Harvey got him some Tom Hanks didn’t he? According to Harvey ‘s brother he is bisexual. Got him some Ron Howard to that sly dog.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Steven Crowder - Popular Right Wing Conservative
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
Harvey got him some Tom Hanks didn’t he? According to Harvey ‘s brother he is bisexual. Got him some Ron Howard to that sly dog.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You said "it's too hard to prove" as if we should make it easier to imprison people before due process. You don't understand sarcasm either it seems. I'll add that to the list of things you don't understand.
Feminism
I said it's too hard to prove, as if that might prevent prosecution. A prosecutor makes a judgement call about whether to move a case forward. I wasn't suggesting making it easier.
We are now seeing the REAL Russian collusion of the Obama/Clinton administration -
http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/team-obamas-stunning-coverup-of-russian-crimes/
http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/team-obamas-stunning-coverup-of-russian-crimes/
There’s more: Until September 2013, the FBI director was Robert Mueller — who’s now the special counsel probing Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It’s hard to see how he can be trusted in that job unless he explains what he knew about this Obama-era cover-up.
It's hush hush for the libs on this one -
http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/team-obamas-stunning-coverup-of-russian-crimes/
https://www.topbuzz.com/article/i6478944456031601161?gid=6478944473433768202&app_id=1106
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you suggesting that that represents a conflict of interest? If so, how? It seems like it would provide useful experience, more than anything.
Sure, being aware of Russian collusion with Obama and Clinton while Being the FBI Director gives Mueller a lot of experience. Corrupt experience.
Look Pat. I will grant you that it warrants looking into, based on what has been released. But there's no clear indication of wrongdoing from any of the Americans involved here. And I wonder why you expect me or anyone else to take it seriously given that you wouldn't even look at Trump's conspiracy when his son admitted to it. Republicans are great at making a mountain out of a molehill (Benghazi), but you won't apply the same standard to your own guy.
Look Pat. I will grant you that it warrants looking into, based on what has been released. But there's no clear indication of wrongdoing from any of the Americans involved here. And I wonder why you expect me or anyone else to take it seriously given that you wouldn't even look at Trump's conspiracy when his son admitted to it. Republicans are great at making a mountain out of a molehill (Benghazi), but you won't apply the same standard to your own guy.
Americans died in Benghazi because of clinton. Trump Jr.? Not collusion and no corruption.
That's more than a small exaggeration.
Sure looks like conspiracy when he shows up to a meeting with people who present themselves as Russian agents looking to help him win an election.
Nah, everything looks like conspiracy to the left, except the elephants in the room.
You know what I think it is, Pat? Obama was so clean, so free of any useful corruption for his political opponents to use against him, that they drove themselves nuts looking for anything they could use. Anything at all. And when they couldn't find anything, they resorted to outright conspiracy theories about where he was born, and who his parents were, and his grades, and his career, and after they had stewed in that festering brine long enough, they forgot that there was such a thing as a fact. They forgot that there is such a thing as truth. So when Clinton came along, it was easy to get them to believe the worst of her, because they had long decided that what was true was only what was politically expedient. So you don't believe Trump is innocent because you've looked at it. You believe he's innocent because you are a conservative, and he can't be guilty if you are a conservative and he is too.