Like the Russian collusion lie for two years?
Did you really think these liars would tell you the truth like Russian’s hacked their computers, I’m not gullible.
Not when we are dealing with known liars that pushed Russian collusion.
There’s so many problems with the VIPS report your quoting, it’s been thoroughly debunked, partially retraced and walked back over the last year.
Maybe you never saw the retractions.
Paul Thomson -
So, how did you feel about Brett Cavanaugh’s family being dragged through the mud with now admitted fabricated/false allegations of rape and sexual abuse?
[/quote]
What about all the politicians and false accusers who did accuse and speculate without evidence? Should they be banned from social media for hurting his family’s feelings?
Without evidence? That’s an interesting term. I would submit that evidence certainly existed but it was not enough to demonstrate guilt conclusively.
Which is different for your Rich conspiracy as there really is no evidence for it whatsoever.
It’s a good thing to see who still believes in the Vince Foster lie and the Seth Rich lie.
If nothing else it helps us all know who to trust.
Maybe you trust the people who pushed the Russian collusion lie to much.
What evidence existed? It’s pretty clear now that none of the purported evidence ever existed. https://www.lifezette.com/2018/11/woman-who-made-up-the-rape-charges-against-kavanaugh-should-be-held-legally-accountable/
It good to see who still believes in the Trump-Russian Conspiracy and the Brett Cavanaugh Slander lies. If nothing else it helps us all know who to trust.
Hmmm. Is it your position that there was no evidence whatsoever beyond one person’s word against another person’s word?
Yes. So, what evidence beyond “She said…” did you think you saw?
That I saw? Are you thinking of only physical evidence that can be observed? Is that the only definition of evidence?
It was a synecdoche. So, what evidence beyond “She said…” did you think you saw, heard, tasted, smelled or touched?
Look. I don’t want to relitigate the whole thing. I was neutral back then and pretty much remain so today.
If you are truly interested you can check out his wiki page and look under the section that details the charges. Therapy notes, contemporaneous discussions with others certainly qualify as evidence but it did not rise to the level required to discern guilt.
Hope that helps.
That is a typical limp-wristed sidestep by someone who has been blowing smoke and realises they can’t condense their smog into a solid piece of evidence. You are resorting to the standard globalist backstop of sending the adversary to a webpage under the pretext that there they will find the answer the globalist doesn’t have
If you really had hard evidence on that page to justify the slanders against Cavanaugh, it would be an easy feat to cut and paste it with the appropriate link. But you didn’t because you don’t.
sigh It’s hard to take your knowledge of Kavanaugh seriously when you clearly are so ill-informed on it that you don’t even know how to spell his name properly.
If you were interested you would search. You’re not. Again, I’m not interested in relitigating. I alluded to the evidence in my initial reply.
You should address the posts I.e the arguments and not make blanket accusations about people.
It is generally seen as bad form to call each other names.
The post is problematic.
Do with that information what you will.
1 Like
Sorry man… not going to go deep into that rabbit hole.
Not really interested.
It’s a shame you don’t actually read my posts.
“Fellow brainwashed cultists” ring a bell?
Although I’ve recently have been instructed that you never can tell what is acceptable and what is not without flagging posts.
And since I pretty much almost never flag…I prefer to address these things with the poster…I guess I’ll never know. 
3 Likes
Link?
