Any source I provide, you will try to discredit. So I will meet you back here after the guilty verdict and you can tell me all about how unfair the justice system is against conservatives, despite 86% of law enforcement voting for Trump.
Not any source. The FBI, particularly, has recent form as an organisation involved in what appear to be political prosecutions - or did you miss the whole Whitmer thing where it's seemingly the FBI doing the heavy lifting?
Or is this you not liking being asked to actually show your working rather than merely your rhetoric?
It seems you’re already hard at work discrediting sources I haven’t even provided yet. I’m patient. I will be here when the gavel drops and Kyle is sentenced. Will you, u/APDSmith ?
I'm raising queries about one specific source you referenced. Or is the word of a government source the be treated as holy writ and beyond question?
Regards the result, well, I'll have to wait and see what the reasoning is. The entire trial is quite politicised and that reduces the chance of a well-reasoned verdict, whichever party that verdict favours.
I see you’re already setting the table with excuses. Not very confident, are you. You shouldn’t be. To your credit, that at least shows some level of intelligence.
Any source I provide, you will try to discredit. So I will meet you back here after the guilty verdict and you can tell me all about how unfair the justice system is against conservatives, despite 86% of law enforcement voting for Trump.
You have nothing.
The storm is coming.
Not any source. The FBI, particularly, has recent form as an organisation involved in what appear to be political prosecutions - or did you miss the whole Whitmer thing where it's seemingly the FBI doing the heavy lifting?
Or is this you not liking being asked to actually show your working rather than merely your rhetoric?
It seems you’re already hard at work discrediting sources I haven’t even provided yet. I’m patient. I will be here when the gavel drops and Kyle is sentenced. Will you, u/APDSmith ?
I'm raising queries about one specific source you referenced. Or is the word of a government source the be treated as holy writ and beyond question?
Regards the result, well, I'll have to wait and see what the reasoning is. The entire trial is quite politicised and that reduces the chance of a well-reasoned verdict, whichever party that verdict favours.
I see you’re already setting the table with excuses. Not very confident, are you. You shouldn’t be. To your credit, that at least shows some level of intelligence.