>>>Trump will tell a lie, and Sara with swear to it and beat around the bush to defend it -- she's just another worthless Trump mouth piece. She is just dong her job of course
>
>I get it: anybody who voted differently from you is stupid and anything that deviates from your narrative is a lie.

I've said 100 times and explained it to you repeatedly that I'm not calling someone who voted for Trump stupid -- I'm saying that voting for Trump is stupid. I am now going to amend that and say that if someone does not understand the difference, then they are indeed stupid. If someone does not believe that Trump is a serial liar then they have either been suckered by Fox News and/or Russian propaganda, have been conned by Trump, or simply have no clue about what Trump says and does for whatever reason.

>So a memo suggesting that the Democratic Party and HRC campaigns paid a Trump hater to dig dirt from Russians to compile a dossier "leaked" to the FBI where it was used by Comey and McCabe to justify investigation and spying on the Trump campaign, is all automatically lies and cheating because everybody knows only Trump and his family conspire.

Which memo are you referring too? Are you talking about the Nunes Memo? If you are then I suggest you first read the last line of the memo (which proves the point exactly opposite of what the GOP and Trump was hoping it did hahaha) -- and you also take into account all the other facts surrounding this 'memo'. ...like for example Nunes never read the FISA warrants to begin with hahaha.

>While easy, this form of logic means a) you don't critique your own positions as a scientist should and b) you're permanently angry because the lying cheating tide keeps coming in no matter how much fake news King Canute piles up to prevent it.

My position is that Trump is a serial liar. What your suggestion is that you want evidence to prove a negative, which of course you can't do. For example, I can say that you dress up donkeys like cheerleaders and have sex with them. You then will say that I have no evidence of that. Then I would say that you have no evidence that you don't. See the problem here?

>My prediction is that this memo is just peeling back the first corner on swamp corruption and politicization. When culprits and MSM start denying and minimizing (they already have) the leaking will start, same as was done to Flynn when he foolishly denied speaking to Russians. With the boot now on the other foot, the same MSM that lauded leaks that embarrassed Trump as positive for democracy, suddenly will be decrying leaks as treason when HRC or DNC are the targets. As an example- if Schiff were to produce a memo denying that HRC's Russian pee pee dossier was a primary justification for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, imagine if the FISA application were leaked. Schiff probably thinks they wouldn't dare- but POTUS is the ultimate arbiter of classification, meaning legally he can release whatever he likes, as can Congress in certain circumstances. Seems to me that lying just got a lot more difficult for accomplished habitual liars and cheats.

So you want the Dems to release a memo rebutting the Nunes Memo and saying the FISA warrants on a campaign official ..right? In case you missed it - the GOP which is control authorized the release of the Nunes Memo, and denied releasing the other memo's refuting it. Long story short - the Nunes Memo is a worthless - again I suggest you read the end of it and also pay attention to what the FBI and the DOJ have to say. Oh and another point of matter here is that those FISA warrants have to be renewed very 90 days -- so 4 different judges had to sign off on this -- and the speculation that these judges did so based only on the weewee dossier is preposterous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/02/01/the-nunes-fiasco-grows-more-outrageous-by-the-hour/?utm_term=.c0abfb3d6e66