Anonymous wrote:Omg they’re grasping at straws.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
So is that the rule now? Unless a politician personally benefits from fraud, the politician's incompetence, turning a blind eye, or cover up are no longer fair game?
This is such a boring story. You can do the same for every single state in the U.S., red and blue. Everybody knows that, which is why you'll get zero traction with it.
Government fraud is now normal and acceptable. Got it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
So is that the rule now? Unless a politician personally benefits from fraud, the politician's incompetence, turning a blind eye, or cover up are no longer fair game?
This is such a boring story. You can do the same for every single state in the U.S., red and blue. Everybody knows that, which is why you'll get zero traction with it.
+1 Every state has fraud, including red states. News is chock full of such stories.
The biggest fraud, however, is Trump. Everyone else pales in comparison.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
So is that the rule now? Unless a politician personally benefits from fraud, the politician's incompetence, turning a blind eye, or cover up are no longer fair game?
This is such a boring story. You can do the same for every single state in the U.S., red and blue. Everybody knows that, which is why you'll get zero traction with it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
So is that the rule now? Unless a politician personally benefits from fraud, the politician's incompetence, turning a blind eye, or cover up are no longer fair game?
This is such a boring story. You can do the same for every single state in the U.S., red and blue. Everybody knows that, which is why you'll get zero traction with it.
+1 Every state has fraud, including red states. News is chock full of such stories.
The biggest fraud, however, is Trump. Everyone else pales in comparison.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
So is that the rule now? Unless a politician personally benefits from fraud, the politician's incompetence, turning a blind eye, or cover up are no longer fair game?
This is such a boring story. You can do the same for every single state in the U.S., red and blue. Everybody knows that, which is why you'll get zero traction with it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
So is that the rule now? Unless a politician personally benefits from fraud, the politician's incompetence, turning a blind eye, or cover up are no longer fair game?
This is such a boring story. You can do the same for every single state in the U.S., red and blue. Everybody knows that, which is why you'll get zero traction with it.
Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
So is that the rule now? Unless a politician personally benefits from fraud, the politician's incompetence, turning a blind eye, or cover up are no longer fair game?
Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.
Anonymous wrote:Did Walz benefit from the fraud? Because in Trump's case, the answer is yes, Trump befitted directly from fraud. That is so much worse than having fraud by a few bureaucrats happen on your watch.