Previously anonymous whistleblower now testifying in front of Congress

Now we have another black Democrat talking about how blacks aren’t treated fairly by the justice system. Now he’s moved onto some blacks shot by police.

And this is relevant to the favoritism shown Hunter Biden how?
 
Whether new evidence is presented isn't the point of this hearing. A lot of voters, like the kind that watch fake news, have never heard any of this evidence. It's clear from your posts that you haven't heard the evidence. That's why you're so hysterical.
Asking for new evidence is hysterical?

Why do you have such disdain for evidence.

But thank you for answering my question.

As I stated many posts ago, nothing new; just rehashing old testimony that offered nothing but the conjecture, theory and inference that was offered before.

That is why when Comer speaks of the evidence he doesn't answer with yes or no. He says things like "appears to be" "the behavior suggests" "could have" or "might have".

Maybe next time, Skippy.
 
all of them
Did you read Jack's indictments because pictures and texts were included in the indictments.

I mean, good grief, he had boxes with documents that had nuclear strengths and weaknesses of our allies.

Are you ok with that?
 
Asking for new evidence is hysterical?

Why do you have such disdain for evidence.

But thank you for answering my question.

As I stated many posts ago, nothing new; just rehashing old testimony that offered nothing but the conjecture, theory and inference that was offered before.

That is why when Comer speaks of the evidence he doesn't answer with yes or no. He says things like "appears to be" "the behavior suggests" "could have" or "might have".

Maybe next time, Skippy.
You're the one who believes we shouldn't watch the evidence, douchebag.

Who do you think you're fooling?

The evidence is so old that you're never heard of it. It's hardly nothing but conjecture, theory and interference. Is everything you post on this subject a lie. What question about the evidence have an answer of "yes" or "no."

Your such a scumbag it defies belief.
 
so plain it disappeared and no one could find it. hilarious.
It didn't disappear. It's part of the public record.

You seem to be ignorant of a lot of things.

1. Trump asked for Russia's help on national TV to hack his appointments emails.

2. He penned his own sons lie (how low can you go) on air force one about the Trump tower meeting.

3. He took Putin's side against our... technically at the time his own agencies, on the global stage in Helsinki.

If that isn't evidence of coordination with Russia, I don't know what is.
 
You're the one who believes we shouldn't watch the evidence, douchebag.

Who do you think you're fooling?

The evidence is so old that you're never heard of it. It's hardly nothing but conjecture, theory and interference. Is everything you post on this subject a lie. What question about the evidence have an answer of "yes" or "no."

Your such a scumbag it defies belief.
So link the evidence and please include why no charges have been recommended or filed.
 
So Mueller's investigation was a pointless witch hunt?
Not really. It did better then most republican investigations. It did show several example of obstruction of justice but Trump was president so evidently he can obstruct justice and it's ok.

It also paved the way for the following investigation that uncovered Manafort providing internal polling to Russia before the election so ultimately it wasn't to bad.
 

Forum List

Back
Top