iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,920
- 1,600
An "image?" You actually believe that's acceptable? How do we know it's an image of the actual server? How do we know it wasn't doctored? Only an incompetent FBI agent would accept "an image" of the server rather than the actual server. This is the kind of absurd crap that Hillary drones expect us to accept.OH - a PRIVATE company go to give it a looksie, did they???
so, let me recap again.
russia is attacking our government election system
they hack a DNC server
the government isn't allowed to look it over, this attack on our election process itself
the government must accept a 3rd partys word on what happened.
so in the middle of trump being taken to the coals for (2) years over said hacking he still can't be linked to, what hacking we say DID occur our government wasn't even allowed to verify it FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.
i guess the "collusion" aspect isn't all that strong if the FBI doesn't demand to see the very proof you use to prosecute a sitting president.
could you BE more stupid?
well, i'm sure you can. that's the sad part.
You really shouldn't ask that question.
The FBI got an image of the hacked servers. Now, you don't understand what "hacking" is, and your handlers trust you not to know what an "image" is, and that's why they confidently lie to you. And, being a good know-it-all, you also never learn. Not a thing, ever.
That really isn't a way to go through life, you know?
and the kind of "proof" they would never allow in return.