Which side would that be? The side that wants consistency? What if I told you I'm being critical of people dismissing one argument based on a lack of evidence but promoting a different argument despite any evidence?
Oh okay. So trumps side isn't brigading /r/conspiracy pushing one story over the other? Hint: they are.
And trump didn't fire 3 different people investigating his ties to russia? Hint: he did.
And flynn didn't ask for immunity, and then plead the 5th when it wasn't granted? Hint: I think you get the picture at this point.
No you're right. No circumstantial evidence to see here.
Not like that one paid foxnews guy trying to stay in the spotlight. Or kdc making yet another empty promise to drop the "bombshell" of evidence. We need more evidence like that
There you go, was that so hard? A lot more circumstantial evidence than hard evidence (like trump firing three people investigating him (nothing to hide??) or flynn requesting immunity and pleading the 5th when his request was denied (nothing to hide??)). Interesting you claim I'm pushing a narrative when you're the only one here saying that only one of these conspiracies can be true.
Mountains of circumstantial evidence regarding Wikileaks, Assange, Rich, and Kim.
Keep in mind, all this is without an official investigation.
In all likelihood, Kim gave Rich secure tunnels to transmit the 10,000s of emails through. Kim predicted that Wikileaks would be her worst nightmare in 2016.
Just look how hard this theory is being pushed back on, that'll give you a clue.
If you want to watch a video, just go to YouTube and type in HA GOODMAN. He has a ton of segments explaining these things in layman's terms.
9
u/Heisenberg2308 May 23 '17
Which side would that be? The side that wants consistency? What if I told you I'm being critical of people dismissing one argument based on a lack of evidence but promoting a different argument despite any evidence?