without reading what they are talking about. It really shouldn't matter who links a story or video or court pleading - the substance is the story, or video or court pleading, not the source who puts it out there on twitter, or a blog, for example. You can draw your own conclusions, which in your case, would be wrong, but you never even get there because you just react to the party linking the, in this case, primary source, which is a pleading in a federal criminal case brought by special prosecutor Durham.
You are so uninformed it's comical.
Here's a news story about it, but you won't read it:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10506599/Hillary-Clintons-campaign-paid-tech-firm-infiltrate-Trump-Tower-White-House-servers.html
Here's my earlier post with a blog and a news article about it:
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=18018792
But they all link to the primary source, which in this case is a pleading filed by federal special prosecutor Durham. It's a PUBLIC RECORD.
Read it and comment on it or STFU.
Edited by MUTGR at 20:26:25 on 02/12/22