>>11720349 pb

yes, and the fuckin Hillary / Blumenthal nexus

Sid's son Max is all about sucking Maduro's dick

Him and all the "journalists" he hangs with.

All the neo- lefties whine on and on about Venezuela and how Trump isn't being fair to them. Trumps a big baddy and Maduro is the victim. Fairly democratically elected and all that.Ca

It's really good there. The Greedy Capitalists are hurting them

yada yada yadayada yada yada

kek

That and Iran.

WTF

They have writers and publications.

Maybe Langley writes it for them and they just put their name on it Or read it out.?

Max B. gets his stuff run by HRC ; you can see in her emails.

>>11720485

wouldn't you imagine they are reading it already?

>>11720742

funny, All the things they call you a "conspiracy theorist" for knowing, kinda takes the sting out of being called that.

>>11720779

What the hell are you referring to?

or are you just a braggart?

Study the scientific method a bit more and you'll realize "conspiracy theorist" isn't a slur.

go back to Reddit , if it still exists.

>>11720779

>>11720851

All the evidence we need we already have.

Part of the psy op is to always claim there is a "missing smoking gun"

If they convince you of that it won't matter how much evidence you have.

"Proof" has to be seen / accepted.

It can be right before everyone, but they will convince you it's not there.

Like stage magic.

>>11720910

He's a twit. Always has been.

>>11720491

Bundy involved with killing Jack Kennedy.?

?

No surprise

Probably related to the serial killer Bundy

>>11720934

He's just being an asshole, nothing mysterious.

Clinton did not ever concede, did she?

He's probably thought he's been President "Shadow President" since HRC didn't concede or some BS

Wasn't one of "Q" messages about that?

Why didn't she HRC concede?

>>11720952

why would you be apologizing for Tucker?

Are you from Facebook or something?

>>11721071

Who's going to be watching Tucker.

Hello Fox.

no

>>11721075

Where does cm get his info

I would need sauce on that

Makes no sense

>>11721075

There s no such thing as a mandatory recusal, just ask Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzk Page, etc.

Also even if Roberts recuses himself on some bogus point, there 's still a win since there's only 3 liberal justices

So could Ron be repeating a rumor.

Could be the Cia and Dems want to engineer recusals, like they apparently did with Sessions?

through presuasion.

Part of that would be starting this rumor?