Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Alt Right cucks are filling their pants in hysteria.
We have direct deliberate deception by the most divisive president in our history as he lied about Obama wire tapping him.
We have the FBI and 16 intel agencies saying there was collusion, which is being investigated.
We have Comey testifying to the committee today.
Yup, you guys have every right to worry.
"The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!" - Trump
Except it was confirmed that the Russians were indeed behind the hacking and released the info through WL in this hearing.
Hey, if you can't trust a 'secret meeting' (that apparently isn't so 'secret'), what can you trust?Lakhota posted in an article that the 'circumstantial evidence' and decision that collusion had happened occurred during a Obama hold-over 'secret meeting' in the CIA...ya know, the guys who illegally leaked the information. If you can't trust them then who can you trust?
If we had eight Congressional hearings on Benghazi
We can have one on Trumps ties to Russia
The things you listed as circumstantial evidence are extremely weak as such. A good defense attorney would rip such accusations to shreds in court. However, in the court of public opinion, partisans will believe whatever they want to believe.Starskey, can you answer the question?What exactly is that circumstantial evidence?Thank you - 'circumstantial'...as in NO DIRECT< SMOKING-GUN, HARD, SOLID EVIDENCE. All snowflakes have is accusation and Conspiracy Theory BS!There is circumstantial evidence of collusion.
Again, Hacking DNC e-mails is NOT 'hacking the election'. Such an act is not even LOOSELY related to 'hacking the election'. Hacking the DNC's e-mails is a spate event that happened during an election that cast a bad light on Democrats!
It's B U L L S H I T!
So? Circumstantial is still evidence and can still be quite convincing, especially when paired with DIRECT EVIDENCE OF TRUMP'S ADMIN LYING about it.
Certainly. I need to ask though, why can't you?
There are multiple Trump people meeting multiple times with Russian officials at critical times within the timeline of the hacking, some with prior knowledge of information that was to be released.
Follow that with the fact that all of them, including Trump, have claimed no knowledge of meetings during the campaign.
That has been shown to be false and is certainly grounds for further investigation.
You weren't supposed to notice that. It distracts from the outrage, just outrage, I tell ya, at Trump.There are multiple Trump people meeting multiple times with Russian officials at critical times within the timeline of the hacking, some with prior knowledge of information that was to be released.
At this same time:
- Bill Clinton is taking $50K per speech from Vladimir Putin Ex-KGB buddies
- The brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager is working for the 'KGB Bank' that is tied closely to Vladimir Putin and the Russian Spy agency that does the actual hacking of the DNC computers.
- 3 Pakistani brothers - holding their mother hostage and spending the money of the father they potentially murdered / 1 having a criminal record / all 3 connected to terrorists
- were hired by Democrats and had illegal access to House and DNC files. Even after they were banned from the house and a criminal investigation was being held Debbie Wasserman Schultz IGNORES the ban and the criminal espionage investigation and hires 1 of the brothers on to help her, giving him full access to DNC usernames/passwords/emails - the emails they were eventually hacked.
There is far, FAR more evidence that Democrats aided and abetted spies and facilitated not only Russian hacking of their e-mails but also foreign espionage of the House secret files!
If anyone should be investigated further it should be DEMOCRATS, and if anyone should go to jail now it is Debbie Wasserman Schultz for ignoring the House Ban and criminal investigation of the 3 'spy' brothers in order to give them even more access to files they had no business dealing with.
Just let us know when you can prove anything.Sometimes criminals get away with it. OJ did. Trump may have.
Just let us know when you can prove anything.Sometimes criminals get away with it. OJ did. Trump may have.
Got any evidence of that?Just let us know when you can prove anything.Sometimes criminals get away with it. OJ did. Trump may have.
More words of wisdom from a Birther.
Got any evidence of that?Just let us know when you can prove anything.Sometimes criminals get away with it. OJ did. Trump may have.
More words of wisdom from a Birther.
"The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!" - Trump
Except it was confirmed that the Russians were indeed behind the hacking and released the info through WL in this hearing.
No, it wasn't.
The things you listed as circumstantial evidence are extremely weak as such. A good defense attorney would rip such accusations to shreds in court. However, in the court of public opinion, partisans will believe whatever they want to believe.Starskey, can you answer the question?What exactly is that circumstantial evidence?Thank you - 'circumstantial'...as in NO DIRECT< SMOKING-GUN, HARD, SOLID EVIDENCE. All snowflakes have is accusation and Conspiracy Theory BS!
Again, Hacking DNC e-mails is NOT 'hacking the election'. Such an act is not even LOOSELY related to 'hacking the election'. Hacking the DNC's e-mails is a spate event that happened during an election that cast a bad light on Democrats!
It's B U L L S H I T!
So? Circumstantial is still evidence and can still be quite convincing, especially when paired with DIRECT EVIDENCE OF TRUMP'S ADMIN LYING about it.
Certainly. I need to ask though, why can't you?
There are multiple Trump people meeting multiple times with Russian officials at critical times within the timeline of the hacking, some with prior knowledge of information that was to be released.
Follow that with the fact that all of them, including Trump, have claimed no knowledge of meetings during the campaign.
That has been shown to be false and is certainly grounds for further investigation.
What exactly is that circumstantial evidence?
Then you have a very low standard of proof. Tell me, did you agree with every stance <insert any democrat you've supported> has taken?Got any evidence of that?Just let us know when you can prove anything.Sometimes criminals get away with it. OJ did. Trump may have.
More words of wisdom from a Birther.
Your support for Trump the Birther plus your current refusal to repudiate Birtherism is all the proof I need.
Then you have a very low standard of proof. Tell me, did you agree with every stance <insert any democrat you've supported> has taken?Got any evidence of that?Just let us know when you can prove anything.Sometimes criminals get away with it. OJ did. Trump may have.
More words of wisdom from a Birther.
Your support for Trump the Birther plus your current refusal to repudiate Birtherism is all the proof I need.
And since when am I required to comment on every issue people are discussing? You're using the absence of evidence as evidence. That's pretty lame.
No, I'm not. How are you going to regain credibility now that you've been exposed flinging false allegations around?Then you have a very low standard of proof. Tell me, did you agree with every stance <insert any democrat you've supported> has taken?Got any evidence of that?Just let us know when you can prove anything.
More words of wisdom from a Birther.
Your support for Trump the Birther plus your current refusal to repudiate Birtherism is all the proof I need.
And since when am I required to comment on every issue people are discussing? You're using the absence of evidence as evidence. That's pretty lame.
Are you a Birther or not? I'm not. See how easy that is?
didn't say it wasn't, dope.The things you listed as circumstantial evidence are extremely weak as such. A good defense attorney would rip such accusations to shreds in court. However, in the court of public opinion, partisans will believe whatever they want to believe.Starskey, can you answer the question?What exactly is that circumstantial evidence?So? Circumstantial is still evidence and can still be quite convincing, especially when paired with DIRECT EVIDENCE OF TRUMP'S ADMIN LYING about it.
Certainly. I need to ask though, why can't you?
There are multiple Trump people meeting multiple times with Russian officials at critical times within the timeline of the hacking, some with prior knowledge of information that was to be released.
Follow that with the fact that all of them, including Trump, have claimed no knowledge of meetings during the campaign.
That has been shown to be false and is certainly grounds for further investigation.What exactly is that circumstantial evidence?
That's what you asked for, dope.
If we had eight Congressional hearings on Benghazi
We can have one on Trumps ties to Russia
