Deranged Rhino

All you're doing with the bolded is proving you do not understand what happened. It 100% does impact you, and did. And will in the future. That is if you care about the republic, your country, or your sovereignty. But you "don't care" because ... you're too ignorant, programmed, and complacent to do anything other than be a useless idiot for the ones who broke the law. You're a sad person.

Okay, this is pretty cool...

The biggest scandal in US history, a backdoor coup utilizing and abusing the most powerful surveillance tools ever devised -- and "you don't care". Sad. (You're so programmed you don't even realize it. A smarter person would be offended by this... but not you. You "don't care").

Offense doing some work.

All that and you still dodged the question. The question isn't whether Trump/Russia was false -- of course it was. The question was how did it start, who pushed it, and was it done for partisan political (and illegal) reasons? The evidence says yes. You don't say a word about it... why?

Yessir. Though, I'm not holding my breath quite yet about a reveal.

For what? Evidence of illegal surveillance and serious crimes being committed in the name of political spying? (Already proven/released: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf ) Or for the entire upper echelon of the FBI/DOJ under 44 to be referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution? (Already happened) Or for a federal probe with indictment/investigatory power to be unleashed? (In progress) ... The question to ask someone like you, someone who seemingly thought the Trump/Russia story was the end of our republic, why aren't you outraged at the abuses uncovered to date? Are they not big enough for you? (It's just a coup, no biggie)? Or is it that the media continues to lie to you and you keep listening because you've learned nothing about their agenda since 2016? Could it be that you're overlooking the biggest scandal in US history simply because you've been programmed NOT to look at it? That can't be, right? You're too smart for that.

With that news, the Equifax news today -- a pretty clear/alarming pattern of penetration emerges. How deep, how long has the PLA been infested in our government? What kind of information did they get in terms of controlling/blackmailing our elected officials? ... And, note that in the Equifax news, the FBI actually examined the servers themselves.

@transplantbillsfan

More on the above: Throw this news in with Pompeo's speech to the governors this weekend...

Posting for the second video:

Cue to Bernie Bro freak out:

No one who values breathing without machine assistance.

Get ready for what is shaping up to be a big news week...

Could be, which would be a disaster. I interpreted it differently. He leads off saying how half of them are going to jail (top half), but then talks about petitioning the DOJ for witnesses -- which, if they're going to jail/under active investigation he knows he won't get. There are two ways to slice this in my eyes based on his history: either 1) he's going to petition for names he knows he won't get to look like he's doing something while actually planning on doing nothing in the Senate, or 2) he's planning on being the legislative/policy cleanup crew with whatever is left of the FISA court and the 702 program. The FISC itself and its 702 program is up for renewal come mid March. They have to hold hearings before then if they're serious about implementing any sort of serious reforms to the court (or kick the can down the road again, which I wouldn't put past them if they're confident come March in retaining the Senate and retaking the House). Barr said before the holiday that Durham would likely be done in the spring (March/April) -- you could see Durham hit first (first to get indicted will likely be Comey/McCabe/Baker -- I've heard Clapper too but I think he comes later if ever), then Graham calling the lower level people who are not under indictment in order to set the table for the Congress to debate the FISC issues. But we'll see soon enough. (On the 12th, of course ) To the above: