Nalle Loc: Tellus

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

and this means????????

DukeTarHeel Loc: NC's "Research Triangle"

If you read the article, you would understand.

On Dec. 8, someone made a simultaneous t***sfer of 28.15 bitcoins — worth more than $500,000 at the time — to 22 different virtual wallets, most of them belonging to prominent right-wing organizations and personalities. The source was a single person using a French cryptocurrency exchange.

Now cryptocurrency researchers believe they have identified who made the t***sfer, and suspect it was intended to bolster those far-right causes. U.S. law enforcement is investigating whether the donations were linked to the J*** 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol. It opens up the question of "did a foreign entity help fund the J**6th i**********n".

Nalle Loc: Tellus

Rightwingers can't read!

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

That's not really fair, although the one in question obviously can't.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Since you can't possibly identify just one of the cryptocurrency researchers, the article has no more credibility than if it said: "Joe and Harry from our editorial staff made up this story by identifying who made the t***sfer and lots of readers believe it".

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Which would still be light years ahead of "Trump said".

DukeTarHeel Loc: NC's "Research Triangle"

When did you apply that same discipline to the claims trump made?

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Send the link where I mentioned claims that Trump made and also where I didn't apply the same discipline.

DukeTarHeel Loc: NC's "Research Triangle"

It is 3 posts back. "Since you can't possibly identify just one of the cryptocurrency researchers, the article has no more credibility than if it said: "Joe and Harry from our editorial staff made up this story by identifying who made the t***sfer and lots of readers believe it"."

It was a question. If you won't believe the cryptocurrency article because there's no proof. the question was: When did you apply that same discipline to the claims trump made?

You have been a trump supporter for as long as I've been in the Attic. Trump made many false claims, you believed them... e******n f***d is one of the best examples. He could never find supporting evidence but you believed them with seeing any proof. That's all - no big deal.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Actually there was a lot of supporting evidence, but judges were afraid to open that can of worms so they dismissed the cases for other reasons. Again: supporting evidence was never allowed to be heard by a jury.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

That’s a bit tin foil hat-ish. I represent the official council of Tin Foil Hatters. Everyone here knows that.

DukeTarHeel Loc: NC's "Research Triangle"

Actually, there wasn't much evidence at all. Trump's legal team had several opportunities to present their "evidence"... it was just a fantasy to stoke his base.

The National Review is a well respected Right-bias publication. It is factual and reliable but tends to see things from a conservative point of view. That's fair, we have our left-bias reliable publications.

I choose to believe The National Review....what do you use as a source? Most Trump supporters use Trump's proclamations as their source - unquestioned.

You might find the following excerpt interesting. It is from an analysis of the ruling of U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig in Wisconsin. The judge is a trump appointee. Remember. the analysis is contained in the National Review, a publication with a RIGHT bias and is a review of Judge Ludwig's experience with the team Trump legal team in his courtroom..
---------------------------------
"The "most telling aspect" of Judge Ludwig's ruling isn't that "the rejecting was done by a Trump-appointed judge" or "that it was done on the merits," Andrew McCarthy argues at National Review. It's when Ludwig notes that "on the morning of the hearing, the parties reached agreement on a stipulated set of facts," meaning "there was no actual disagreement between the Trump team and Wisconsin officials about the pertinent facts of the case."

In other words, "there was no there there," McCarthy writes. "Despite telling the country for weeks that this was the most r****d e******n in history, the campaign didn't think it was worth calling a single witness. Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, 'Never mind.'" And "this is not the first time the campaign ducked an opportunity to prove its claims of a s****n e******n in court," he adds. In Wisconsin, as in Pennsylvania and Michigan, "every time a court offers him an opportunity to establish by proof what he is promoting by Twitter, Team Trump folds."

Sorry but this is from your own, well respected side.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/a-stunning-passage-from-the-latest-court-rejection-of-team-trump/ :

Nalle Loc: Tellus

🤔👍

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

I was not aware of this information, thanks for the update.
I stand corrected.