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.
Fucking moron, in the Mueller report.Fucking moron, none of that addresses Russia attempting to hack Hillary's email hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.
- The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
- The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
- There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
- Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
- U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
- Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
- Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
- Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
- John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
Where's the evidence that it ever happened?
I said nothing about the tweet you posted, Idiot.LOLOLOLOh? Of what did the Senate exonerate?No, you raving lunatic.LOLOLNot on him to prove he is innocent, Moron.LOLOLAll you prove is that you're too stupid to understand the explanation she included in her article. I can live with that.Nope. It wasn't explained."You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this."No, it isn't. What actual evidence is in the report?LOLOLYou link had no evidence.Not sure how to "past" something into a post, but regardless, I already posted a link to show Russia tried to hack Hillary's email just hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.Really? Then past it into your post.No, fucking moron, I have the Mueller report. That's evidence.In other words, you have no evidence.If you want access to classified material, you're gonna need to obtain that clearance yourself.Cut and paste it from the report.LOLStill no evidence, Fawn? Just whining about your betters?^^^ a moron who still thinks a news article by a journalist is an "opinion piece" and think thehill.com is "lefty news."W
Wrong. You gave me an opinion piece that referenced the Mueller report.And I gave you evidence. Mueller's report is evidence. Exactly how retarded are you?LOLOLYou are still evidence free, Fuckwit.LOLOLOLAn opinion piece in The Hill isn’t evidence, Perry Mason.LOLStill no evidence, I see.LOLOLOLI asked for the evidence Mueller has, not ”lefty news reports”, Fuckwad.Fuck off, dumbfuck, I already gave you a link to the news reporting on this. So did meaner gene. That you still want to keep your head buried firmly up your ass because you want to continue denying reality is your problem at this point.Show me Mueller's evidence. Who told him they tried to hack Hitlery's private email account? Hillary? Grow a brain.LOLOLLOLOnly people who had her emails at that point was the FBI, and they were missing tens of thousands.
Link to Russia doing that attempting to hack her emails hours after the crack?
Watch this................
Sure, watch this ...
“Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office,” the report reads, referring to Russia's military intelligence agency.The Russian officers sent malicious links to 15 email accounts linked to the domain of Clinton’s personal office, and the “investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain," according to the report.
Mueller: Russians tried to hack Clinton accounts hours after Trump’s email remarks
Russian military officers targeted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with hacking attempts within hours of then-candidate Donald Trump suggesting Moscow should find Clinton’s emails, a…thehill.com
Her personal office? The emails in question were her Sec of State emails, Dummy.
Try again.
Dumbfuck... again ... email does not reside on a single server. Hackers tried to access her email accounts, just as I said
Are you ever not a
Ever??
And how the hell does Mueller know they never tried to hack her before? How could he possibly prove that? Hint: He can't.
You are a gullible rube.
You're such a raging dumbfuck, this is your idea of "lefty news"...
Secondly, thehill.com article I posted cited the Mueller report.
Thirdly, are you ever not a raging dumbfuck? Ever???
Not my problem you can't read. Of course, I'm saying that to the forumjester
Now everyone here knows you don't know the difference between opinion pieces and journalism.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try as hard as you to make a complete fool of themselves.
Here's a clue for ya ... articles on news sites that are opinion pieces ... state they are opinion pieces.
Must suck to be you.
Suuure, dumbfuck ... the news just made it up.
Now you are catching on, Ultra Slow One.
I keep asking you for EVIDENCE, you keep bring inane bullshit.
I asked what evidence Meuller has. Did Hitlery tell him that Russia tried to hack her personal email years after she turned over all her SOS emails to the FBI?
How would Mueller know if Russia never tried to hack her before that? That is unknowable, yet you claim the report has the evidence to prove it. What is that evidence?
Be specific.
This is getting boring.
The evidence is in the report, cited by the article you're incapable of comprehending.
Dumbfuck, Mueller's report is evidence.
You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this. I wonder why.
Holy fuck, are you ever retarded. Yes, that was explained. Even worse for you -- that explanation is in the link to thehill.com article you just posted.
You keep losing, loser.
Let's apply your "logic" to another scenario:
I just walked around my back yard looking for gold. I didn't find any.
Using your logic, that proves gold doesn't exist.
Using your logic, Impeached Trump was was never exonerated of colluding with Russia.
That isn't how our system works, Simpleton.
Oh? You're claiming Mueller didn't exonerate Impeached Trump of collusion??
So Impeached Trump was lying then, huh?
How lucky is Impeached Trump that you're just a retard who struggles with English?
The Senate EXONERATED Trump. Mueller wasn't there, Dummy.
He was exonerated of everything in the Articles of Impeachment. You really need to get up to speed, Simpleton.
Dumbfuck, the tweet I posted came from Impeached Trump declaring he was exonerated in March, 2019, nearly a year before the Senate's verdict you're speaking of. Clearly, Impeached Trump was NOT speaking about his impeachment; especially since he hadn't been impeached yet. He was talking about the Mueller report that you claim doesn't exonerate him of collusion.
Do you even know what planet you're on??
Nope. That contains only Mueller's claims about the evidence.Fucking moron, in the Mueller report.Fucking moron, none of that addresses Russia attempting to hack Hillary's email hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.
- The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
- The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
- There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
- Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
- U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
- Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
- Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
- Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
- John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
Where's the evidence that it ever happened?
Sadly, you're suffering from cognitive dissonance again, retard. No one was talking about the Senate's acquittal.I said nothing about the tweet you posted, Idiot.LOLOLOLOh? Of what did the Senate exonerate?No, you raving lunatic.LOLOLNot on him to prove he is innocent, Moron.LOLOLAll you prove is that you're too stupid to understand the explanation she included in her article. I can live with that.Nope. It wasn't explained."You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this."No, it isn't. What actual evidence is in the report?LOLOLYou link had no evidence.Not sure how to "past" something into a post, but regardless, I already posted a link to show Russia tried to hack Hillary's email just hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.Really? Then past it into your post.No, fucking moron, I have the Mueller report. That's evidence.In other words, you have no evidence.If you want access to classified material, you're gonna need to obtain that clearance yourself.Cut and paste it from the report.LOLStill no evidence, Fawn? Just whining about your betters?^^^ a moron who still thinks a news article by a journalist is an "opinion piece" and think thehill.com is "lefty news."W
Wrong. You gave me an opinion piece that referenced the Mueller report.And I gave you evidence. Mueller's report is evidence. Exactly how retarded are you?LOLOLYou are still evidence free, Fuckwit.LOLOLOLAn opinion piece in The Hill isn’t evidence, Perry Mason.LOLStill no evidence, I see.LOLOLOLI asked for the evidence Mueller has, not ”lefty news reports”, Fuckwad.Fuck off, dumbfuck, I already gave you a link to the news reporting on this. So did meaner gene. That you still want to keep your head buried firmly up your ass because you want to continue denying reality is your problem at this point.Show me Mueller's evidence. Who told him they tried to hack Hitlery's private email account? Hillary? Grow a brain.LOLOLLOLOnly people who had her emails at that point was the FBI, and they were missing tens of thousands.
Link to Russia doing that attempting to hack her emails hours after the crack?
Watch this................
Sure, watch this ...
“Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office,” the report reads, referring to Russia's military intelligence agency.The Russian officers sent malicious links to 15 email accounts linked to the domain of Clinton’s personal office, and the “investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain," according to the report.Mueller: Russians tried to hack Clinton accounts hours after Trump’s email remarks
Russian military officers targeted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with hacking attempts within hours of then-candidate Donald Trump suggesting Moscow should find Clinton’s emails, a…
Her personal office? The emails in question were her Sec of State emails, Dummy.
Try again.
Dumbfuck... again ... email does not reside on a single server. Hackers tried to access her email accounts, just as I said
Are you ever not a
Ever??
And how the hell does Mueller know they never tried to hack her before? How could he possibly prove that? Hint: He can't.
You are a gullible rube.
You're such a raging dumbfuck, this is your idea of "lefty news"...
Secondly, thehill.com article I posted cited the Mueller report.
Thirdly, are you ever not a raging dumbfuck? Ever???
Not my problem you can't read. Of course, I'm saying that to the forum
Now everyone here knows you don't know the difference between opinion pieces and journalism.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try as hard as you to make a complete fool of themselves.
Here's a clue for ya ... articles on news sites that are opinion pieces ... state they are opinion pieces.
Must suck to be you.
Suuure, dumbfuck ... the news just made it up.
Now you are catching on, Ultra Slow One.
I keep asking you for EVIDENCE, you keep bring inane bullshit.
I asked what evidence Meuller has. Did Hitlery tell him that Russia tried to hack her personal email years after she turned over all her SOS emails to the FBI?
How would Mueller know if Russia never tried to hack her before that? That is unknowable, yet you claim the report has the evidence to prove it. What is that evidence?
Be specific.
This is getting boring.
The evidence is in the report, cited by the article you're incapable of comprehending.
Dumbfuck, Mueller's report is evidence.
You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this. I wonder why.
Holy fuck, are you ever retarded. Yes, that was explained. Even worse for you -- that explanation is in the link to thehill.com article you just posted.
You keep losing, loser.
Let's apply your "logic" to another scenario:
I just walked around my back yard looking for gold. I didn't find any.
Using your logic, that proves gold doesn't exist.
Using your logic, Impeached Trump was was never exonerated of colluding with Russia.
That isn't how our system works, Simpleton.
Oh? You're claiming Mueller didn't exonerate Impeached Trump of collusion??
So Impeached Trump was lying then, huh?
How lucky is Impeached Trump that you're just a retard who struggles with English?
The Senate EXONERATED Trump. Mueller wasn't there, Dummy.
He was exonerated of everything in the Articles of Impeachment. You really need to get up to speed, Simpleton.
Dumbfuck, the tweet I posted came from Impeached Trump declaring he was exonerated in March, 2019, nearly a year before the Senate's verdict you're speaking of. Clearly, Impeached Trump was NOT speaking about his impeachment; especially since he hadn't been impeached yet. He was talking about the Mueller report that you claim doesn't exonerate him of collusion.
Do you even know what planet you're on??
I answered your question as to what Trump was exonerated on, Stupid.
Man, you are having a rough morning.
I guess you need to go ask Trump about that. The exoneration I have been posting about happened in the Senate.Sadly, you're suffering from cognitive dissonance again, retard. No one was talking about the Senate's acquittal.I said nothing about the tweet you posted, Idiot.LOLOLOLOh? Of what did the Senate exonerate?No, you raving lunatic.LOLOLNot on him to prove he is innocent, Moron.LOLOLAll you prove is that you're too stupid to understand the explanation she included in her article. I can live with that.Nope. It wasn't explained."You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this."No, it isn't. What actual evidence is in the report?LOLOLYou link had no evidence.Not sure how to "past" something into a post, but regardless, I already posted a link to show Russia tried to hack Hillary's email just hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.Really? Then past it into your post.No, fucking moron, I have the Mueller report. That's evidence.In other words, you have no evidence.If you want access to classified material, you're gonna need to obtain that clearance yourself.Cut and paste it from the report.LOLStill no evidence, Fawn? Just whining about your betters?^^^ a moron who still thinks a news article by a journalist is an "opinion piece" and think thehill.com is "lefty news."W
Wrong. You gave me an opinion piece that referenced the Mueller report.And I gave you evidence. Mueller's report is evidence. Exactly how retarded are you?LOLOLYou are still evidence free, Fuckwit.LOLOLOLAn opinion piece in The Hill isn’t evidence, Perry Mason.LOLStill no evidence, I see.LOLOLOLI asked for the evidence Mueller has, not ”lefty news reports”, Fuckwad.Fuck off, dumbfuck, I already gave you a link to the news reporting on this. So did meaner gene. That you still want to keep your head buried firmly up your ass because you want to continue denying reality is your problem at this point.Show me Mueller's evidence. Who told him they tried to hack Hitlery's private email account? Hillary? Grow a brain.LOLOLLOLOnly people who had her emails at that point was the FBI, and they were missing tens of thousands.
Link to Russia doing that attempting to hack her emails hours after the crack?
Watch this................
Sure, watch this ...
“Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office,” the report reads, referring to Russia's military intelligence agency.The Russian officers sent malicious links to 15 email accounts linked to the domain of Clinton’s personal office, and the “investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain," according to the report.Mueller: Russians tried to hack Clinton accounts hours after Trump’s email remarks
Russian military officers targeted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with hacking attempts within hours of then-candidate Donald Trump suggesting Moscow should find Clinton’s emails, a…
Her personal office? The emails in question were her Sec of State emails, Dummy.
Try again.
Dumbfuck... again ... email does not reside on a single server. Hackers tried to access her email accounts, just as I said
Are you ever not a
Ever??
And how the hell does Mueller know they never tried to hack her before? How could he possibly prove that? Hint: He can't.
You are a gullible rube.
You're such a raging dumbfuck, this is your idea of "lefty news"...
Secondly, thehill.com article I posted cited the Mueller report.
Thirdly, are you ever not a raging dumbfuck? Ever???
Not my problem you can't read. Of course, I'm saying that to the forum
Now everyone here knows you don't know the difference between opinion pieces and journalism.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try as hard as you to make a complete fool of themselves.
Here's a clue for ya ... articles on news sites that are opinion pieces ... state they are opinion pieces.
Must suck to be you.
Suuure, dumbfuck ... the news just made it up.
Now you are catching on, Ultra Slow One.
I keep asking you for EVIDENCE, you keep bring inane bullshit.
I asked what evidence Meuller has. Did Hitlery tell him that Russia tried to hack her personal email years after she turned over all her SOS emails to the FBI?
How would Mueller know if Russia never tried to hack her before that? That is unknowable, yet you claim the report has the evidence to prove it. What is that evidence?
Be specific.
This is getting boring.
The evidence is in the report, cited by the article you're incapable of comprehending.
Dumbfuck, Mueller's report is evidence.
You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this. I wonder why.
Holy fuck, are you ever retarded. Yes, that was explained. Even worse for you -- that explanation is in the link to thehill.com article you just posted.
You keep losing, loser.
Let's apply your "logic" to another scenario:
I just walked around my back yard looking for gold. I didn't find any.
Using your logic, that proves gold doesn't exist.
Using your logic, Impeached Trump was was never exonerated of colluding with Russia.
That isn't how our system works, Simpleton.
Oh? You're claiming Mueller didn't exonerate Impeached Trump of collusion??
So Impeached Trump was lying then, huh?
How lucky is Impeached Trump that you're just a retard who struggles with English?
The Senate EXONERATED Trump. Mueller wasn't there, Dummy.
He was exonerated of everything in the Articles of Impeachment. You really need to get up to speed, Simpleton.
Dumbfuck, the tweet I posted came from Impeached Trump declaring he was exonerated in March, 2019, nearly a year before the Senate's verdict you're speaking of. Clearly, Impeached Trump was NOT speaking about his impeachment; especially since he hadn't been impeached yet. He was talking about the Mueller report that you claim doesn't exonerate him of collusion.
Do you even know what planet you're on??
I answered your question as to what Trump was exonerated on, Stupid.
Man, you are having a rough morning.
Impeached Trump declared exoneration based on Mueller's report, as I showed.
Based upon his investigation. It matters not if a fucking moron like you, who never investigated it, disagrees with him.Nope. That contains only Mueller's claims about the evidence.Fucking moron, in the Mueller report.Fucking moron, none of that addresses Russia attempting to hack Hillary's email hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.
- The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
- The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
- There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
- Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
- U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
- Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
- Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
- Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
- John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
Where's the evidence that it ever happened?
ROFL! What you are saying is that we should trust Mueller. Only someone suffering from brain damage would do that. He hasn't published what he uncovered in his investigation, which means you have no evidence.Based upon his investigation. It matters not if a fucking moron like you, who never investigated it, disagrees with him.Nope. That contains only Mueller's claims about the evidence.Fucking moron, in the Mueller report.Fucking moron, none of that addresses Russia attempting to hack Hillary's email hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.
- The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
- The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
- There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
- Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
- U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
- Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
- Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
- Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
- John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
Where's the evidence that it ever happened?
Nah, I'll just keep making fun of you for having a brain fart and spatting out something of which no one was speaking.I guess you need to go ask Trump about that. The exoneration I have been posting about happened in the Senate.Sadly, you're suffering from cognitive dissonance again, retard. No one was talking about the Senate's acquittal.I said nothing about the tweet you posted, Idiot.LOLOLOLOh? Of what did the Senate exonerate?No, you raving lunatic.LOLOLNot on him to prove he is innocent, Moron.LOLOLAll you prove is that you're too stupid to understand the explanation she included in her article. I can live with that.Nope. It wasn't explained."You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this."No, it isn't. What actual evidence is in the report?LOLOLYou link had no evidence.Not sure how to "past" something into a post, but regardless, I already posted a link to show Russia tried to hack Hillary's email just hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.Really? Then past it into your post.No, fucking moron, I have the Mueller report. That's evidence.In other words, you have no evidence.If you want access to classified material, you're gonna need to obtain that clearance yourself.Cut and paste it from the report.LOLStill no evidence, Fawn? Just whining about your betters?^^^ a moron who still thinks a news article by a journalist is an "opinion piece" and think thehill.com is "lefty news."W
Wrong. You gave me an opinion piece that referenced the Mueller report.And I gave you evidence. Mueller's report is evidence. Exactly how retarded are you?LOLOLYou are still evidence free, Fuckwit.LOLOLOLAn opinion piece in The Hill isn’t evidence, Perry Mason.LOLStill no evidence, I see.LOLOLOLI asked for the evidence Mueller has, not ”lefty news reports”, Fuckwad.Fuck off, dumbfuck, I already gave you a link to the news reporting on this. So did meaner gene. That you still want to keep your head buried firmly up your ass because you want to continue denying reality is your problem at this point.Show me Mueller's evidence. Who told him they tried to hack Hitlery's private email account? Hillary? Grow a brain.LOLOLLOLOnly people who had her emails at that point was the FBI, and they were missing tens of thousands.
Link to Russia doing that attempting to hack her emails hours after the crack?
Watch this................
Sure, watch this ...
“Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office,” the report reads, referring to Russia's military intelligence agency.The Russian officers sent malicious links to 15 email accounts linked to the domain of Clinton’s personal office, and the “investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain," according to the report.Mueller: Russians tried to hack Clinton accounts hours after Trump’s email remarks
Russian military officers targeted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with hacking attempts within hours of then-candidate Donald Trump suggesting Moscow should find Clinton’s emails, a…
Her personal office? The emails in question were her Sec of State emails, Dummy.
Try again.
Dumbfuck... again ... email does not reside on a single server. Hackers tried to access her email accounts, just as I said
Are you ever not a
Ever??
And how the hell does Mueller know they never tried to hack her before? How could he possibly prove that? Hint: He can't.
You are a gullible rube.
You're such a raging dumbfuck, this is your idea of "lefty news"...
Secondly, thehill.com article I posted cited the Mueller report.
Thirdly, are you ever not a raging dumbfuck? Ever???
Not my problem you can't read. Of course, I'm saying that to the forum
Now everyone here knows you don't know the difference between opinion pieces and journalism.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try as hard as you to make a complete fool of themselves.
Here's a clue for ya ... articles on news sites that are opinion pieces ... state they are opinion pieces.
Must suck to be you.
Suuure, dumbfuck ... the news just made it up.
Now you are catching on, Ultra Slow One.
I keep asking you for EVIDENCE, you keep bring inane bullshit.
I asked what evidence Meuller has. Did Hitlery tell him that Russia tried to hack her personal email years after she turned over all her SOS emails to the FBI?
How would Mueller know if Russia never tried to hack her before that? That is unknowable, yet you claim the report has the evidence to prove it. What is that evidence?
Be specific.
This is getting boring.
The evidence is in the report, cited by the article you're incapable of comprehending.
Dumbfuck, Mueller's report is evidence.
You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this. I wonder why.
Holy fuck, are you ever retarded. Yes, that was explained. Even worse for you -- that explanation is in the link to thehill.com article you just posted.
You keep losing, loser.
Let's apply your "logic" to another scenario:
I just walked around my back yard looking for gold. I didn't find any.
Using your logic, that proves gold doesn't exist.
Using your logic, Impeached Trump was was never exonerated of colluding with Russia.
That isn't how our system works, Simpleton.
Oh? You're claiming Mueller didn't exonerate Impeached Trump of collusion??
So Impeached Trump was lying then, huh?
How lucky is Impeached Trump that you're just a retard who struggles with English?
The Senate EXONERATED Trump. Mueller wasn't there, Dummy.
He was exonerated of everything in the Articles of Impeachment. You really need to get up to speed, Simpleton.
Dumbfuck, the tweet I posted came from Impeached Trump declaring he was exonerated in March, 2019, nearly a year before the Senate's verdict you're speaking of. Clearly, Impeached Trump was NOT speaking about his impeachment; especially since he hadn't been impeached yet. He was talking about the Mueller report that you claim doesn't exonerate him of collusion.
Do you even know what planet you're on??
I answered your question as to what Trump was exonerated on, Stupid.
Man, you are having a rough morning.
Impeached Trump declared exoneration based on Mueller's report, as I showed.
Your confusion is cute.
"ROFL! What you are saying is that we should trust Mueller. Only someone suffering from brain damage would do that."ROFL! What you are saying is that we should trust Mueller. Only someone suffering from brain damage would do that. He hasn't published what he uncovered in his investigation, which means you have no evidence.Based upon his investigation. It matters not if a fucking moron like you, who never investigated it, disagrees with him.Nope. That contains only Mueller's claims about the evidence.Fucking moron, in the Mueller report.Fucking moron, none of that addresses Russia attempting to hack Hillary's email hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.
- The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
- The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
- There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
- Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
- U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
- Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
- Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
- Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
- John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
Where's the evidence that it ever happened?
What I posted is a fact. Mueller found no evidence of collusion and no evidence of obstruction.
How do you debate someone who will just make stuff up to support his position? If there are no fact-checkers Biden will spend all his time doing the fact-checking and Trump will just make up new stuff as he does.Lol.....who didn't see this coming? This is more proof that mentally ill Quid Pro Quo Joe is not fit to serve as president. They know Trump will rip him to shreds in the debates.
HERE WE GO: Biden Campaign Wants Fact Checkers For Presidential Debates Because Joe Biden Is Incapable Forming Coherent Arguments (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Joe Biden Campaign Chair Cedric Richmond joined FOX and Friends Thursday morning to discuss the current state of the Biden campaign.www.thegatewaypundit.com
Lol.....who didn't see this coming? This is more proof that mentally ill Quid Pro Quo Joe is not fit to serve as president. They know Trump will rip him to shreds in the debates.
HERE WE GO: Biden Campaign Wants Fact Checkers For Presidential Debates Because Joe Biden Is Incapable Forming Coherent Arguments (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Joe Biden Campaign Chair Cedric Richmond joined FOX and Friends Thursday morning to discuss the current state of the Biden campaign.
Nah, I'll just keep making fun of you for having a brain fart and spatting out something of which no one was speaking.I guess you need to go ask Trump about that. The exoneration I have been posting about happened in the Senate.Sadly, you're suffering from cognitive dissonance again, retard. No one was talking about the Senate's acquittal.I said nothing about the tweet you posted, Idiot.LOLOLOLOh? Of what did the Senate exonerate?No, you raving lunatic.LOLOLNot on him to prove he is innocent, Moron.LOLOLAll you prove is that you're too stupid to understand the explanation she included in her article. I can live with that.Nope. It wasn't explained."You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this."No, it isn't. What actual evidence is in the report?LOLOLYou link had no evidence.Not sure how to "past" something into a post, but regardless, I already posted a link to show Russia tried to hack Hillary's email just hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.Really? Then past it into your post.No, fucking moron, I have the Mueller report. That's evidence.In other words, you have no evidence.If you want access to classified material, you're gonna need to obtain that clearance yourself.Cut and paste it from the report.LOLStill no evidence, Fawn? Just whining about your betters?^^^ a moron who still thinks a news article by a journalist is an "opinion piece" and think thehill.com is "lefty news."W
Wrong. You gave me an opinion piece that referenced the Mueller report.And I gave you evidence. Mueller's report is evidence. Exactly how retarded are you?LOLOLYou are still evidence free, Fuckwit.LOLOLOLAn opinion piece in The Hill isn’t evidence, Perry Mason.LOLStill no evidence, I see.LOLOLOLI asked for the evidence Mueller has, not ”lefty news reports”, Fuckwad.Fuck off, dumbfuck, I already gave you a link to the news reporting on this. So did meaner gene. That you still want to keep your head buried firmly up your ass because you want to continue denying reality is your problem at this point.Show me Mueller's evidence. Who told him they tried to hack Hitlery's private email account? Hillary? Grow a brain.LOLOLLOLOnly people who had her emails at that point was the FBI, and they were missing tens of thousands.
Link to Russia doing that attempting to hack her emails hours after the crack?
Watch this................
Sure, watch this ...
“Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office,” the report reads, referring to Russia's military intelligence agency.The Russian officers sent malicious links to 15 email accounts linked to the domain of Clinton’s personal office, and the “investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain," according to the report.Mueller: Russians tried to hack Clinton accounts hours after Trump’s email remarks
Russian military officers targeted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with hacking attempts within hours of then-candidate Donald Trump suggesting Moscow should find Clinton’s emails, a…
Her personal office? The emails in question were her Sec of State emails, Dummy.
Try again.
Dumbfuck... again ... email does not reside on a single server. Hackers tried to access her email accounts, just as I said
Are you ever not a
Ever??
And how the hell does Mueller know they never tried to hack her before? How could he possibly prove that? Hint: He can't.
You are a gullible rube.
You're such a raging dumbfuck, this is your idea of "lefty news"...
Secondly, thehill.com article I posted cited the Mueller report.
Thirdly, are you ever not a raging dumbfuck? Ever???
Not my problem you can't read. Of course, I'm saying that to the forum
Now everyone here knows you don't know the difference between opinion pieces and journalism.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try as hard as you to make a complete fool of themselves.
Here's a clue for ya ... articles on news sites that are opinion pieces ... state they are opinion pieces.
Must suck to be you.
Suuure, dumbfuck ... the news just made it up.
Now you are catching on, Ultra Slow One.
I keep asking you for EVIDENCE, you keep bring inane bullshit.
I asked what evidence Meuller has. Did Hitlery tell him that Russia tried to hack her personal email years after she turned over all her SOS emails to the FBI?
How would Mueller know if Russia never tried to hack her before that? That is unknowable, yet you claim the report has the evidence to prove it. What is that evidence?
Be specific.
This is getting boring.
The evidence is in the report, cited by the article you're incapable of comprehending.
Dumbfuck, Mueller's report is evidence.
You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this. I wonder why.
Holy fuck, are you ever retarded. Yes, that was explained. Even worse for you -- that explanation is in the link to thehill.com article you just posted.
You keep losing, loser.
Let's apply your "logic" to another scenario:
I just walked around my back yard looking for gold. I didn't find any.
Using your logic, that proves gold doesn't exist.
Using your logic, Impeached Trump was was never exonerated of colluding with Russia.
That isn't how our system works, Simpleton.
Oh? You're claiming Mueller didn't exonerate Impeached Trump of collusion??
So Impeached Trump was lying then, huh?
How lucky is Impeached Trump that you're just a retard who struggles with English?
The Senate EXONERATED Trump. Mueller wasn't there, Dummy.
He was exonerated of everything in the Articles of Impeachment. You really need to get up to speed, Simpleton.
Dumbfuck, the tweet I posted came from Impeached Trump declaring he was exonerated in March, 2019, nearly a year before the Senate's verdict you're speaking of. Clearly, Impeached Trump was NOT speaking about his impeachment; especially since he hadn't been impeached yet. He was talking about the Mueller report that you claim doesn't exonerate him of collusion.
Do you even know what planet you're on??
I answered your question as to what Trump was exonerated on, Stupid.
Man, you are having a rough morning.
Impeached Trump declared exoneration based on Mueller's report, as I showed.
Your confusion is cute.
Oh? Is he expected to know everything?Lol.....who didn't see this coming? This is more proof that mentally ill Quid Pro Quo Joe is not fit to serve as president. They know Trump will rip him to shreds in the debates.
HERE WE GO: Biden Campaign Wants Fact Checkers For Presidential Debates Because Joe Biden Is Incapable Forming Coherent Arguments (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Joe Biden Campaign Chair Cedric Richmond joined FOX and Friends Thursday morning to discuss the current state of the Biden campaign.
If Sleepy Joe is sharp enough to be President, he should be sharp enough to counter any arguments he hears during the debate himself without "fact checkers"
LOLNah, I'll just keep making fun of you for having a brain fart and spatting out something of which no one was speaking.I guess you need to go ask Trump about that. The exoneration I have been posting about happened in the Senate.Sadly, you're suffering from cognitive dissonance again, retard. No one was talking about the Senate's acquittal.I said nothing about the tweet you posted, Idiot.LOLOLOLOh? Of what did the Senate exonerate?No, you raving lunatic.LOLOLNot on him to prove he is innocent, Moron.LOLOLAll you prove is that you're too stupid to understand the explanation she included in her article. I can live with that.Nope. It wasn't explained."You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this."No, it isn't. What actual evidence is in the report?LOLOLYou link had no evidence.Not sure how to "past" something into a post, but regardless, I already posted a link to show Russia tried to hack Hillary's email just hours after Impeached Trump encouraged them to do so.Really? Then past it into your post.No, fucking moron, I have the Mueller report. That's evidence.In other words, you have no evidence.If you want access to classified material, you're gonna need to obtain that clearance yourself.Cut and paste it from the report.LOLStill no evidence, Fawn? Just whining about your betters?^^^ a moron who still thinks a news article by a journalist is an "opinion piece" and think thehill.com is "lefty news."W
Wrong. You gave me an opinion piece that referenced the Mueller report.And I gave you evidence. Mueller's report is evidence. Exactly how retarded are you?LOLOLYou are still evidence free, Fuckwit.LOLOLOLAn opinion piece in The Hill isn’t evidence, Perry Mason.LOLStill no evidence, I see.LOLOLOLI asked for the evidence Mueller has, not ”lefty news reports”, Fuckwad.Fuck off, dumbfuck, I already gave you a link to the news reporting on this. So did meaner gene. That you still want to keep your head buried firmly up your ass because you want to continue denying reality is your problem at this point.Show me Mueller's evidence. Who told him they tried to hack Hitlery's private email account? Hillary? Grow a brain.LOLOLLOLOnly people who had her emails at that point was the FBI, and they were missing tens of thousands.
Link to Russia doing that attempting to hack her emails hours after the crack?
Watch this................
Sure, watch this ...
“Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office,” the report reads, referring to Russia's military intelligence agency.The Russian officers sent malicious links to 15 email accounts linked to the domain of Clinton’s personal office, and the “investigation did not find evidence of earlier GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain," according to the report.Mueller: Russians tried to hack Clinton accounts hours after Trump’s email remarks
Russian military officers targeted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with hacking attempts within hours of then-candidate Donald Trump suggesting Moscow should find Clinton’s emails, a…
Her personal office? The emails in question were her Sec of State emails, Dummy.
Try again.
Dumbfuck... again ... email does not reside on a single server. Hackers tried to access her email accounts, just as I said
Are you ever not a
Ever??
And how the hell does Mueller know they never tried to hack her before? How could he possibly prove that? Hint: He can't.
You are a gullible rube.
You're such a raging dumbfuck, this is your idea of "lefty news"...
Secondly, thehill.com article I posted cited the Mueller report.
Thirdly, are you ever not a raging dumbfuck? Ever???
Not my problem you can't read. Of course, I'm saying that to the forum
Now everyone here knows you don't know the difference between opinion pieces and journalism.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone try as hard as you to make a complete fool of themselves.
Here's a clue for ya ... articles on news sites that are opinion pieces ... state they are opinion pieces.
Must suck to be you.
Suuure, dumbfuck ... the news just made it up.
Now you are catching on, Ultra Slow One.
I keep asking you for EVIDENCE, you keep bring inane bullshit.
I asked what evidence Meuller has. Did Hitlery tell him that Russia tried to hack her personal email years after she turned over all her SOS emails to the FBI?
How would Mueller know if Russia never tried to hack her before that? That is unknowable, yet you claim the report has the evidence to prove it. What is that evidence?
Be specific.
This is getting boring.
The evidence is in the report, cited by the article you're incapable of comprehending.
Dumbfuck, Mueller's report is evidence.
You have yet to explain how it is knowable that Russia didn't try to hack Hitlery prior to this. I wonder why.
Holy fuck, are you ever retarded. Yes, that was explained. Even worse for you -- that explanation is in the link to thehill.com article you just posted.
You keep losing, loser.
Let's apply your "logic" to another scenario:
I just walked around my back yard looking for gold. I didn't find any.
Using your logic, that proves gold doesn't exist.
Using your logic, Impeached Trump was was never exonerated of colluding with Russia.
That isn't how our system works, Simpleton.
Oh? You're claiming Mueller didn't exonerate Impeached Trump of collusion??
So Impeached Trump was lying then, huh?
How lucky is Impeached Trump that you're just a retard who struggles with English?
The Senate EXONERATED Trump. Mueller wasn't there, Dummy.
He was exonerated of everything in the Articles of Impeachment. You really need to get up to speed, Simpleton.
Dumbfuck, the tweet I posted came from Impeached Trump declaring he was exonerated in March, 2019, nearly a year before the Senate's verdict you're speaking of. Clearly, Impeached Trump was NOT speaking about his impeachment; especially since he hadn't been impeached yet. He was talking about the Mueller report that you claim doesn't exonerate him of collusion.
Do you even know what planet you're on??
I answered your question as to what Trump was exonerated on, Stupid.
Man, you are having a rough morning.
Impeached Trump declared exoneration based on Mueller's report, as I showed.
Your confusion is cute.
Fawn: "Oh? Of what did the Senate exonerate? "
Nostra: " He was exonerated of everything in the Articles of Impeachment. You really need to get up to speed, Simpleton."
It would seem your claim "no one was speaking" of what happened in the Senate is just one more of your multitude of lies this morning.
I have grown bored with beating up on a retard. I'm gonna go outside and get some things done before it gets too hot.
I suggest you try to gather your thoughts and attempt a post that isn't full of lies and bullshit.
I'll check back later on your progress. I'm rootin' for ya!
Oh? Is he expected to know everything?Lol.....who didn't see this coming? This is more proof that mentally ill Quid Pro Quo Joe is not fit to serve as president. They know Trump will rip him to shreds in the debates.
HERE WE GO: Biden Campaign Wants Fact Checkers For Presidential Debates Because Joe Biden Is Incapable Forming Coherent Arguments (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Joe Biden Campaign Chair Cedric Richmond joined FOX and Friends Thursday morning to discuss the current state of the Biden campaign.
If Sleepy Joe is sharp enough to be President, he should be sharp enough to counter any arguments he hears during the debate himself without "fact checkers"
I used to think the US electorate was sharp enough to see through a candidate's obvious distractions, spin, lies, and contradictions. But that was before Trump was elected.How do you debate someone who will just make stuff up to support his position? If there are no fact-checkers Biden will spend all his time doing the fact-checking and Trump will just make up new stuff as he does.Lol.....who didn't see this coming? This is more proof that mentally ill Quid Pro Quo Joe is not fit to serve as president. They know Trump will rip him to shreds in the debates.
HERE WE GO: Biden Campaign Wants Fact Checkers For Presidential Debates Because Joe Biden Is Incapable Forming Coherent Arguments (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Joe Biden Campaign Chair Cedric Richmond joined FOX and Friends Thursday morning to discuss the current state of the Biden campaign.
I honestly think the best thing Biden can do is let trump off...
Know a few areas Trump will lie about what he said for example. i.e. in a interview with Chris Wallace he said something.
Let him contradict himself. Don't attack him.
Ask Trump is that how he remembers it? Then Biden describes the interview in detail.
Then showing concern asks Trump why he doesn't remember it. Trump will get angry..
Don't get angry, just show more concern and ask him how long this has been going on...
Then do it about 20 min later... Trump has to admit to lying or have know memory of events...
The post debate shows will be wall to wall on him not remembering..
"Not everything..."Oh? Is he expected to know everything?Lol.....who didn't see this coming? This is more proof that mentally ill Quid Pro Quo Joe is not fit to serve as president. They know Trump will rip him to shreds in the debates.
HERE WE GO: Biden Campaign Wants Fact Checkers For Presidential Debates Because Joe Biden Is Incapable Forming Coherent Arguments (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Joe Biden Campaign Chair Cedric Richmond joined FOX and Friends Thursday morning to discuss the current state of the Biden campaign.
If Sleepy Joe is sharp enough to be President, he should be sharp enough to counter any arguments he hears during the debate himself without "fact checkers"
Not everything, but he should be informed about the important facts on the issues.
So called "fact checkers" are nothing more than DNC propagandists. They are the last thing we need at a debate."Not everything..."Oh? Is he expected to know everything?Lol.....who didn't see this coming? This is more proof that mentally ill Quid Pro Quo Joe is not fit to serve as president. They know Trump will rip him to shreds in the debates.
HERE WE GO: Biden Campaign Wants Fact Checkers For Presidential Debates Because Joe Biden Is Incapable Forming Coherent Arguments (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Joe Biden Campaign Chair Cedric Richmond joined FOX and Friends Thursday morning to discuss the current state of the Biden campaign.
If Sleepy Joe is sharp enough to be President, he should be sharp enough to counter any arguments he hears during the debate himself without "fact checkers"
Not everything, but he should be informed about the important facts on the issues.
Hence the need for fact checkers. Especially for lyin' Impeached Trump who's been caught many times just making shit up.
A week ago, the Trump cultists were all telling us Biden wouldn't debate. Now they're flipflopping, like they always do.
They'll deny it, of course. After all, these are Trump cultists. One of the primary benefits of being in the Trump cult is the way it liberates a person from the curse of long term memory. To a Trump cultist, reality is reshaped every day to whatever TheParty says it should be.
Fact #1. Trump is a pathological liar
Fact #2. Trump supporters are too stupid to tell fact from fiction
