5 ms·
To claim something false is lying. To point out lying is not "name calling". > No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know
by chillwaves 6y ago
To claim something false is lying. To point out lying is not "name calling".
> No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know what kind of "news" you read.
Here, try this:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
Ctrl+F "manafort" if you are having trouble finding it.
> Actually, I'm claiming both sides are in their own bubble clutching their little (R) and (D) flags and waving them frantically.
Bro, is this not name calling? At least I am actually offering evidence. All you is your sense of superiority.
Also, the whole cover of partisanship is just so intellectually lazy. You can literally dismiss any evidence or reality just by claiming partisanship.
I am sure partisanship is involved, but that is not a rebuttal to the evidence presented.
What a poor use of time to have a conversation with you.
- ksk 6y agoSo you keep posting the same old tired link claiming its "evidence". I don't think you understand what that document actually says. I don't rebut evidence, I accept it, if courts accept it when used as evidence in a case. I don't know what rebutting evidence means, or what that would accomplish. After four years of nonsense investigations there were no indictments on this so called "collusion". This fact alone makes anyone involved in making those allegations look completely nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment No indictment = no charges = no case = no conviction = innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of this report, if Dems had solid evidence to bring criminal charges, I'd bet my life savings that they'd have brought cases by now, and we'd know about it.