Umm - There has been and by many people.
REAL Russia collusion thread (A critical thinkers realty)
- Thread starter thethe
- Start date
Umm - There has been and by many people.
When the system allows you destroy evidence subject to a subpoena without getting in trouble then I think it may be slanted in their favor.
But you've become the good lapdog lately so I'm shocked that this would be your position.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Yet again you fell for the fake news propaganda. It was a technician who did that and Hillary was fully exonerated. We have had tens of thousands of Hillarys emails and the DNC with no evidence of anything criminal, but sure, it was those few emails they didn't get that had all the evidence. There was how many hearings about Benghazi? How many hours if testimony did she give? Your boy freely admits he couldn't do 10 minutes in front if Congress without committing perjury. The most hilarious thing is that at best your accusations about the left would boil down to taking the Republican strategy to stop Hillary and using it on Trump. But you are too busy clapping along like seals to the fake news media that tells you what to think.
A technician!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"What with a cloth?"
How you became such a toadie will be one for the Chop Country recordbooks.....
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I'm sure if Trump was in trouble for destroying subpoenaed evidence you would accept the explanation that one of his tech people did it but not him. Get out of here with that stupid ****.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
And I bet if the situation was reversed you would be calling this a hoax because he wasnr charged with a crime. Unlike the partisan 3 stooges I attempt to be unbiased. I think Hilary should have been charged for her private email server. I just want you 3 stooges to between an investigation that doesn't result in charges being an hoax and believing that someone can be guilty despite no criminal charges. You have to wildly different standards depending on if it's someone on your side. You cant have it both ways.
We would call it a hoax unless real evidence was presented because everything you and the left have pushed on the Trumps has been a joke.
Suck on that loser.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Problem is you define real evidence as being anything that supports the narrative you want.
Last edited:
No its called reality and you haven't been part of it for a while.
You don't even believe the **** you spew. Its all party of your schtick and everyone sees it.
His idea of real evidence is that Trump supposedly ripped off the banks. Like banks don't do their own evaluations. Absurd.
I would be okay with getting Trump indicted if there was something real like money laundering. All the stuff that we've seen so far has been a joke. Too bad you can't figure that out because a clown like yourself doesn't understand you're being played.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
My idea of real evidence is a persons own lawyer admitting to crimes committed by and at the direction of his client.
The crime of overvaluing property toward a bank? Only in a partisan area like NY is this even being prosecuted. It's a joke, really.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Right, and all the Republican investigations of Hillary and Hunter are not political.
The only political one against Hillary was Benghazi. The other ****, especially Whitewater, she and her hubby were guilty as hell. We have a witness backed up with a laptop that said Hunter and his dad were up to no good. Far from being just political.