Best! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Putin's puppet seems confused Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Better! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > time to pay up Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Good&Better Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Well, I'm waiting.... Bwhhahaha!
> > > > >
> > > > > No you prove that Strzok had it out for
> don
> > > the
> > > > > con and only don the con!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sad to watch the returds lies crumble
> > down..
> > > > and
> > > > > so satisfying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Show me the links that prove your
> point!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Still waiting.... Bwhhahaha!
> > > > > .
> > > >
> > > > First, do you stand by all the links you
> > > posted?
> > > >
> > > > Second, is your only proof that Strzok had
> it
> > > for
> > > > more than DT a single Hillary text and an
> > > insult
> > > > hurled at the Berners? That's pretty weak
> > > shit,
> > > > even for a pussy like you.
> > >
> > > Seems the whole argument is Strzok had it out
> > for
> > > tRump...
> >
> > And his texts point in that direction.
> >
> > > I have proven that is not the case.
> >
> > Actually, you haven't. You haven't even gotten
> > close. In fact, genius, one of your links
> actually
> > refutes it completely.
> >
> > Pro tip: when trying to make a point in a
> > discussion, it's probably best not to post a
> link
> > that directly refutes your assertion.
> (Something
> > tells me you've heard that advice before, but
> it
> > didn't quite penetrate your thick scull,
> > blockhead.).
> >
> > > Seems you are calling names when your
> argument
> > is
> > > falling apart.
> >
> > Nope. Just asking if you stand by the links
> you
> > posted in your attempt to make a point.
> >
> > > All your base are belong to us!
> >
> > You seem to be having som trouble communicating
> in
> > English. Ask Putin for some refreshers in
> > conversational English.
>
> Thank you. You have proven my point.
>
> You are going through a state of cognitive
> dissonance. Refusing to see the obvious truth in
> front you.
>
> Pro tip, know what you are talking about and when
> you have lost.
> Because you have lost. And I have won! You are
> such a loser... certain you are familiar with
> being loser. Hahahaha!
>
>
> All your base are belong to us!*
> * a declaration of victory & supuerority
A declaration of victory when faced with defeat. Comrade Putin is proud of your propaganda! He places you up there with Baghdad Bob!
From your links:
Jerry Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, said, “Peter Strzok wasn’t saying anything about Donald Trump that the majority of Americans weren’t thinking.”
It’s a cute line that was parroted by many in the media. And it’s true that FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions. But there are multiple problems with the sentiment, including that “the majority of Americans” aren’t tasked with investigating one, much less both, of the major-party candidates in a presidential election.
And if it were true that there were no problem with these totally normal political opinions, why did special counsel Mueller remove Strzok from the probe when he discovered the texts?
Want to address that point?
Strzok Also Lightly Critiqued Bernie Sanders, So There’s No Problem
This wouldn’t even be a good talking point if Strzok were investigating Chelsea Clinton and Bernie Sanders. But it’s a particularly bad talking point when they’re not. And it bears repeating: If these comments were no big deal, why was Strzok removed from the probe and shuffled off to human resources?
Well, have a response?
Also, what was the "insurance policy" that Strzok and Page discussed?
Make sure you consult with the Kremlin to ensure you are parroting approved talking points.