.
 
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
Unbelievable double standard used by Obama's rogue team.

“We all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
 
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
So feeling the need to take out personal liability insurance is a "smoking gun"?

Is that always true or just in this case? Is it true for instance in the case of a White House staffer who's afraid he or she will be called to testify before congress?

If so I can assure you the Trump administration has lots of smoking guns.

See you take out an insurance like that when you fear you might be called to defend your actions. Considering the fact that this entire investigation has been the target of at least 3 separate investigations, not an outrageous assumption.

I understand the need to give the most nefarious explanation for everything to push a narrative but the reason it's not covered is because the need to defend your actions is not the same as admitting or even being likely guilty. Luckely for your candidate I would assert.
if you are acting inside the accordance of the law, then you shouldn't be worried about having to defend your actions. the legal system does that.

anything else is acting OUTSIDE that system and you need "insurance" for when it all falls down on you.
Really it does? That's why a judge if you appear before him strongly discourages anyone from representing themself?
what does getting legal council have to do with buying insurance for your actions?

do you often go "shit, i'm going to go buy groceries, i better get some liability insurance in case i do something wrong"?

crock of shit. sorry.
Bying groceries isn't exactly the same as investigating a campaign for president. Last time I checked its pretty unlikely there will be a congressional hearing because Linda checked if the tomato was ripe. Something that is a certainty when going after a Presidential candidate.
 
Straight up smoking gun. Federal agents say TRUMP WAS RIGHT AND THEY BOUGHT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

This is all over CNN, right?


FBI-Rabbit-Holes-10132016.jpg
So feeling the need to take out personal liability insurance is a "smoking gun"?

Is that always true or just in this case? Is it true for instance in the case of a White House staffer who's afraid he or she will be called to testify before congress?

If so I can assure you the Trump administration has lots of smoking guns.

See you take out an insurance like that when you fear you might be called to defend your actions. Considering the fact that this entire investigation has been the target of at least 3 separate investigations, not an outrageous assumption.

I understand the need to give the most nefarious explanation for everything to push a narrative but the reason it's not covered is because the need to defend your actions is not the same as admitting or even being likely guilty. Luckely for your candidate I would assert.
if you are acting inside the accordance of the law, then you shouldn't be worried about having to defend your actions. the legal system does that.

anything else is acting OUTSIDE that system and you need "insurance" for when it all falls down on you.
Really it does? That's why a judge if you appear before him strongly discourages anyone from representing themself?

Read the article and address the texts between agents.
 
You left wing useless sheep need to wake up and read Alinsky”s 12 rules radicals.

HILLARY CLINTON’S MENTOR

They've been reading, living and breathing marxist Alinsky, they just didn't know it.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top