Surprisingly, I agree with trump's spokesman.

You expect anyone with a brain to believe anything that came out of that produced clown show?…. :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301:
You've already proven you will not accept the sworn testimony of Republicans if it is at all revealing as to the illegal plot trump engaged in to overturn the election Biden won. No need to belabor the point.
 
It must suck knowing you have no say, and your opinion is meaningless, Canuck.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest because whatever you fools do to yourselves has no bearing on my life. I have faith in the intelligence of the American people. Most Americans aren't as trusting or as gullible as you.

Is the real reason you don't fact check everything is because you don't want to know they've been lying to you about everything, or that you don't care, so long as they keep crashing the economy for their rich donors????

How many times are you going to let Republicans crash the economy before you catch on that they're doing it to you on purpose?
 
You've already proven you will not accept the sworn testimony of Republicans if it is at all revealing as to the illegal plot trump engaged in to overturn the election Biden won. No need to belabor the point.

I wouldn't accept the sworn testimony of anyone from either party. They are never going to get held accountable for lying.
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies obtained what they considered to be conclusive evidence after the November election that Russia provided hacked material from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks through a third party, three U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
U.S. officials had concluded months earlier that Russian intelligence agencies had directed the hacking, but had been less certain that they could prove Russia also had controlled the release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.


I can't help wondering if you, like trump, take Putin's word about Russian interference in our elections?
To Atone for Stalin's Holodomor, Putin Saved America from a Hilladomor
 

Media reaction to Trump campaign email leak starkly different from 2016, when Clinton was hacked


Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung reminded the press of their duty to fairness and democracy. “Any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want.”

Hypocrisy continues to be a feature of trumpery.

But Trump sang a different tune in July 2016, when during a news conference the presidential hopeful directly appealed to Russia to hack Clinton’s emails.

The entity Cheung's reference to doing the bidding of America’s enemies was of course Russia. Back then trump was soliciting Putin's help with the campaign. Soliciting and welcoming the help of one of America's enemies. Arguably an act of treachery if not treason for which he paid no political price. Such is the nature of the unconditional devotion of The Following.

As the article points out, there's another form of hypocrisy going on here. The media's. For all the whining complaints about media bias from Repubs, the overly sensationalized coverage of the Wikileaks document dumps unquestionably hurt Clinton's chances for election.

Here's How Many Bernie Sanders Supporters Ultimately Voted For Trump


As difficult if not impossible as it is to quantify the magnitude of the affect Russia's activities had in support of trump's election this is one concrete way to do so.
What's Hillary's emails were "damning" as liberals like to say, and Trump's revealed a big fat nothing burger, for 1K Alex.
 
I wouldn't accept the sworn testimony of anyone from either party. They are never going to get held accountable for lying.
Clearly you are free to create any kind of reality for yourself you choose. I choose not to make blanket statements, generalizations, and false equivalences about members of the two major parties. When I hear testimony like Bowers' I weigh it against the testimony of others and decide whether I believe it's credible. Perhaps you'd rather turn away because his testimony isn't to your liking.
 
Clearly you are free to create any kind of reality for yourself you choose. I choose not to make blanket statements, generalizations, and false equivalences about members of the two major parties. When I hear testimony like Bowers' I weigh it against the testimony of others and decide whether I believe it's credible. Perhaps you'd rather turn away because his testimony isn't to your liking.

I never heard it. I wouldn't believe it anyway whatever he is saying.
 
Clearly you are free to create any kind of reality for yourself you choose. I choose not to make blanket statements, generalizations, and false equivalences about members of the two major parties. When I hear testimony like Bowers' I weigh it against the testimony of others and decide whether I believe it's credible. Perhaps you'd rather turn away because his testimony isn't to your liking.
"clearly" I love it when people say that. :laugh:
 
Spot on. Kevin McCarthy said the quiet part out loud when he admitted the Benghazi hearings were all about hurting Clinton's candidacy.
These Orchestrated Debates Ignore What the Subjects Were Really All About

The Ambassador was a Gayist diddling boys from the Arab Street. That's why he didn't want any Marines around who might bear witness to his degeneracy. That's also why the fundamentalist terrorist killed him.
 

Forum List

Back
Top