Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Using most of the known full vocabulary in that originally quoted post. Only thing missing is "y'all".
Better vocabulary allows more intelligent posts. Limited vocabulary restricts to repetitive posts. And generally signals poverty of cognition. Case in point.
Hey, now, Miss Molly, what's wrong with "y'all?? It's a perfectly good, grammatically clear and very useful term.
Not all non-Trumpites live north of the Mason-Dixon Line, you know.
1. "Again, there's no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge. And the nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on a virtual private network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that first jump, they appeared to be Americans. "
2. "There's no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election."
So, still nothing to support the assertion that Donald Trump conspired together with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.
After 18 months, literally nothing.
Literally nothing except Russians working illegally to manipulate the election.
Mueller is first showing what the illegal activity was using Russians now charged with crimes.
The next step is to show that Americans were cooperating with them.
If he went in the reserve order, people would be asking "What Russians? I don't see any Russians they were cooperating with."
"The indictment itself is full of fluff and clearly presents itself as political posturing. The Mueller investigation had to find something, anything; and what they came up with reflects how little substance exists. This is one of those examples where it pays to read the actual indictment; and contrast the facts laid out against the method of salesmanship and parseltongue. It is not a difficult read – even Boris and Natasha could do it.
Example: “unwitting Trump campaign official†is really – A single New York volunteer campaign worker agreed to give some signs to a pro-Trump rally."
But who was giving out and funding signs to the anti-Trump rioters?
Literally nothing except Russians working illegally to manipulate the election.
Mueller is first showing what the illegal activity was using Russians now charged with crimes.
The next step is to show that Americans were cooperating with them.
If he went in the reserve order, people would be asking "What Russians? I don't see any Russians they were cooperating with."
Russians have been tying to interfere in our elections since we've had elections
What the left wants eveyone to believe though isnthat Russia stole the election from Hillary and gave it to Trump.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a perfectly good, grammatically clear and very useful term.
