>>6384260 lb

>>6384289

It's because his eyebrows slant down at the corners, that is a "sad" expression. But his mouth says he's not sad, it's just his facial geometry.

>>6384311

And then Graham wrapped up the hearing saying, I'll write a letter to Mueller and ask if he disagrees with Barr's characterization of that conversation; we'll hear directly from him.

And that's it.

>>6384386

>>6384336

Pain is coming. Hold the line, Patriots.

>>6384467

Cruz was impressive. Several of ourguys were. The dems were uniformly almost impossible to listen to with whiney tones of voice uttering slanderous lies.

I missed part – did we find out when Horowitz's report is expected and what it's scope is? FISA abuse by politicized individuals within Obama's DoJ and FBI, and the origin of that? The dossier etc?

>>6384489

False. BO answered questions on a bread last night around 9-10pm EDT including a unanimous decision to implement captcha per post by the BVs, and a graph showing automated shill posts and anon posts before and after the captcha change.

Go look it up, faggot.

>>6384533

Nice graphic, fren. I hadn't gotten a chance to study that NYT article and the data is fascinating.

When an OPERATION is ACTIVE…

>>6384588

They posted it in a conversation, without using a tripcode IIRC.

>>6384601

Found it.

>>6378020 pb

>>6377972 pb

In this thread (pic)

and the graph was in the post

and it was obviously a BO/BV or they wouldn't had had access to this data

Anons have a lot to celebrate here.

An equal playing field that doesn't advantage automated posting anymore.

Shills can BTFO.

>>6384588

>>6384626

see

>>6384649

I don't see any "afraid to answer" here.

I see data. I'm a data freak so am well satisfied with a reply based on objective data.

Shills can BTFO

>>6384654

++X^

>>6384585

>>6384600

Happened to have this one…

X^

o7

>>6384696

If it wasn't a BO/BV, then explain where they got the data that was graphed there.

Logic tells me it was someone with access 8ch's administrative toolset.

I have nothing further to add on this topic. I'm just an observer of the breads and did you a big favor by looking up an old post for you.

Nothing further to say about this.

>>6384699

^ right!

Yes. People should learn to parse a fucking URL. It's only like we've been doing this for 30 years.

The parameters begin with a question mark.

If it doubt, edit the URL to remove the question mark and everything after it. Paste into a new tab and test the edited URL to make sure the server parses it as expected.

Then you have a clean URL to post that doesn't have personally identifying or tracking info on it.

>>6384735

Not my call! I'm just anon like you.

I presume that if BO/BVs wanted it in notables they had the power to edit the bread and put it in.

Instead, it's eyes-on.

The whining about it has certainly revealed a ton of shills who are butthurt about the change!

<3