When you are done attacking the source, I would like to hear your issues with their findings. Also, it made it to a judge and the judge allowed its release. That is what I meant because you loons dont accept anything apparently unless a judge has "seen it".....
you need to stop dismissing anything and everything that doesn't support what you already believe,.. you called me a hypocrit, but look at yourself in the mirror and tell me what you see isn't totally biased in favor of Trump
I called you a hypocrit because its true. X standard for Trump and a different one for everyone else. That is why you, NC, Winston, HWR all attack the source. Never the content. This is exactly why your's, NC's and HWR's 1st reply to me was a deflection. This is what you did, you went and looked up something negative to say about the guy. That is your 1st go to.... Its because you only have "Orange Man Bad" going through those thick skulls. You cannot be objective. That data is real. People are trying to find answers and there are people "deleting" data. I would like to know the truth. You, and others here, just want to spout "anti-Trump" talking points and throw out stuff like, "Trump is a liar" etc. I mean, Joe Biden has never lied? You guys always deflect.
"X standard for Trump and a different one for everyone else"... I think you're talking about yourself
I can prove it. There is a thread here before the 2016 election. You guys all said something vastly different leading up to, during, and after the "Mueller" investigations. You guys ate up any fucking piece of a "whisper" with any "un-named" source claiming ANYTHING about Trump. Now? We post anything about fraud and you guys attack it instantly.... Majority of the time you guys dont even look at what we post. You look at who said it, then attack that person.
I believe in and trust the Courts. Like I said earlier, the courts have ruled, something like 56 - 1 against the so-called evidence of fraud presented. The 1 case in Trump’s win column, was moot, since the state had already segregated and not counted the ballots in question. You can say, all you want, that I am attacking the source, but I go with the courts. You appeared to also believe the Frankfurt server raid. Any current thoughts on that/
Again, then instead of attacking the source, just say you have no opinion because when your 1st response attacks the source, it indicates you have an opinion. Though when challenged, it seems you dont.....
