Team Dazzler's FBI

Then they should have identified themselves if they had a legitimate reason to be talking to that person... otherwise it's harrasment, which is against the law, Turbo.
The whole conversation was captured, Mildred. I can't wait to see the results of a lawsuit for "harassment".
Want to bet on whether they're running surveillance on him now?
 
Last edited:
Then they should have identified themselves if they had a legitimate reason to be talking to that person... otherwise it's harrasment, which is against the law, Turbo.
The whole conversation was captured, Mildred. I can't wait to see the results of a lawsuit for "harassment".
Want to bet on whether they're running surveillance on him now?
I would think that's very likely. Wouldn't you?
 
Then they should have identified themselves if they had a legitimate reason to be talking to that person... otherwise it's harrasment, which is against the law, Turbo.
The whole conversation was captured, Mildred. I can't wait to see the results of a lawsuit for "harassment".
Want to bet on whether they're running surveillance on him now?
I would think that's very likely. Wouldn't you?
On what basis? The Feebs said it wasn't illegal. No crime. Spend large dollars in him but not in the guy that was at the good course with a gun to shoot Trump? He's been known forever but he works for your side. Comrade Gertrude.
 
@MallCop
If you have information on who the Feds are surveilling and what they're spending on each subject, you should post it.
But I see you identify with this racist Libertarian. Your side?
 
Then they should have identified themselves if they had a legitimate reason to be talking to that person... otherwise it's harrasment, which is against the law, Turbo.
The whole conversation was captured, Mildred. I can't wait to see the results of a lawsuit for "harassment".
Want to bet on whether they're running surveillance on him now?
I would think that's very likely. Wouldn't you?
For what crime?
 
@MallCop
If you have information on who the Feds are surveilling and what they're spending on each subject, you should post it.
But I see you identify with this racist Libertarian. Your side?
racist
JFC
 
@MallCop
If you have information on who the Feds are surveilling and what they're spending on each subject, you should post it.
But I see you identify with this racist Libertarian. Your side?
I worked a metric shit ton of surveillance. Always had a reason though. A felony criminal reason. Never followed why one or worked a write tap because some one expressed some speech that was perfectly legal. See the difference?
 
@MallCop
If you have information on who the Feds are surveilling and what they're spending on each subject, you should post it.
But I see you identify with this racist Libertarian. Your side?
I worked a metric shit ton of surveillance. Always had a reason though. A felony criminal reason. Never followed why one or worked a write tap because some one expressed some speech that was perfectly legal. See the difference?
Never any surveillance of someone who walked right up to the edge of criminality?
Bullshit
 
@MallCop
If you have information on who the Feds are surveilling and what they're spending on each subject, you should post it.
But I see you identify with this racist Libertarian. Your side?
I worked a metric shit ton of surveillance. Always had a reason though. A felony criminal reason. Never followed why one or worked a write tap because some one expressed some speech that was perfectly legal. See the difference?
Never any surveillance of someone who walked right up to the edge of criminality?
Bullshit
What edge did they walk up to?
 
The fact HHusky is an attorney and doesn't believe in civil rights is amazing.
You assume too much. barry was an attorney. Both Clinton's. The dementia patient and Headboard are attorneys. The three dem Supreme Court justices that can't read the Constitution are attorneys. I assume most attorneys are dems.
 
Back
Top