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.
What would really be remarkable is if, ONE TIME, Republicans could defend Trump and his actions with FACT and WITHOUT referring to the actions and deeds, perceived or otherwise, of someone else: specifically the Clintons or Obamas.
GET OVER IT. TRUMP WON!!!! Now Trump has to stand on his own two legs and be responsible for HIS actions without trying to blame someone else at every opportunity.
Of course this has been said a hundred times a day, every day and it NEVER SINKS IN. Republicans can not defend the ignorant, lying psychopath in office. All they can do is deflect and raise the noise level in hopes it will hide the TRUTH.
This is what we in the conservative right have been saying the entire time ......we have to have the rule of law, because if there are no rules, it will be chaos. If everybody just does as these please with no consequences, such as was the case with the Clintons conspiring with the federal government to exonerate her in exchange for future political favors, then you can't have a stable decent society and nation because its inherently corrupt.
So if that's what the left wants, then we can have that...but trust me...you won't like it. Because in a "no rules" scenario the conservatives will win every day. The left is not capable of sustaining itself because its dependent on parasitic policies and the restraint of conservatives to not violently resist all the welfare state's BS. Once that is removed.....no bueno for leftists.
Note to Trump supporters: Trump is the CURRENT sitting president, not Obama or Clinton. That is a key factor in our CURRENT democracy. Spinning everything that the current administration does wrong will not lower our legal and democratic standards regardless of what Fox News reports to its audience.
So where to begin. That Hillary's use of bleach bit does not appear to be with the intent to hide information perhaps? That it was a contractor that did it because he believed that was what was supposed to be done?
Or that destroying old phones in this way is pretty normal for anyone who has access to things they do not want to have left laying around? I mean if she hadnt then everyone would be screaming about how she let old devices with possible intelligence just left laying around. You can't have it both ways. Or should she always keep all of her old phones on her forever? What nonsense. And those phones were destroyed that way during the normal course of business whenever she got a new one.
Folks on the right have taken a lot of the Clinton stuff and blown it up into some huge conspiracy without ever thinking about things. Or looking into things. The sequence of events that caused the use of bleach bit by a third party vendor for example is just people being dumb-no huge conspiracy here.
What Hannity is doing is clear-destroy the evidence. This is the sort of thing a criminal does. This is Hannity thinking he is under surveillance (probably) using the power of his position to convince others to destroy evidence without him calling them on his phone. This is not defensible.
Trying to decide if the thread title is completely dishonest or just really dull-witted.
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.
Sean Hannity Suggests that Witnesses in Mueller Case Should Destroy Evidence
