No, I'm not....and certainly not for the reasons that you just expressed....will all due respect.
With regards to the actions of the Clintons, this is nothing....and the news media has been exposed for making the most outlandish claims in order to get ratings.....in addition to vehemently opposing Trump.
Clinton, by violating numerous laws, exposed the US to espionage by Putin and his ilk with her illegal email server/s.
The FBI director perjured himself in front of Congress....and is was a shill for Hillary....as was Loretta Lynch for referring to these illegalities as "matters".
When pressed, the lame stream "news presstitutes" had to admit that only 4 out of 17 intel. agencies claimed positive proof of such "meddling".
And, why wouldn't they be for, rather than against, Hillary...when she provided them with uranium and they then donated to the Clinton foundation/s in a quid pro quo arrangement.
Haven't you read the Snowden revelations....not the movie...but what he revealed?
Doesn't that make you nervous?
That you use such terms as "leak weaponization", etc....is an example of being duped by the media with their use of "un-named" sources to describe a bunch of BS they create, etc.
Believe whatever you choose to, by all means.
BTW, I think all these politicians are financially corrupt...on both sides of the political aisles....given the $20 trillion in debt....that has built up by buying votes in order to keep getting re-elected.
And they are all afraid of Trump.....that he might bring this reign of financial corruption to an end.
The people in power that gripe the most...have the most to lose financially.
So, there's much blame to go around.
And absolutely nothing will ever be solved by the current 554 people in Congress.
If these morons were put in charge of the food supply of the US, we would all starve.
And Trump is the lesser of these 554 evils, if you will.
And you're worried about Russia? Instead of the freaks within linked to the ISIS animals?
Come on, gimme a break.
Return to Odd
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Reply to message