>>8442 I could literally say the exact same thing to you. The differences, you've already gotten your long investigation for your theories, I just want what is fair.
If we can spend 4 years on a wild goose Chase that reveals nothing, we should be able to do the same for what appears to be legitimate election fraud.
>People working within Trump's campaign was shown to have colluded with Russia and that Russia did make efforts to influence the election. I have not seen any evidence of it, your links had not provided any for this claim, and as pointed out come up there seems to be explicit denial him what you claim here, in that there was no evidence for this argument.
Rather, it appears as though you are making things up, because you are a hyperpartisan who is cultishly devoted to your own work sense of reality common regardless of evidence.
>The also show that Trump did things that would be considered obstruction of justice by any reasonable person. As any reasonable person would do if they were confronted by a witch hunt by hyper partisans come up based off a false information, fabricated dossiers, and misleading testimonies.
Great example is the spying that was done by the Obama administration on trump. In Nixon's time come of this got the man impeached. Apparently it's acceptable to you. I consider that a significant departure of reasonable standards within this country
> It also does not exonerate Trump, and directly says that. If we are going to presume guilt without evidence, why should I care about anything you have to say? You are a child rapist.
>Also, it's hilarious how you think a lack of sufficient evidence of a direct connection to the known and verifiable criminal actions of the people running his fucking campaign exonerates Trump here (which again, it does not, and the report clearly states this) but the complete lack of evidence for voter fraud in the 2020 election doesn't dissuade you from believing in it I disagree both with the claims of the 1st portion, as well as the claims of a lack of evidence. Rather it seems that there is a lot. It's just that nobody actually wants to honestly engage with it.
We have piles of testimony at this point, numerous videos, data, and more, yet you refuse to even hold an investigation.
There was far less on trump, and yet we had a 4 year long investigation. Why is this case different? Why does this deserve no investigation at all, while that needed a full on which hunt?
Are you really going to pretend to me that this is a fair and adjust system at play?
If so, you are either hopelessly naive, or willfully ignorant.
