>>8852343 lb
that actually contradicts his own explanation about the type of red flag laws he supports. still might not be a good thing, but you sound like you're just regurgitating leftist talking points. i saw the same shit on twatter. what would motivate you to do that i wonder?
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/11/rep-dan-crenshaw-explains-his-support-red-flag-laws/
>missed this from last (two) breads:
probably because you're using a predetermined opinion to propagate a specific habbening in a click bait headline to push your own narrative.
there are far more logical reasons for this decision. but your mind is already made up. you wont engage in discussion with anons, and and want everyone to think what you tell them to. you even reply with the same pasta every bread to try and draw moar attention to it.
your shill fu is weak as fuck faggot.
AG Barr Blocks Release Of 9/11 Documents over national security concerns
>The officials told the judge in the civil case that the release of the files would endanger national security.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ag-barr-blocks-release-911-documents-despite-promises-victims-families
>>8852607 House Intel Committee "laser-focused" on CIA info given to FBI in 2016
notable
i would advocate for including the information quoted directly from the article, even zerohedge got a little clickbaity with that one imo.
but you're the baker, bake away.
agreed. perhaps promises shouldnt have been made. notes look good baker thanks