Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

Not mentioning the DNC and Hillary's presidential campaign as funders? Those are some important details to omit. That's just me tho'.

So you don’t think a federal judge is smart enough to figure out who the opposition is politically to the GOP? Further, if the judge was confused, the judge would question and clarify.

This was oppo research from the two main entities that had an interest in winning the 2016 election. Omitting that info is HUGE! By the way, that FISA judge appears kinda shady.... and he was close enough to Strzok to have invited him to a party (See the text messages).

Still, it was disclosed the research was opposition related. If the judge felt he needed further clarification, he/she would have asked.

Listen to me! The funding of the DNC and Hillary's campaign was omitted. That's important. What aren't you getting about this? This is from the article YOU linked. Did you bother to read your own link? Asking for a friend.

It said it was politically funded. What part of that confuses you? You assume a judge isn’t smart enough to know what that means. Still, you managed to deflect the argument away from the question I keep asking. What did Strzok lie about?

The term "politically funded" is infinitely different from funded by "the oppositional candidate and the party which she represents". What are you missing about this? The case of the latter implies an interest that is much greater than that of the latter. C'mon man, do better.

Do you realize that most negative information comes from biased sources? Otherwise they wouldn’t snitch.