POTUS has the ability to dissolve any agency not in the Constitution

Cummings sounds like he's IN LOVE with the FBI & law enforcement. Hmmm

leg irons ..perp walk

Is he really?

Dissolve all agencies.. burn it down (I'm in a mood 😉 )

Cummings: behind closed doors, the Republicans asked you about confidential human sources...

Protecting human sources, give me a break, how many have been Arkancide this week alone?

Force your adversary to take a position & expose himself

there gonna get him on changing the context of changing negligence to intent.. that was bias..he used judgement on what Hillary did..

is there something other than human souces??

protection in a trash compactor?

The snakes are being charmed

I think disolving the FBI would require congressional vote,though

You have gained a rank @Pawhuska, you just advanced to 20 . Thanks for all you do Patriot!

Cummings: you weren't able to answer because of the longstanding policy of not revealing confidential human sources... is that right?

Strzok: [yeah, sure]

human source...is there inhuman sources ? alien sources ?? animal sources ?

this is what true mafia look slike

MD Rep: clarifies the context of the question in question

[no really]

AI vs human

https://giphy.com/gifs/polica-mom-pop-music-polia-3o72EWCwB0RGfduNWM

Strzok: people who come to the FBI as sources put their lives in the hands of the FBI

risk of being arkancided

Strzok: no matter where those sources come from... Beijing, Moscow ... they won't come forward if we can't protect them

👉 Humans

Convincing is easy to speak...truth is not....the guilty are comfortable with convincing

cummings has been coached !!

leading

Cummings conflates Weiner laptop with investigation with HRC's email server [again0

Dem's = we gotta keep everything SECRET

https://giphy.com/gifs/xonOzxf2M8hNu

If it was not a "Human Source" ..................WTH

Previously rehearsed

how about protecting the trash compactor?

shall I stop? sorry

dont stop.

@Charlie exactly

Please go on

[it helps me digest it]

I think the mistake here is trying to prove INTENT on the basis of a "late night text" . . . . "INTENT is notoriously hard to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" . . . .to prove that STROCK KNEW he had a dubious attitude to the future POTUS is STILL CRIMINAL, and FAR EASIER TO PROVE