Art Of The Deal

I accept everyone's innocence until proven guilty.
So you're just going to treat the collective US intelligence findings and Putin's/Assange's denials as nothing more than an annoying case of "he said/she said?" That's very...Constitutional of you. No doubt, you'd give Kim Jong-Un and all manner of Iranian Ayatollahs similar consideration in like circumstances. You would exhibit no concern whatsoever regarding any US intelligence accusations until you, yourself, were presented with irrefutable evidence. Until then all your troubles would melt like lemon drops high above the chimney tops.
 
Last edited:
Could you please give me an example of such a hacked e-mail written by Hillary Clinton that reflected so negatively on her character?

If they didn't reflect negatively on her, what exactly was the problem? Your side is the one moaning the Russians hacked the election. You can't have it both ways.
 
So you're just going to treat the collective US intelligence findings and Putin's/Assange's denials as nothing more than an annoying case of "he said/she said?" That's very...Constitutional of you. No doubt, you'd give Kim Jong-Un and all manner of Iranian Ayatollahs similar consideration in like circumstances. You would exhibit no concern whatsoever regarding any US intelligence accusations until you, yourself, were presented with irrefutable evidence. Until then all your troubles would melt like lemon drops high above the chimney tops.
Why didn't Obama do anything about it? It has been going on for years. Furthermore, he did nothing when China hacked Sony. He did nothing when Russia hacked the White House. Obama had the worst foreign policy in the history of the US. It was nonstop foreign policy disasters.

Dumb ass libtards are coming up with every excuse they can think of regarding Hillary's loss attempting to rationalize it.
 
If they didn't reflect negatively on her, what exactly was the problem? Your side is the one moaning the Russians hacked the election. You can't have it both ways.
I think it's cool how far your arguments can reach and how you can connect disparate and even nonexistent dots when it suits your purpose, but you can't even manage to scratch your own ass when doing so would concede a point.

"Hacked the election?" Loading up on holiday cocktails, Ann?
 
15727072_985922498208454_4775766685736672500_n.jpg
 
Could you please give me an example of such a hacked e-mail written by Hillary Clinton that reflected so negatively on her character?

It was the emails written by Podesta, the chairman of her campaign and close confidant of Bill and Obama that doomed her. They showed the world how corrupt they all were, and what they were all willing to do for money, to win the nomination, etc. Would you like examples of those?
 
So you're just going to treat the collective US intelligence findings and Putin's/Assange's denials as nothing more than an annoying case of "he said/she said?" That's very...Constitutional of you. No doubt, you'd give Kim Jong-Un and all manner of Iranian Ayatollahs similar consideration in like circumstances. You would exhibit no concern whatsoever regarding any US intelligence accusations until you, yourself, were presented with irrefutable evidence. Until then all your troubles would melt like lemon drops high above the chimney tops.

It's not the collective US Intelligence Findings. We went through this before when you posted the HuffPo link stating that 17 intelligence agencies, or something or other, but when you read close you saw that it was one or two appointed individuals that headed up the committee of all these agencies that was stating the assumption. I ask again, if so many agencies have evidence, where is it, Freddy? Where?

There. Is. No. Evidence.
 
Back
Top