robosmith

And yet you're still HERE posting defenses for Trump. Obviously because you (and he) need to defend him from the worst legal PROBLEMS he's EVER faced. And that is a HIGH BAR. LMAO

There's a reason that Trump sued Wharton to keep his grades PRIVATE.

The 11th District Federal Appeals court ruled on this and Trump's "declassified" argument was rejected in favor of the DoJ. Case closed, unless it is appealed to the SCOTUS.

I don't need AC most of the time cause I live on the coast. And you have NO IDEA what I understand or don't. I already said James has to win the suit. Can you read? What do you want to bet she has the goods? Her indictment is totally consistent with what has been known about Trump for DECADES. Finally we have a NY State AG who could not be bought by Trump like he's done before.

IF it said that, you could quote it HERE. Schiff is NOT in the Senate. Duh. I read the report cover to cover. Did you miss the 10 instances of obstruction of justice that Mueller detailed?

Just because you believe Trump's excuses DOES NOT CHANGE what he said. In FACT he verified to a reporter afterward that he REALLY WANTED TO SEE Hillary's emails. Sucks to be conned like you've been. $200K is a SIZEABLE and ILLEGAL campaign contribution. Duh. "Fall prey"? LMAO Everyone but you knew what was happening and Mueller told the story. So PROVE IT. You CAN'T. The FBI has already said they DID NOT RELY on Steele's info for the FISA warrant and it was thoroughly DISCLOSED in the application. No correction. That's what I SAID. Which you would know if you could read. Read the Senate Intel Committee report. IF you have the guts.

You've still not read the Senate Intelligence Committee report, have you? I believe you're afraid it will burst your balloon cause it contradicts what you've been posting here.

So you see nothing wrong with fraudulent valuations that vary 5-10x based on whether done to get a loan or pay taxes? AKA, bank fraud and tax fraud. You ought to consult a lawyer if you're considering doing that. Do you look good in stripes?

More proof of what I've been saying. Trump is a conman and all his defenders here have been conned. Of course James still has to win her lawsuit and survive Trump's appeal to the SCOTUS.

Trump illegally asked Russia to help him win in 2016. He shouldn't get away with it. Of course there is ALSO Manafort sharing PRIVATE polling data with Russian agent Kilimnik, to help the Internet Research Agency target their bots and trolls; which you would KNOW if you ever read the Senate Intelligence Committee report. Hillary had NOTHING to do with any lies Danchenko told the FBI. In any case Danchenko has not been convicted and Durham's case is falling apart. Danchenko is a US resident. If Steele paid him from his proceeds, IT'S NOT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION to Hillary's campaign. Trump is a conman and you've been conned.

Your ALLEGATION of "cheating" does not begin to match Trump's illegal campaign contributions from Russians. You have NO EVIDENCE of "Hillary colluding with Russians and getting her lawyer & the FBI to commit crimes." NO CHARGES were EVER FILED against Hillary by Trump's DoJ. I already explained to you WHY it was NOT illegal to HIRE a researcher (Steele). It WAS illegal to get the CONTRIBUTIONS that Trump got from Russia. Do I need to post that from the FEC AGAIN? Of course after he took office, Trump gutted the FEC so nothing could be done. ? This will be the last time I explain this to the WALL named WCM. ?

Well he is just a dog on a porch, so that's understandable.

Because the climate HAS always changed, but for different reasons and not nearly as fast.

Find SOME evidence to prove your opinion and I'll find evidence to prove you wrong. Until then, my opinion that you're wrong is all that's necessary.

I'm sure there's a reason you posted NO EVIDENCE of ^this "recent history of election cheating by Dems." Trump couldn't prove it in court and neither can you. Got news for you: when you have NO EVIDENCE of voter fraud, all you got is the certified vote count.

Unfortunate you HAVE NO EVIDENCE for ^this FANTASY.

Some recession. Anyone who wants to work can find a good paying job.

Trending Politics is the Fox News Channel of Canada? Your video does NOT show the dates of the opinions and it's easy to edit video to remove the context as the blurb above raises suspicions about.

Sure. Just some of the top universities in the world, and the wealthy all over the world send their children to them. What you got? McGill?

It's INVESTMENT in a future with LESS GLOBAL WARMING. You do know there is a huge cost for GLOBAL WARMING, don't you? Extreme storms and drought are VERY EXPENSIVE.

I'll give ^this lame opinion all the consideration it deserves.

You do know that is not 100%, right? And NOTHING about 2020.

It is you who has surrendered due to having NO EVIDENCE with which to prove your OPINIONS.

LMAO.

Too bad you have NO EVIDENCE to back ^your opinions.