:ALERTRED:
Yep....Trump trying to distract by declassifying documents and the public hearing being announced in the SCOTUS scandalAll types of fukkery just broke in the last 20 minutes
LOL...I’m surprised that I beat him by posting the breaking news information in this and the SCOTUS thread.try to keep up @∆y = f(∆x)
Page to Strzok: 'we need to lock up [redacted] in a chargeable way. Soon.'You made a ban bet that you are about to lose. He called you in here to collect. Who's trolling who?
why would it be bad for two cops to be talking about locking up criminals?Page to Strzok: 'we need to lock up [redacted] in a chargeable way. Soon.'
If redacted is mike flynn
This is the hill you want to die onPage to Strzok: 'we need to lock up [redacted] in a chargeable way. Soon.'
If redacted is mike flynn
Page to Strzok: 'we need to lock up [redacted] in a chargeable way. Soon.'
If redacted is mike flynn
The judge would throw out the caseIf redacted is Mike Flynn then what?
He already admitted he did that shyt. His colleagues tried to refer him years ago for being a traitorous simp.
Why would urgency to lock someone up before he further betrays his country be a problem?
If there was a serial killer and someone texted "We gotta lock him up before he strikes again" would you be upset?
The intel he likely provided led to more American and other deaths than any serial killer weve had.
:DameMJLol:why would it be bad for two cops to be talking about locking up criminals?
It would be proof that the cops metaphorically “sprinkled crack” on a person to get a charge as Dave Chappelle would saywhy would it be bad for two cops to be talking about locking up criminals?
The judge would throw out the case