If one individual or group of people is subject to indictment under particular laws because they engaged in certain activities, should not other individuals and groups who engaged in the same activities also be indicted under those same laws?
formatting link
If so, I can think of a few others beginning with George Soros.
cular laws because they engaged in certain activities, should not other ind ividuals and groups who engaged in the same activities also be indicted und er those same laws?
You and Robert Barnes are missing a few points here. Christopher Steele was hired to do a specific job - dig out any dirt lying around on Donald Trump - and report it back to the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National C ommittee.
They might have used what he found to influence the election campaign - but they didn't. He wasn't trying to influence the election campaign - he was just doing a gutter-press reporting job.
The people that Mueller charged did try to influence the electorate directl y, by posing as American citizens and posting misleading items on social m edia under false names.
Even the slowest of right-wing ninnies ought to be able to appreciate the d ifference between trawling for gutter-press rumours and reporting them - un der your own name - to the Democratic National Committee, and directing mis leading propaganda at the voting electorate under false names.
Robert Barnes is trying to equate apples and pears for political effect - i t's transparent nonsense, but the Cursitor Dooms of this world lap up the k ind of nonsense that is designed to appeal to them, and are much too gratif ied by the completely spurious content to notice that they have been sucker ed.
You may not like being equated to Cursitor Doom, but you do seem to suffer from a similar gullibility.
To "true believers" over the age of say 50 there's no amount of obsessing over the Clintons that won't play well, they'd be happy for a trillion dollars to be spent on bringing this hardened criminal to justice.
To anyone younger than that for the most part it just looks paranoid, irrational, and petty. Not to mention shockingly weak, what would the Soviets have been thinking if Ronald Reagan spent his second term obsessing over Geraldine Ferraro? He's scared of a _woman_?
So you're saying it can be? It would be very novel as it's never happened before in history as far as I'm aware but I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong
Ultimately, everything has to be viewed in the light of one question:
"Will a billionaire be saddened or harmed by the activity (in question) to the extent that he/she will be unable to create many amazing jobs by making amazing and fantastic deals at a golf resort with other billionaires who love America very very much and only want America to become great again?"
Anybody who doesn't support billionaires must be locked up, or maybe hung, for treason.
Bluster, righteous indignation, but not exactly a denial, though. The "Always attack, never defend" thing might have novel 50 years ago when L. Ron Hubbard wrote about it but is kind of played-out at this point
Krw's definition of a lie - something he disagrees with - and his definition of "proof" - which involves nothing more that his assertion - are both idosyncratic to the point of lunacy.
He somebody who disagrees with right-wing nitwits. This is pretty much the normal human condition. Right-wing nitwits don't like people who disagree with them, but right-wing nitwits can't do rational argument, so all they can do is document their dislike.
Don't worry keithtardkiethtard, nobody has gotten down to your depth yet. They never will since your is one of those moving... forever further downward points.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.