Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mike Pompeo disagrees with your assessment.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cia-wikileaks-idUSKBN17F2L8

You proved my point. From the article,
“ “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” Pompeo said.”

[Anonymous]

That article is from 2017. We know more about Wikileaks and Julian Assange now. Keep your head in the sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That article is from 2017. We know more about Wikileaks and Julian Assange now. Keep your head in the sand.

I read the article that the PP offered as proof. If you are making an assertion, you offer the proof. Asking for evidence to support what someone is telling me is the opposite of keeping my head in the sand. I don’t blindly accept what I’m being fed, regardless of the source. I want to see actual evidence, not innuendo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That article is from 2017. We know more about Wikileaks and Julian Assange now. Keep your head in the sand.

I read the article that the PP offered as proof. If you are making an assertion, you offer the proof. Asking for evidence to support what someone is telling me is the opposite of keeping my head in the sand. I don’t blindly accept what I’m being fed, regardless of the source. I want to see actual evidence, not innuendo.

Stick your head further up Trump’s a**. I’m sure you’ll find what you’re looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That article is from 2017. We know more about Wikileaks and Julian Assange now. Keep your head in the sand.

I read the article that the PP offered as proof. If you are making an assertion, you offer the proof. Asking for evidence to support what someone is telling me is the opposite of keeping my head in the sand. I don’t blindly accept what I’m being fed, regardless of the source. I want to see actual evidence, not innuendo.

Stick your head further up Trump’s a**. I’m sure you’ll find what you’re looking for.

You have the opportunity to convince me and anyone else reading this exchange that Trump conspired with Russia and that is your response. Thanks for the laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That article is from 2017. We know more about Wikileaks and Julian Assange now. Keep your head in the sand.

I read the article that the PP offered as proof. If you are making an assertion, you offer the proof. Asking for evidence to support what someone is telling me is the opposite of keeping my head in the sand. I don’t blindly accept what I’m being fed, regardless of the source. I want to see actual evidence, not innuendo.

Stick your head further up Trump’s a**. I’m sure you’ll find what you’re looking for.

You have the opportunity to convince me and anyone else reading this exchange that Trump conspired with Russia and that is your response. Thanks for the laugh.

DP. The Senate is convinced. You are unconvinceable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That article is from 2017. We know more about Wikileaks and Julian Assange now. Keep your head in the sand.

I read the article that the PP offered as proof. If you are making an assertion, you offer the proof. Asking for evidence to support what someone is telling me is the opposite of keeping my head in the sand. I don’t blindly accept what I’m being fed, regardless of the source. I want to see actual evidence, not innuendo.

Stick your head further up Trump’s a**. I’m sure you’ll find what you’re looking for.

You have the opportunity to convince me and anyone else reading this exchange that Trump conspired with Russia and that is your response. Thanks for the laugh.

DP. The Senate is convinced. You are unconvinceable.

Because I asked for one instance of Trump conspiring with the Russian government and you can’t provide it and that makes me unconvinceable? The report is 900+ pages and you have offered nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That article is from 2017. We know more about Wikileaks and Julian Assange now. Keep your head in the sand.

I read the article that the PP offered as proof. If you are making an assertion, you offer the proof. Asking for evidence to support what someone is telling me is the opposite of keeping my head in the sand. I don’t blindly accept what I’m being fed, regardless of the source. I want to see actual evidence, not innuendo.

Stick your head further up Trump’s a**. I’m sure you’ll find what you’re looking for.

You have the opportunity to convince me and anyone else reading this exchange that Trump conspired with Russia and that is your response. Thanks for the laugh.

DP. The Senate is convinced. You are unconvinceable.

This. His campaign certainly did. And Trump lied to the SC.

But yeah let's keep thinking that Trump himself knew nothing of the coordination. -NP

[Anonymous]

So, who do you think is next after Clinesmith? McCabe? Comey? Yates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, who do you think is next after Clinesmith? McCabe? Comey? Yates?

I don't know. All of them are hiding in Wayfair cabinets in the basement of Comey Ping Pong until we find out, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, who do you think is next after Clinesmith? McCabe? Comey? Yates?

Durham is working his way around. If Brennan gave him information, he's probably working with that. I did find it interesting that Yates threw Comey under the bus during her testimony. Then again, the Democrats hate Comey because he cost Hillary the presidency and they've never forgiven him for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, who do you think is next after Clinesmith? McCabe? Comey? Yates?

All of them. Coordinated raids and they will be marched chain gang style in front of the public on the way to jail in their orange jumpsuits. I hear it's going down Thursday.

[Anonymous]

After 8 hours of Brennan being interviewed by Durham on friday, he is next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, who do you think is next after Clinesmith? McCabe? Comey? Yates?

All of them. Coordinated raids and they will be marched chain gang style in front of the public on the way to jail in their orange jumpsuits. I hear it's going down Thursday.

Nobody is getting arrested during the convention, I guarantee it. Trump wants his speeches to be the headline this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, who do you think is next after Clinesmith? McCabe? Comey? Yates?

I don't know. All of them are hiding in Wayfair cabinets in the basement of Comey Ping Pong until we find out, though.

If you pay enough money, you can buy them and have them shipped to you.