“disgruntled staffer”
Well that’s boring.
I was hoping for some Monday afternoon craziness.
You need to wait until January 17th.
lol… was just explaining ‘hopium’ to a friend and he hit me with ‘copium’. gonna need the stickiest of the icky on that.
seems reasonable though. probably gives them some budget and extra powers to keep any more laptops from getting stolen.
So…what about those massive wikileak documents about all the declassified stuff? I’ve been sent a few videos that are basically saying 50%+ of the politicians are corrupt with big criminal ties, and shits about to go down. Trump/Flynn for 4 years and thousands of arrests?
Hopium. The web is being flooded with BS right now to further demoralize those on the right, and when nothing happens, discredit those who spread it.
So is it the case that Trump couldn’t have instigated the thing because it happened before the claimed instigation?
All that Wikileaks stuff is stuff that has been there someone just figured out you could view the files directory lol
yeah i got sent it today but i saw it already a week or more ago and couldnt really find much in there.
Let’s see if this goes anywhere. Seems pretty cut & dry.
And while the Washington Post clumsily attempts to blame President Trump for the violence – despite the President calling for “peaceful” protests and the “cheering on” of Congressmen – their own article admits the “first wave of protesters arrived at the Capitol about 12:40pm.”
President Trump’s speech didn’t conclude until 1:11pm, and with at least a 45-minute walk between the two locations with crowd-related delays, that would put the first people from Trump’s speech at Capitol Hill no earlier than 1:56pm – a full hour and sixteen minutes after troublemakers arrived.
In fact, rioters who breached the perimeter would have had to leave before Trump’s speech even began (at 12pm precisely) to make it in time for the events as they are detailed by authorities.
Woah, what’s the source for that?
I’m curious of the source too.
peter navarro just released it apparently.
Can someone explain to me the legality of ignoring this data when presented in court? Exactly what the court needs to see to accept the data and then throw out the vote.
What the hell is an over-vote?
BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!!?!?!?!
Link to Navarro Report Volume III