Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Trump knows the IC has the evidence on him...
He knows he is fucked...
He knows he is fucked...
No wonder you don't drink anymore, you've just substituted dope instead. That stuff doesn't do your heart any good, you do know that don't you?Did some mean boy knock over your tea set again princess anatta?
He's high a kite and as low as a snake's arse.oh look who showed up! el Stupido..
what's the matter dummy -is this above your comprehension level?? ya... I thought so...
He's high a kite and as low as a snake's arse.oh look who showed up! el Stupido..
what's the matter dummy -is this above your comprehension level?? ya... I thought so...
Do I believe it? Not at this point, but i do think that there is enough evidence out there to merit a full nonpartisan investigation
month after month with NO EVIDENCE just drip drip drip of leaked fake news and innuendo,What evidence? Can you link up?
The surveillance caught every word of the campaign's collusion with the Russians ...
Once there is a special prosecutor named, there will be someone o report it all to ...
Trump is fucked ... and he knows it...
So we're suppose to read and confirm that yada yada yada that you framed by piecing together from various right wing websites?
Notice you left out an important part of the NYT article you used to theme your partisan dissertation;
"American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence."
"Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates."
If you are going to use the article as documentation you have to then also accept the other facts disclosed, none of which speak well for your argument
Hardly. if your buying into the rest of it, and using it as the center piece of your argument, you can't just blow off that the same sources indiicated that there was a very good reason for all the intelligence. You just bought into the conspiracy rhetoric, regurgitated it, without acknowledging the motivation behind any such actions
Conservatives crack one up with the "didn't interfere." Did the intelligence agencies find direct links that effected actually voting, no, there was no hacking of individual election booths or distracts tallies, but to say the Russians didn't influence the election would be to deny that Wikileaks or numerous fake news accounts had any impact on the election at all, which would be totally erroneous
Trump knows the IC has the evidence on him...
He knows he is fucked...
Blah blah blah blah blah
Obama wanted to preserve evidence of trumps treason so that he couldn't hide it once in office. Good on him. Your other link is to globalresearch, a conspiracy theorist site.
Obama was such a great man. He only cared about one thing: the well being of your American people. Too bad we'll never get a leader like that again.
I love the SOP around here where simply saying you don't agree with a source somehow absolves you of actually making a claim/rebuttalObama wanted to preserve evidence of trumps treason so that he couldn't hide it once in office. Good on him. Your other link is to globalresearch, a conspiracy theorist site.
the source is NYTimes, the OP is commenting on NYTimes -so you disagree exactly where?Waste of throughput