GoFundMe page for fired FBI agent Peter Strzok raises $130,000 in 10 hours

  
Via:  jbb  •  last year  •  101 comments

GoFundMe page for fired FBI agent Peter Strzok raises $130,000 in 10 hours

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


GoFundMe page for fired FBI agent Peter Strzok raises $130,000 in 10 hours



Who says sending anti-Trump texts to your girlfriend doesn't pay? 

Sure, such texts cost Peter Strzok his 22-year career with the FBI, but they also seem to garner the disgraced former agent a lot of support – enough to raise more than $130,000 for his legal expenses in just 10 hours on a GoFundMe page

The page, launched Monday by "Friends Of Special Agent Peter Strzok," seeks $150,000 to be "put into a trust dedicated to covering Pete’s hefty – and growing – legal costs and his lost income." 

"Peter Strzok, a man who has spent his entire life working to help keep us and our nation safe, has been fired," reads a message on the GoFundMe page. "He needs your help."

The post goes on to say that Strzok has "been the target of highly politicized attacks, including frequent slanderous statements from President Trump, who actively – and apparently successfully – pressured FBI officials to fire Pete." 

It also says his firing did not follow the FBI’s "normal and independent process" because it overruled "the decision of the career professionals in the FBI’s disciplinary division." 

In less than half a day, the page drew in donations from more than 3,000 donors. The largest were three donations of $1,000. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JBB
1  seeder  JBB    last year

It seems Trump and the gop are intent upon purging the FBI of lifelong loyal Republicans...

FYI, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok are all conservative Big R Republicans.

I expect before this is all over they will all be completely vindicated and probably reinstated.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @1    last year
I expect before this is all over they will all be completely vindicated and probably reinstated.

It doesn't really matter.   Because if they aren't i'm sure you will find a way to complain how they were treated unfairly and railroaded by the system.

$232,237 by 5,780 people in just 21 hours...

Once again proving the old saying "A fool and their money are soon parted"

 
 
 
Spikegary
1.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  Sparty On @1.1    last year

Spot on, Sparty On.  The President didn't fire this asshole.  The office of professional conduct made a recommendation and the chief of the FBI made the decision to fire him, deservedly so.  This guy obviously lacked the integrity that his FBI career demands.  If you can't be trusted to be honest, how can you be an FBI Agent?

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Spikegary @1.1.1    last year
The office of professional conduct made a recommendation

The OPC's recommendation was not firing Strzok who was fired for political reason on Trump's demand...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @1.1.2    last year
The OPC's recommendation was not firing Strzok who was fired for political reason on Trump's demand..

Yep. Trumpsters don't concern themselves with the facts though. 

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
1.1.4  Phoenyx13  replied to  Spikegary @1.1.1    last year
This guy obviously lacked the integrity that his FBI career demands. If you can't be trusted to be honest, how can you be an FBI Agent?

are you holding an FBI Agent to higher standards than other government positions ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.2    last year

Prove it.

Should be simple enough, what do you have?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    last year

Prove it then. Should be simple enough, so what have you got in the way of proof?

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  JBB @1    last year
FYI, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok are all conservative Big R Republicans.
No they really are not, and none of them will be vindicated, but more likely to be investigated for all kinds of hanky panky and wrong doing.
strzoksmirk3.jpg

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  WallyW @1.2    last year

Compared with how cons supported infamous well known public trolls Strzok's GoFundMe is doing well...

The most loathsome troll on the entire internet only raised $260 of a $500,000 goal in 26 months. LOL.

 
 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     last year
I expect before this is all over they will all be completely vindicated and probably reinstated.

DITTO

 
 
 
JBB
2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Kavika @2    last year

Strzok's GFM account has raised, "Drum Roll Please", $232,237 by 5,780 people in just 21 hours...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1    last year

B. F. D.

Another big payoff for a lawyer.

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    last year
Another big payoff for a lawyer.

The fund is to replace Strzok's lost income also...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.2    last year

If you think a lawyer is working for free ………………………………..LMFAO!

 
 
 
JBB
3  seeder  JBB    last year

Strzok's GoFundMe account it, "TRENDING", and will exceed its now $350,000 goal within hours...

https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok

 
 
 
PJ
4  PJ    last year

Thanks for sharing.  I contributed

 
 
 
JBB
4.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  PJ @4    last year
I contributed

With the help of good people like you Peter Strzok's GoFundMe account should reach a million dollars...

I expect he'll need it to complete his appeals. Conservatives should be outraged at what Trump is doing.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.1  WallyW  replied to  JBB @4.1    last year

What did Trump do?

strzok-hearing-600-cdn-1200x630.jpg

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  WallyW @4.1.1    last year
What did Trump do?

Illegally conspire with Vlad Putin to hack HRC and the DNC and to enlist Putin's Troll army to help get himself illegitimately elected...

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.1.3  gooseisgone  replied to  JBB @4.1.2    last year
Illegally conspire with Vlad Putin to hack HRC and the DNC

Prove It !

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  gooseisgone @4.1.3    last year

They can't.

It is just as simple as that.

Now, they might give lots of words in answers, but you can rest assured PROOF will not be included!

 
 
 
Cerenkov
5  Cerenkov    last year

Crime DOES pay...

 
 
 
JBB
5.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Cerenkov @5    last year
Crime DOES pay...

What crime has Strzok been accused of? Not a one. He sent a dumb joke of a private text to his girlfriend.

When conservatives start losing their lifelong careers for dumb stuff they post on social media we can talk.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.2  It Is ME  replied to  Cerenkov @5    last year

You'd think the Liberal Types would "Contribute" that money to the "Poor" instead of some Ex. FBI HACK. It' about Priorities I suppose. Eye Roll

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
5.2.1  A. Macarthur  replied to  It Is ME @5.2    last year
You'd think the Liberal Types would "Contribute" that money to the "Poor" instead of some Ex. FBI HACK. It' about Priorities I suppose. 

Actually WE DO!

And unlike Conservative types who give primarily to RELIGIOUS charities, Liberals give broadly (BUT TO BE FAIR, NOT AS MUCH AS THE STEREOTYPES imply.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  A. Macarthur @5.2.1    last year
And unlike Conservative types who give primarily to RELIGIOUS charities

That sounds very much like a sweeping generalization to me.   That isn't even remotely true in my case so i'd honestly like to see what information you are basing that comment on.   

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  A. Macarthur @5.2.1    last year
Actually WE DO!

Except for $350,000 and growing. But that's just "Crumbs. confused

 
 
 
JBB
5.2.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.2    last year
i'd honestly like to see what information you are basing that comment on.   

Why must righties constantly ask for documentation of what is public knowledge outside their opaque bubble?

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331-story.html

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @5.2.4    last year

Oh boy ..... I'm a "righty" eh?   Well, yipee-ki-yay for me.

That said, your link CLEARLY does not prove that conservatives give PRIMARILY to religious organizations.   You can try again or you could just let the person i posed the question to answer the question.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @5.2.4    last year

I do believe that many people give primarily for the tax credit not because they have big hearts

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.6    last year

I agree but it can be both.   Good for the soul and the pocketbook.

I know it is for me with many of the groups i donate to.

 
 
 
PJ
5.3  PJ  replied to  Cerenkov @5    last year

Yes it does.  It get's you the Presidency.  devil

 
 
 
JBB
6  seeder  JBB    last year

If Strzok's private text damaged the FBI, what do Trump's dumb lying public Tweets do to the Presidency?

 
 
 
lennylynx
6.1  lennylynx  replied to  JBB @6    last year

Clapping 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6    last year

Is the subject of your seed the Go Fund me page for Strzok, or Trump?

 
 
 
JBB
6.2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2    last year
Is the subject of your seed the Go Fund me page for Strzok, or Trump?

All of the above. Quit sniping at those who are contributing to this article. Nobody appreciates your nonsense...

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.2.1    last year

It is a legitimate question, based on comments here by you and others, and based on what the title and content of the article seeded are.

Excuse me for thinking perhaps this was an article about a Go Fund Me page set up for Strzok and how much money it has raised,

See, that is why I ask, so I'll be on-topic.

I am sorry I didn't realize it was another "Hate Trump" article.

 
 
 
JBB
6.2.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.2    last year
I didn't realize it was another "Hate Trump" article.

The article is about overwhelming public support for Strzok after he was illegitimate firing by Trump...

I am not the topic. Quit trolling this article and either contribute or kick sand. Either way I don't care.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.2.3    last year

All I ask for is proof of your theory that Trump fired him.

 
 
 
WallyW
6.2.5  WallyW  replied to  JBB @6.2.3    last year
overwhelming public support for Strzok after he was illegitimate firing by Trump...

Trump didn't fire him, the FBI did. And no, the only overwhelming support is from liberal suck ups.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @6.2.1    last year
'All of the above. Quit sniping at those who are contributing to this article. Nobody appreciates your nonsense...'

applausethumbs up

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.2.3    last year

Overwhelming support?

Are you freaking kidding me?

How does less than 10k people equate to overwhelming support in a country of some 320 MILLION?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
7  A. Macarthur    last year

Let's subpoena all the FBI e-mails transmitted from the time the POTUS PRIMARIES BEGAN, up to  election day … have them scrutinized for incidents of partisan politicking and do so via a bi-partisan commission with a NEUTRAL THIRD-PERSON ARBITRATOR!

Post the results on a website open to the public with the tally as follows:

E-MAILS CONTAINING …

1) ANTI-TRUMP COMMENTS

2) ANTI-CLINTON COMMENTS

Let's see why TRUMP-precipitated FBI DEMOTIONS and FIRINGS are limited ONLY TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH WHOM COMEY SHARED HIS NOTES RE:THE FLYNN CONVERSATION!

 
 
 
JBB
7.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  A. Macarthur @7    last year

That certainly seems fair to me. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out...

 
 
 
Spikegary
8  Spikegary    last year

As Sparty On said earlier, just goes to prove the truth in the saying 'A fool and his money are soon parted'.

 
 
 
PJ
8.1  PJ  replied to  Spikegary @8    last year

I know!  Trump had to file bankruptcy how many times......  It's quite embarrassing but as you say, a fool and his money.  What's worse is those who vote this person into Office based on false credentials.  What should we call them I wonder........

 
 
 
Spikegary
8.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  PJ @8.1    last year

Not that Presdient Trump or bankruptcies really have anything to do with this article.  In football we called a fake like this an off-tackle slant.....generally a short yardage play.

How many companies?  Approx. 500 (according to wiki)

How many bankruptcies?  6 seems to be the agreed upon number (from the Washington Post)

What is the national average?  Looked at several sources and generally 50% make it 4-5 years before folding.

So, it seems as if his percentages as a businessman are far better than average.  I could do the math for you, but you wouldn't really care.

The bottom line?  Strozk deserved to be fired and was.  See?  There is justice in this world.  If you want to spend your money to help support this lying, cheating person, knock yourself out.  It's (or was) your money.  I'm sure there are many far more deserving charities out there.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @8.1    last year

Trump never claimed personal bankruptcy.  Companies using his name did.  But, it is a legal business tool, that many companies use.  Get over it.

 
 
 
PJ
8.1.3  PJ  replied to  Spikegary @8.1.1    last year

Yes, I did one of the things I hate when others do it to me.  I did a whataboutism.  I apologize because Trump's role in this has nothing to do with the money he lost but more about misusing his position to get people fired who opposed his election.

I'm surprised that you can discard and discount everything in this man's career simply because he tweeted negative comments about the President.  It seems incredibly thin skinned.

I'm assuming your career was perfect since you can so easily dismiss everything Mr. Strzok has done for the country.    You put a career man up against a man who dodged service 4 times over and pick the dodger?  What's wrong with this picture.

 
 
 
JBB
8.1.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  PJ @8.1.3    last year

Trump was so disreputable as a borrower no American banks would loan to him so he became beholding to Russian banks...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.2    last year

Those business bankruptcies forced his investors to take the hit while Trump protected some of his own interests. They are nothing to be proud of or blow off. 

 
 
 
WallyW
8.1.6  WallyW  replied to  JBB @8.1.4    last year
no American banks would loan to him so he became beholding to Russian banks...

Can you prove that statement, or is it a lie?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.5    last year

BUSINESS bankruptcies happen all the time.

As to INVESTORS losing money, well, that's the DOWNSIDE of investing.  It's NOT GUARANTEED to go up or even break even.  If they can't afford to play the game, DON'T GET IN THE GAME.

It really is that simple.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Spikegary @8.1.1    last year

I did the math. It's 1.2%

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  PJ @8.1.3    last year
It seems incredibly thin skinned.

It does, doesn't it.

I was about to engage in whataboutism but I think I will refrain

 
 
 
Spikegary
8.1.10  Spikegary  replied to  PJ @8.1.3    last year

I haven't picked anyone over anyone.  I do not believe that you have someone running an investigation, searching for the truth, when you already have your goal set and are just trying to collect evidence to get you to your pre-determined goal.  That is not the business the FBI is in and that's why he lost his job.  Additionally, I'm sure there is some 'moral' issues that the FBI has rules about, that he violated.

You seem to allow your emotions, your likes and hatreds, to determine how you see things.

Trump had to file bankruptcy how many times...... 

And now, you are moving the goal posts again.  In fact, trying to hide the goal posts.

 
 
 
PJ
8.1.11  PJ  replied to  Spikegary @8.1.10    last year

Gary - You picked Trump over Strzok when you decided that it was okay that this President harass and use his bully pulpit to launch a campaign against our civil servants and our intelligence community. 

I am sick to death of Trump supporters making excuses EVERYDAY for this man.  He is the worst human being to run our country in my lifetime.  I don't want to hear Trump supporters bitch one more day about being called deplorable.   They have allowed that term to become true.  To ignore common civility and human decency IS deplorable and pathetic.  

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and I concede that I do allow my emotions to dictate how I feel about things depending on the issue.  AND because I can acknowledge this about myself I'm also able to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation.  Sometimes I will correct myself and other times I will stay the course.

I don't want to argue about this with you anymore.  You have your opinion about me and I have my opinion about Trump supporters.  

 
 
 
Skrekk
8.1.12  Skrekk  replied to  PJ @8.1.11    last year
I have my opinion about Trump supporters. 

I suspect your opinion is shared not just by the majority of Americans but the majority of the world's population.

 
 
 
JBB
8.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Spikegary @8    last year
'A fool and his money are soon parted'.

Tell that to all the people who were ripped of by Trump University or all the contractors Trump stiffed...

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.2    last year

So Trump is the real story here, disguised as an article about Strzok and a Go Fund Me page?

 
 
 
JBB
8.2.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    last year

Strzok was illegitimately and probably illegally fired contrary to agency standards on Trump's orders so Trump is on topic...

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.2.2    last year

So then you should be able to easily prove what you say.

Show how and when Trump got him fired.

And while you are at it, if Trump did it (which he didn't), why would he wait so long to do it?

I will wait for your proof.

Should I go to an early lunch and come back later for it?

 
 
 
JBB
8.2.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.3    last year

Nobody should have to feed you public information known to anyone interested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/us/politics/peter-strzok-fired-fbi.html

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.2.4    last year

That is GREAT!!

I linked that exact article on another seed, too!

Here is my favorite part from that source:

WASHINGTON — Peter Strzok, the F.B.I. senior counterintelligence agent who disparaged President Trump in inflammatory text messages and helped oversee the Hillary Clinton email and Russia investigations, has been fired for violating bureau policies, Mr. Strzok’s lawyer said Monday.

I do appreciate you proving MY point, though!

Clapping

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.2.4    last year

By the way, why on earth would Mueller remove Strzok from his investigation if he did absolutely nothing wrong?

Wouldn't that be rather illogical?

Do you think Mueller is illogical?

 
 
 
JBB
8.2.7  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.5    last year

Strzok was fired for purely political reasons on Trump's probably illegal orders unless you can prove otherwise...

 
 
 
PJ
8.2.8  PJ  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.6    last year

I think Mueller is strategic.  He knew that even the appearance would be used to sow the seeds of doubt.  He took Mr. Strzok off the investigation to protect the investigation because the Republican's can no longer be counted on to exercise their constitutional duties.

Just like David Bowdich firing Mr. Strzok even though it was not the recommendation.  He did it for other reasons.  Some suggest it was to send a message throughout the FBI.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @8.2.7    last year

The burden of proof always lies with the accuser.

You accuse Trump, back it up with real facts, not guesses and speculation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @8.2.8    last year

So Mueller removed him for political reasons?

 
 
 
PJ
8.2.11  PJ  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.10    last year

That is my belief.  I could be wrong and perhaps we will learn the reasons some day.

 
 
 
WallyW
8.2.12  WallyW  replied to  JBB @8.2.7    last year
Strzok was fired for purely political reasons on Trump's probably illegal orders unless you can prove otherwise...

No, he was fired by the FBI for breaking protocol and agency rules.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @8.2.11    last year

Please engage your super-power and come up with something more!

Wink

 
 
 
PJ
8.2.14  PJ  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.13    last year

That's all I got.  I've been under the weather for about a week so my powers are not at full strength.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @8.2.14    last year

Get well soon!

 
 
 
Spikegary
8.2.16  Spikegary  replied to  JBB @8.2.7    last year

Prove it.  While you are doing that, answer Texan's questions.  Unless you are just full of it and can't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  Spikegary @8.2.16    last year

Silent as a little lamb!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9  XDm9mm    last year

Just one of many that have fallen and will continue to fall.

I'm waiting for the criminal charges of lying to the FBI to be levied and let them plead guilty as they forced others to do.

Great for their resume....   Former FBI now FELON.

 
 
 
JBB
9.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @9    last year
 Former FBI now FELON.

How in fuck do you figure that? Neither Comey, McCabe nor Strzok have even been accused of a crime much less a felony...

Unlike Trump's former campaign manager, national security officer and other assorted advisers who have be charged already.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @9.1    last year

Lying to the FBI is a felony.  Just ask Flynn.

And all of them have actually been accused of just that.

 
 
 
JBB
9.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.1    last year
And all of them have actually been accused of just that.

Only by that lying piece of shit Trump but not by any law enforcement agency. So, no they have not been...

 
 
 
JBB
9.1.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.1    last year

all of them have actually been accused of just that.

No they have not. Not a one of them has been charged with any crimes by any law enforcement agency...
 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @9.1.3    last year

Where did I say they were charged by law enforcement?   

Hell, Comey can't keep all the lies he himself says from day to day straight.

McCabe was terminated for being less than forthright (a POLITE way of saying lying).

And Strzok was noted for essentially the same in the IG report.

Have no fear, charges will be forthcoming.

 
 
 
JBB
9.1.5  seeder  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.4    last year
Have no fear, charges will be forthcoming.

No they won't because no laws were broken. BTW, whistleblowers are exempted from leak laws if what they release is evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Inspector Mueller's report is coming soon. It won't be former FBI agents purged by Trump who are charged. Conservatives have been proclaiming for years that Hillary Clinton would be charged with crime but not one indictment ever issued. In fact, zero nada no zip ranking Obama campaign or administration officials have ever ever ever been indicted for malfeasance in office which stands in stark contrast to the open rank and shameless criminality and mounting indictments against Trumpsters...

 
 
 
WallyW
9.1.6  WallyW  replied to  JBB @9.1.3    last year
No they have not. Not a one of them has been charged with any crimes by any law enforcement agency...
 
They haven't yet....this is far from over. More truth will be revealed to you as time goes on.

 
 
 
WallyW
9.1.7  WallyW  replied to  JBB @9.1.5    last year
BTW, whistleblowers are exempted from leak laws if what they release is evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

None of these clowns was a whistleblower in any way, form, or fashion. You need to do better research instead of making uninformed statements.
 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @9.1.5    last year

Here's a hint...

We're NOT//NOT discussing Obama and his den of ass kissers.

We're discussing Strozk and the idiots paying for his defense.

As has been said several times here...   a fool and his money.

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.9  MUVA  replied to  JBB @9.1.3    last year

They are under criminal referral.

 
 
 
JBB
9.1.10  seeder  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.8    last year

deleted

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1.11  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @9.1.10    last year

deleted

 
 
 
MUVA
10  MUVA    last year

This what the left wants they want to fund corruption they will use the FBI against you if they don't like your political position or mannerisms.

 
 
 
JBB
10.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  MUVA @10    last year

Those who donated to Trump's cheatng campaign are the ones who funded corruption. Drain the Swamp? Hahaha!

 
 
 
MUVA
10.1.1  MUVA  replied to  JBB @10.1    last year

Wrong.👎🏽

 
 
 
Spikegary
10.1.2  Spikegary  replied to  JBB @10.1    last year
Those who donated to Strozyk's Go Fund Me campaign are the ones who funded corruption.
Fixed that for you.

 
 
 
Split Personality
11  Split Personality    last year

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/14/peter-strzok-tweets-appreciation-support-after-firing-links-donation-page

$250,000 in  donations and growing....

The goal has now been changed to $350,000......per Fox News.

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.1  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @11    last year
This campaign is trending!

$299,796 of $350,000 goal

Raised by 7,668 people in 1 day
I'm guessing it will be pointless to track this in real time............it seems to be very popular.
 
 
 
JBB
11.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Split Personality @11.1    last year

Update - 2:30 P.M. Eastern Time - $309,992 of $350,000 goal met - Strzok may go into politics...

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  JBB @11.1.1    last year

deleted

 
 
 
JBB
11.1.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.2    last year

Nonsense. Update: due to overwhelming support for Strzok his original goal has been met and enlarged...

$382,018 of $500,000 goal - It could not have been done without you...

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @11.1.3    last year

Trust me on this--it WAS done without me!

Do you even realize what a tiny drop in the bucket less than 10,000 people are when compared to how many people there are in America?

Overwheliming support?

Phffft.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.5  livefreeordie  replied to  JBB @11.1.3    last year

deleted

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


JohnRussell
JumpDrive
Karri
Tacos!
devangelical
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Texan1211


342 visitors