Which is worse...?

@jackjjackson That only goes for people who don't or can't read, think, and see for themselves. They found out a whole ton of shit, Junior.

We got a left wing problem child on this site, it seems. . @jackjjackson

@SW-User Thanks for your summary, but like most summaries these days, you left out critical information, twisted words that only make you look how you wish to appear, and point out the weakness of your limp argument. Golf?

@SW-User Read it for yourself dude. Let me know what questions you have about using the Internet.

Good shit...if there ever was a case of a leftie projecting, you are a shining example. Does trump remind you of your old grandpa that beat you or something? 🤷‍♂️@MarkPaul

@SW-User What exactly do you want me to copy-and-paste for you, that you can see for yourself if you know how to look things up on the Internet? Happy returns.

@SW-User Well, let's start with what your source is for the information that has you in denial. I trust you too. 🤞

@SW-User No, dummy. What source of information are you using to base YOUR denial on? I get you are just entertaining yourself, but take the dick out of your mouth and at least follow along. Let me know what legitimate questions you have?

@SW-User Start with page 9 that starts with, "Second, while the investigation identified numerous links..."

@SW-User You don't know how to research, do you? What is the highest level of school you have completed?


There were “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

“The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws [u]to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office[/u] accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

“Could haves and mays” @MarkPaul

@SW-User Put in the effort and [u]research[/u], [u]read[/u], and [u]think[/u] (for yourself). You are the laziest fuck around, aren't you? Oh, wait... or are you really not interested in finding out the truth? Oh, Perkins...

@SW-User And, you can't seem to show where there isn't. Show me where the Baby-trump has been "totally exonerated." Do the work you expect others to do and show me where no links between Russian agents and Baby-trump campaign officials was concluded. I'm waiting.

And, while you are doing that and I am waiting on you, show me...

1. Where there were no lies about meetings.
2. The Russians didn't believe Baby-trump would benefit them.
3. The Baby-trump wasn't worried about the Special Counsel.
4. The Baby-trump didn't obstruct justice.
5. The Special Counsel didn't believe Congress should not investigate further.

... And, please no redactions from your response. Go; get busy.

Typically MP can’t answer and instead pens a list of irrelevant questions. @SW-User