When even you can't defend the indefensible, right to the cop out, so sad.Welcome to politics...
When even you can't defend the indefensible, right to the cop out, so sad.Welcome to politics...
You want proof to a standard higher than any court in the land, and you think that's reasonable.
Fucking lol bro, get a grip. Ronnie knew, get over it.
Nothing he said is any kind of provable evidence. Nothing he said, proves your assertion.
You can keep reposting that text all you like, nothing there proves your assertion.
Unless you can provide actual evidence that Reagan explicitly told Olivier North to engage in the activities of the Iran-Contra scandal, your assertion is wrong, and my argument stands.
As I said, Reagan was awesome and the right man for his time.That's why I said he didn't know what Iran-Contra was lmao. It's fairly widespread knowledge that North took the fall for Dementia Ron, and it's not like we can't go back and watch North's testimony on it.
Ronnie approved that shit and got off on a technicality because his boy covered for him.
Who knows. I'm not able to reach into other people's heads, and tell you what their inner motivations are.What did North have to gain by lying about this?
When even you can't defend the indefensible, right to the cop out, so sad.
Plausible deniability.You want proof to a standard higher than any court in the land, and you think that's reasonable.
Fucking lol bro, get a grip. Ronnie knew, get over it.
Evidence or it didn't happen, that the standard for almost every Court in the western world.
Your definition of evidence isSo according to captain dipshit (you)
Possession of an item isn't indicative of theft because there's no proof you EXPLICITLY stole it.
Possessing a murder weapon doesn't prove you were culpable in the murder because there's not EXPLICIT evidence you did it.
Tax Evasion isn't actually a crime because there's no proof you were EXPLICITLY evading paying your taxes.
This is why people don't take you seriously. Girl, bye.
Plausible deniability.
I think he was isolated from the details, just knew about outcomes.
"The buck stops anywhere else."In any business, accepting the outcomes is an implicit acceptance of the methods. Saying "We didn't know the details" didn't work for wells fargo, i'm not going to extend that courtesy to Reagan. If there was plausible deniability, he shouldn't have known about it at all. That would play in if he tried to say he didn't know his subordinates were doing this at all until it was brought to his attention.
Reagan knew, he knew and he greenlit it. Knowing and doing nothing is just as bad as condoning it outright.
I'm not surprised that you would purposefully try to misunderstand me. It wouldn't be the first time.
Just as likely as Trump tricking the Dems to tilt their own primary, say a bunch of insane shit in thier own emails, ignore a billion warnings regarding their security, fall for elementary level phising scams exposing their own malfeasance to the public, and not allowing the FBI to actually examine the crime scene/servers.
Of course, it's so simple.
Good thread
Good thread
Good thread
Good thread
Can't you see that man is a ni - -?