WTH is the point of this? You're here for 38 minutes and post a link to a paper known to be a propagandist for The Cannibal Elite. Meanwhile bodies of The Cannibal Queen keep piling up and you're chasing one of those red dot cat lasers.
Over there, Fluffy! Quick! Get it! No, it's over there ... no, there!!!!
The article may have a headline and a first few paragraphs that stoke the imagination of the impeach-Trump fanatics, but it's pretty complete, and upon reading thoroughly one can draw different conclusions.
upon reading thoroughly one can draw different conclusions.
This. That's what 'm objecting to.
The OP did nothing but plunk a link to an article, not even stating why s/he was doing it. Nor was there any kind of investigative work on if this lawyer's name was linked to any of the known international adoption groups Voat has identified as problematic. I would agree that some articles are complete and don't need anything more than to be posted, but this one did. You know as well as I do that the NYT published it to make add to the Pedosta "Russian collusion" narrative. Like the whole place wasn't wiretapped and like this meeting wasn't known about before. I seriously doubt the claims. But the point is, there should have been follow up. What other meetings did Trump or his son have? How about Ivanka? What about the White House registry? Any other adoption professionals? Make the case for why you're posting.
It could have been a great post if that had been done.
![Trump Team Met With Lawyer Linked to Kremlin During Campaign [about CHILD ADOPTION!!!!!]](/thumbnails/66/1d/661d4f34-2427-4926-b87e-60666949739f.jpg)
view the rest of the comments →
quantokitty ago
WTH is the point of this? You're here for 38 minutes and post a link to a paper known to be a propagandist for The Cannibal Elite. Meanwhile bodies of The Cannibal Queen keep piling up and you're chasing one of those red dot cat lasers.
Over there, Fluffy! Quick! Get it! No, it's over there ... no, there!!!!
o0shad0o ago
The article may have a headline and a first few paragraphs that stoke the imagination of the impeach-Trump fanatics, but it's pretty complete, and upon reading thoroughly one can draw different conclusions.
quantokitty ago
This. That's what 'm objecting to.
The OP did nothing but plunk a link to an article, not even stating why s/he was doing it. Nor was there any kind of investigative work on if this lawyer's name was linked to any of the known international adoption groups Voat has identified as problematic. I would agree that some articles are complete and don't need anything more than to be posted, but this one did. You know as well as I do that the NYT published it to make add to the Pedosta "Russian collusion" narrative. Like the whole place wasn't wiretapped and like this meeting wasn't known about before. I seriously doubt the claims. But the point is, there should have been follow up. What other meetings did Trump or his son have? How about Ivanka? What about the White House registry? Any other adoption professionals? Make the case for why you're posting.
It could have been a great post if that had been done.