User Panel
View Quote Pretty much this^^^ |
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
A question that has to be ask. How is it that the FBI does not need to Vet the Democrat memo but does the House committee version? Looks to me like they don't care about releasing secret information. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Just heard on Fox that the Dems are releasing theirs TODAY. Beaten to the punch and thats going to negate the 1.2 million pages of whatever the real truth is.... |
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if at some point, some of these people will tire of getting sucked down the Clinton drain hole. It's not as if there is any reason for them to protect her at this point. She holds no apparent power. Why go down with a ship that already sank? Or, are they just the truest of true believers? I would think at least one or two of them would be looking to cut a deal at this point, unless they're confident that they will be protected by the swamp itself. Just something I was thinking about. Who knows..... Who knows though, they are pretty damned bold gangsters, and they continue to have the majority of the media blowing wind in their sails, and sweeping mines for them. That's another thing.... I would think at some point, the media would be told by (whoever they are) to cut the line, let the Hillary cancer anchor sink to the bottom, and start pushing the next great Democrat savior. It seems to me, the longer they prop her up, the worse it is for them. She's become a rotten albatross. I'm not even a particularly good checkers player though, so I really don't know shit about these high stakes games. |
|
Press Sec: White House was not involved in the decision. Refer any specific questions to the FBI. FBI will be making a statement later.
|
|
Quoted:
my question exactly, think of it, legally you don't have to protect, hide, censor, or redact fiction. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Just heard on Fox that the Dems are releasing theirs TODAY. Beaten to the punch and thats going to negate the 1.2 million pages of whatever the real truth is.... |
|
Rod Rosenstein will be next.
The group retirement party is gonna be a good one. I wonder of the underscores will get an invite? |
|
Quoted:
Trump Jr has his twitter on fire today.
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Don't assume that a soft coup is the worst secret these people have. The Clintons spent decades collecting dirt on people and then surrounded themselves with those they could control. Look at Anthony Wiener, pedophile. Or the Clinton's close relationship with convicted underage girl sex ring organizer Jeffrey Epstein, who cofounded the Clinton Global Initiative (international pay for play) while running an "orgy island" that served pedos and, coincidentally I'm sure, hosted Bill Clinton dozens of times. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if at some point, some of these people will tire of getting sucked down the Clinton drain hole. It's not as if there is any reason for them to protect her at this point. She holds no apparent power. Why go down with a ship that already sank? Or, are they just the truest of true believers? I would think at least one or two of them would be looking to cut a deal at this point, unless they're confident that they will be protected by the swamp itself. Just something I was thinking about. Who knows..... |
|
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ThE Republicans have something like 1.2 million pages of documents to back up their memo I bet the dems was written on a cocktail napkin https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/417286/1517250861693-435013.JPG |
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ThE Republicans have something like 1.2 million pages of documents to back up their memo I bet the dems was written on a cocktail napkin https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/417286/1517250861693-435013.JPG |
|
|
|
NYTIMES spin - "F.B.I. Deputy Director, Attacked by Trump, Steps Down"
|
|
Quoted:
I caught that aswell View Quote I’m watching the presser right now. They are reserved. Not as viscous us with the attacks as they usually are. I think everyone one knows the hammer is about to drop on all of this and the corruption of the entire Democratic Party and the last administration. |
|
|
The #resist tards are calling for Trump to be impeached over this.
|
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I wonder if at some point, some of these people will tire of getting sucked down the Clinton drain hole. It's not as if there is any reason for them to protect her at this point. She holds no apparent power. Why go down with a ship that already sank? Or, are they just the truest of true believers? I would think at least one or two of them would be looking to cut a deal at this point, unless they're confident that they will be protected by the swamp itself. Just something I was thinking about. Who knows..... View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
People have to go to jail over this. If the penalty is retirement with pension in place (and that beautiful dental plan) then the next man/woman up will do what this one did. Real penalties have to be handed out. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Waiting for the indictments and or arrests. Especially if McCabe is one of the 1000s of sealed indictments. |
|
He can be compelled to testify if he was still an FBI employee, correct?
Now he can’t. |
|
Last week Wray threatens to quit if admin removes McCabe.
On Sunday Wray reads the memo. On Monday, Wray removes McCabe. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: hate to agree with under_score, but McCabe has had his retirement set for March for quite some time. Makes sense to burn up all your accrued vacation at the end if you can't cash it out. View Quote Unless they’re leaving under duress, these types never take an early out. You don’t claw, scratch and back stab for 30 years just to burn your vacation a month early. Wonder what kind of deal he cut? TC |
|
Quoted:
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
@ericholder "@realDonaldTrump "...legitimate criminal inquiry..." are cases against (1) you-contempt of Congress; (2) Lerner-misuse of IRS authority; (3) Burke-Mexican gun running and Brian Terry death; and (4) Clinton's leaking classified info. Those inquiries? #ReleaseTheMemo |
|
|
Quoted:
"At this point in time, are you of the opinion that nothing that's come out about Andy or his wife should be looked into in regards to conflict of interest, or, regarding his wife, quid pro quo shenanigans?" @goalieMN View Quote |
|
Quoted:
"Terminal Leave" Is that what they are calling it these days? I wouldn't want anything to do with "terminal leave" I think that's what Vince Foster did. View Quote |
|
|
|
Quoted:
NYTIMES spin - "F.B.I. Deputy Director, Attacked by Trump, Steps Down" View Quote sorry I couldnt help it. I just had to change channel to CNN to get my RDA of liberal tears |
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Unless Wray fired him he gets to keep his pension. If Wray did not fire him Wray should be fired. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
He's only doing this to save his pension. If here were to get fired he would loose that. Bongino had this exact information in (I believe) last Thursday's podcast. He'll lawyer up next and he'll need it. Fuck him. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Most people have an aversion to being suicided. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if at some point, some of these people will tire of getting sucked down the Clinton drain hole. It's not as if there is any reason for them to protect her at this point. She holds no apparent power. Why go down with a ship that already sank? Or, are they just the truest of true believers? I would think at least one or two of them would be looking to cut a deal at this point, unless they're confident that they will be protected by the swamp itself. Just something I was thinking about. Who knows..... |
|
Quoted:
He's only doing this to save his pension. If here were to get fired he would loose that. Bongino had this exact information in (I believe) last Thursday's podcast. He'll lawyer up next and he'll need it. Fuck him. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
He's only doing this to save his pension. If here were to get fired he would loose that. Bongino had this exact information in (I believe) last Thursday's podcast. He'll lawyer up next and he'll need it. Fuck him. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926C 18 U.S. Code § 926C - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b). (b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that— (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. (c) As used in this section, the term “qualified retired law enforcement officer” means an individual who— (1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; (2) before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice); (3) (A) before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or (B) separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency; (4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State; (5) (A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or (B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); (6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and (7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. (d) The identification required by this subsection is— (1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or (2) (A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer; and (B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met— (I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or (II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm. (e) As used in this section— (1) the term “firearm”— (A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title; (B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and (C) does not include— (i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act); (ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and (iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and (2) the term “service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer” includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government. (Added Pub. L. 108–277, §?3(a), July 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 866; amended Pub. L. 111–272, §?2(c), Oct. 12, 2010, 124 Stat. 2855; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, §?1089(2), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1971.) |
|
Quoted:
Reports are, he was in fact fired. Hopefully that is the case. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.