Lorretta Lynch Allowed "Russian Lawyer" into US after

>>157328
The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York City.

>>157328
Globalists are working over time on this bullshit

Liberals will defend this

So approving a visa for a lawyer, and setting up a meeting with that lawyer to obtain information about your opponent's campaign, are equivalent?

Typical Republican bullshit, if you can't defend something Trump or his associates did, just point to something else and pretend its even close to the same!

>>157529
Other than neither of them being against the law, no, they aren't equivalent.

>>157540
I never said either was illegal. But Trump defenders have insisted both that this lawyer was not technically connected to the Russian government, and that there is no danger in meeting someone like her. So to turn around and pin her entrance directly on Loretta Lynch and the Obama DOJ, as if Democrats had some incentive to get her in, is implying that Democrats did something bad by approving the visa.

That is very logically inconsistent though. You cannot simultaneously believe that she is not bad and therefore it was not bad for Trump Jr to meet with her, and that she is bad so the Obama DOJ should not have approved her visa. If you accept the implication that this article makes, that the lawyer was dangerous to our interests and should not have been admitted, then you must also accept that it would have been dangerous for Trump Jr. to meet with her.

>>157553
I think they are implying this was a conspiracy to set up Trump. Kind of like the Steele dossier, which she supposedly has some connection with.

>>157557
Yes but to believe that conspiracy is to believe even more logical inconsistencies. The conspiracy is based on the Steele dossier being tangentially connected to this lawyer through the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. This firm was paid by Hillary supporters to create the dossier. This firm's connection to the lawyer comes through both being involved in the legal defense of the Russian company Prevezon. Fusion GPS has also been accused of attempting to stop the passage of the Magnitsky Act, a cause of this lawyer as well.

This begs the question, if the legitimacy of the Steele dossier depends on the perception of Russia as bad, then why is Fusion GPS also working on removing the Magnitsky Act, which paints Russia as bad? Its seems as if they are working towards whatever they can get paid for. And their connection with the lawyer stems from the pro-Russia side which makes it hard to see how she would be connected with the Steele dossier.

It also shows why a conspiracy with the Democrat administration, especially through this lawyer, would be absurd. The lawyer has clearly lobbied pro-Russia stances in the U.S. including against the Magnitsky Act (as stated in this thread's article), and Fusion GPS has worked against the Magnitsky Act as well.

A) Why would the Obama administration collude with a person/group who are working hard against their own legislation?

B) Why would the lawyer/Fusion GPS collude against the side, Trump, who would be far more friendly to their cause of removing the Magnitsky Act and friendlier Russian ties in general?

There is no incentive to conspire against Trump for these people, but every incentive to help him.

>>157573
It's not a logical inconsitancy to note that these "bipartisan" judges and lawyers all seem to be very close with the same political entities who have a bone to pick with the Trump administration, and they seem to always be tight to the same organizations and people

>>157573
You are viewing this too narrowly. It is not necessary to simultaneously believe she is a threat and that she is harmless. People have already taken sides in the story and are unwilling to change their minds. There are those who argue she is a threat to democracy and that Don Jr. meeting with her is a treasonous act. By writing a piece about how she was allowed to enter the country only through intervention by top Democrats, it puts Democrats in a tough spot to claim she was a known threat. It need not reflect the views of the author on the issue.

>>157582
You are correct that it is not necessary to have simultaneous conflicting beliefs for the author of this article. I posted that inconsistencies were necessary for "Trump defenders" who would defend Jr.'s innocence while simultaneously using this news to discredit Democrats. If she was known as bad then they're both in the wrong, if she was no threat then her status has no relevance. The main implication should be that the Democrats' approval of her visa doesn't matter very much when you consider the reasons for approving a visa and the reasons for taking a meeting are wildly different.

>>157581
Its pretty bad logic to just assume these groups have a bone to pick with the Trump administration, especially when elements of these groups (like the lawyer or Fusion GPS) are actively working against legislation that the Obama administration supported and the Trump administration would be more friendly towards. Not everybody is "deep state", there are many people who would benefit by taking on the deep state, especially people like this lawyer who advance Russian interests.

>>157590
It really depends on why people are holding this article up as a way to discredit Democrats. The idea is that if she were truly a threat, as the current narrative claims, then she should have not been granted access after being denied a visa. This creates a situation where the Democrats have to either admit that they fucked up letting her in or that she was not a threat. It does not mean that the "trump defender" believes that she is a threat, but instead that they believe the Democrats believe she was and are therefore using it as a way to put them between a rock and a hard place.

>>157592
No offense, but the Democrats don't have much credibility in the Russia department after the last few months

>>157590

"Deep state" is made to sound ominous. In this case just means people working in the public sector with a security clearance and conscience that don't trust their superiors with information regarding abuse of authority.

I get why confidentiality is important, but convictions do end up being made, that basically vindicates these people because given the number of major demonstrable lies that have been told, it seems more than likely this administration and the legislature would have done their best to sweep that information under the rug.

>>157592
Why should she not be let into the country if it were suspected she worked with russian intel?

This "bad guy -> keep out of the country" logic is too simplistic. I can imagine circumstances where our own intel would benefit from allowing someone like her into the country.

>>157620
Because Loretta Lynch and John McCain are friends with her, she works with the same firm who pulled that stupid pissdossier out while McCain waved his arms around about it.

Her Visa expires, she's denied reentry - but is given special privledge by lynch herself

>>157623
Which wouldn't be surprising at all.
Russians don't send intelligence agents to the US to broadcast their desire to undermine the US.
They recruit otherwise unsuspect go-betweens in order to maintain plausible deniability.
American intelligence might have figured she was a suspicious character and had an interest in keeping a close eye on her or they had no indication she was suspicious at the time and our government was fooled into allowing her entry through her relations within the US.

>>157623
>she works with the same firm who pulled that stupid pissdossier
the pissdossier was obviously effective in giving trump an excuse to rage about the media, so at this point if it was fake, it looks like a false-flag designed to help trump's team cover their tracks or at least plant some doubt into the minds of those hearing the news.

>>157626
Really? You can't admit that people on the other side might have made it to slander him? It must be a false flag?

You people are tiring.

>>157620
You are giving too much credit to the average American. Simplistic logic tends to be as far as they get now a days.

>>157627
It's conceivable but certainly not beyond reasonable doubt the only conceivable explanation. My point is that many folks seem willing to give the russian government greater benefit of doubt than democratic politicians which seems ridiculous.

>>157637
Probably because they are the only ones crowing about it, and the evidence is at best flimsy and needing critique/foundation

As if it means anything anyways. Short of "hacking", nothing the Russians or the Trump admins have been accused of is even Illegal - they're trying to paint Russia as the boogeyman of the modern world: guilty by association

>>157637
Why would a dictator have to lie?

>>157645
>nothing the Russians
we know they did hack. they attempted to hack voter rolls, they did hack both the dnc and rnc.

And people in the Trump administration have lied under oath. There's also grounds to believe they sought to make a transaction that would amount to collusion with the hacking, which is conspiracy.

>>157660
No you don't. All you have is "all 17 intelligence agencies agree" which is 1, bullshit, and 2 verbatim what they told us in Iraq regarding the WMDs.

Give me one shred of solid proof.

>>157660

>we know they did hack

Zero evidence

>>157329
Which is unusual because the company had already retained a US firm, and such a renewal would not be granted unless Veselnitskaya were the only attorney representing them.

>>157660
There is no publically available evidence pointing towards a Russian state actor as perpetrating the hack on the DNC. While I'm willing to believe the intelligence report, this is only under the assumption that they have evidence which is currently classified.

>>157700

OK, I won't disagree with that.

The idea that our intelligence agencies are in collusion with Democrats to blame Russia for the hacks is totally unsubstantiated, so the best evidence we have is that they're probably correct in their assessment Russia is responsible.

I'm not a big fan of the FBI but there's so much circumstantial evidence of Trump's connections with the Russian mafia and by extension the Russian state. Taken with several administration staff having lied under oath, there's too much suspicious on their end not to give our intelligence agencies benefit of doubt.

>>157704
>The best evidence we have is assuming the intelligence agencies aren't lying to us

Well no dice then

not gettting any response from comments on youtube?, use incognito mode and see if youtube is censoring your comments

>>157715
you're right that the intelligence agencies haven't released enough evidence for any conclusion to be definitive. However there has also been absolutely nothing to suggest that their assessment of Russian interference was made up. The proof would be in classified intel, and this intel being hidden is cast by Trump's side as somehow evidence of falsehoods, when in reality the important classified intel will be released more slowly than we'd like as the Mueller probe nears its end.

Fact remains that there is no evidence of the intelligence community misleading on this topic, and no evidence that they are colluding with the Democrats to do so. Only hypotheticals.

Contrast this with the fact that Trump's side has repeatedly lied and misled on this topic. It is easily seen where Sessions, Kushner, Trump Jr., and others, have lied about Russia and later been forced to change their stories. Not hypothetical lies, actual lies.

So I think the best you can say is that neither side has been proven right yet, but when the Trump side has a track record of hiding information and the intelligence community side has only been suggested to do so, it is easy to see which side will have much more to hide when Mueller releases his findings. If you're depending on the liars to be truthful, you should be scared for that day.

>>157807
>but when the Trump side has a track record of hiding information and the intelligence community side has only been suggested to do so

The IC does in fact have a track record of lying.

>you're right that the intelligence agencies haven't released enough evidence for any conclusion to be definitive

It's not on them to release evidence of collusion. They need to show that the alleged Russian hacking happened in the first place. Then we can move on to Trump's role in it. One thing at a time.

>>157807
Also, if you look at any evidence available to the public involving Russian hacking, none of it really holds up. Just look into Guccifer 2.0 alone. There was a clear effort by someone in this election to disguise themselves as Russian.

>>157807
The intelligence agencies has a laundry list of blatent lies they've told to not only the general public, but Congress and the Senate

This smells just like Hussain, Ghadafi, WMDs, and the rest. Power grabs and fake news

>>157688
>what they told us in Iraq regarding the WMDs
Read up on this subject, please.

The justification for going to war was engineered from the Office of the Vice-President. After 9/11 Bush and Cheney saw an opportunity to deal to Iraq for a long standing animus.
Pressure was placed on the intelligence agencies to provide favorable evidence for war and, in the end, the VP office cherry picked information that had been declared suspect, was unproven or wrong. Information that was then used to justify going to war.

The blame rests far more with the WH than it does with the intelligence agencies.

>>157848
In this particular case, the IC didn't even look into anything. They never examined the servers.

And let's remember the Sony hack, which was less sensationalized in the political world than the DNC hack. Many people doubt the FBI's official claim that North Korea was the hacker, and for good reason. The DNC/Podesta hacks follow this exact same pattern. Right down to the FBI claiming “the need to protect sensitive sources and methods precludes us from sharing all of this information.”

I mean, they even claim that the Podesta hack is Russia, when we all know they actually have no evidence that could back that up. Podesta was phished, an incredibly low-tech method of obtaining log-in information. It's used in more than 95% of infiltration's. A 12 year old could learn to do it. But John Brennan will tell you this was a highly technical, highly coordinated operation.

Even the DNC "hack" seems stupid. I still see no reason to believe it was actually hacked, rather than some individuals in the DNC being phished. What kind of email server hack only gives you access to 7 email accounts?

And don't even get me started on Gucci2, that clear disinfo op. Maybe, MAYBE, it was a Russian disinfo op and they are just that exceedingly clever, but that seems like a fucking long shot to me.

>>157852
Phished, and the malware used was well out of date. What even could hint at Russia in the first place is that the phishing attack went back out to a Russian IP. That's a pathetically weak level of evidence for then suggesting it was a state actor.

I really want to believe the IC isn't just lying or retarded when they jump to this conclusion. But from what is publically known, this is the most explanation:
>Moron gets phished by some script kiddie
>Kiddie dumps to Wikileaks
>DNC scrambles for excuses
The biggest counterargument I can think of to this position is the fact that the WH could bury this story by declassifying what exactly the IC knows about the attack.

>>157855
The IP claim is incredibly weak. It's known they were using a VPN. Even worse, the IC's original claim that the VPN was private was debunked too. The company came forward, apologized for how it's services were used, and explained that they could be used by anyone. Literally ANYONE could have had that IP.

For the IC to claim to know the hacker was Russian because he chose to use a Russian VPN is some of the most insane logic I can imagine. The balls the IC have to put that out there as evidence.

And I'm not fully convinced that there was any malware sending anything back. Phishing attacks don't require malware. They only say that Guccifer 2.0 was sending data back to Russia, but that guy is suspect as FUCK. All evidence I've seen points to him being an American desperately pretending to be Russian. Probably CrowdStrike themselves.

>>157855
And can Elite VPN even hit speeds near 200mbps consistently? That seems like something someone should look into. The files in the WikiLeaks batch transferred at around 23MB/s.

>>157855
>The biggest counterargument I can think of to this position is the fact that the WH could bury this story by declassifying what exactly the IC knows about the attack.

This is what gets me as well, because Trump is President he is receiving daily classified intelligence briefings and he can know any state secret he wishes....which means he should know for certain what the IC's position on whether Russia hacked us is. If this whole thing is made up then Trump would benefit by releasing as much info as possible. Instead he's giving ambiguous quotes like this:

"Well I think it was Russia and I think it could have been other people and other countries. It could have been a lot of people that interfered...Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure."

So he thinks it was Russia but he's also not sure?

Maybe you don't wanna believe the IC reports or Comey's testimony that it was certainly Russia. Republican Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a July 7 interview on MSNBC that the intelligence reports and briefings that he has received show “very clear and convincing evidence that it was a nation state attack by Russia.”

So this Republican has no incentive to hurt Trump. But they're looking at the same intelligence and McCaul walks away certain it is Russia while Trump has no idea. If there was any room for doubt in the story Trump would benefit by exposing that. The fact is that he has not, and been shifty on his answers without providing any backing, which is incredible when you realize that he knows all the classified facts.

Lets us be real here, we can put together a lot with publicly available info but nobody knows what is likely unless they've seen all the classified info. Out of all Americans who have it is only Trump who continues to be ambiguous about the cause, when he would benefit the most from certainty if he were innocent. Really makes you think.

>>157944
I don't think it's that simple. I don't think the majority of these people would have the slightest goddamn clue of what they were looking at if they were shown evidence it was Russia.

>>157944
>>157964
Especially not Trump. No one ever accused him of being an expert on the cyber.

>>157964
>>157971
You both raise a good point. However there are people employed who attempt to simplify stuff like this for politicians. Of course details are lost in a simplification. But if the evidence was overwhelming and confusing then a Republican representative like McCaul has no reason to call it, "very clear and convincing."

I think also that Trump would not be relying just on the intelligence community to interpret the information. I would bet he has his own people who would understand it, combing through it in order to look for certainty or places to exploit. If they found something he could use I do believe he would be talking about it.

But if we accept your premise that the majority of these people, especially Trump, would not understand the classified evidence, then maybe their statements on its contents don't matter. In that case the only statements that would matter would be those who do understand it, which would be the intelligence community....who have also unequivocally stated the hacks came from the Russian government. It is therefore amazing to me that some are more inclined to believe that the IC would be more likely to mislead on this, than someone like Trump who doesn't understand it.

>>157976
Remember, all information they have actually comes from CrowdStrike, a private firm hired by the DNC. Maybe what's there IS clear and convincing, but maybe that's the point.

Just look at Guccifer 2.0. The official stance by the US is that he is a Russian hacker, and all the evidence you can find points to it. But TOO MUCH evidence points to it, making it incredibly suspect that they actually are. IF Gucci2 is Russian, he went out of his way to make that obvious to everyone.

Ignoring the second hack that "set off alarm bells", when it came solely to the leaks published by Assange, what is the evidence it was Russia? Do you think anyone knows or cares to separate the two as they should?

Why would the intelligence agencies know if they haven't even looked at the server that was hacked

>>157997
Because the intelligence agencies are not on your team

>>157983
>>157997

One thing you are both doing is looking at the DNC hacks primarily. In the end though, hacking the DNC servers is nowhere near as concerning as an intrusion into voter registration computers that are connected by network to computers that count votes. It is true that CrowdStrike is the primary source of info on the DNC hacks and that the intelligence community has not seen the DNC servers. However you are both painting the DNC as the entire scope of Russia's potential cyber involvement when in reality it is nothing compared to attempting to tamper with votes.

From what I understand about the DNC, their security was so shit that it is likely multiple groups were able to gain access. That means it would be nearly impossible to tie the leaks to any one group, so I agree with you there that the evidence is lacking. But that also means it is not necessarily a Democrat conspiracy that Guccifer 2.0 appeared so Russian, but also potentially a group wanting to avoid being traced and going with the obvious cover. It also means that both sides could possibly be right, that the Russians could have been among the groups hacking the server but not actually the ones who leaked the information to Assange.

>>158042
>Intrusion in voter registration

Proof please

>>158046

You can read for yourself below. The proof to tie it all to Russia is still mostly classified but the proof that voting computers were compromised is pretty definitive and from a variety of sources. The DNC is a smokescreen compared to this shit.

NSA document on Russian access to voter registration:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950-NSA-Report-on-Russia-Spearphishing.html#document/p1

Bloomberg summarizing the attempts, including Illinois which had 90,000 voter registrations compromised:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

And a new one from the WSJ just released today that reports South Carolina's Electoral Commission has concluded there were 150,000 attempts to penetrate voting systems on Election Day. And that is just a non-swing state. :
https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-carolina-may-prove-a-microcosm-of-u-s-election-hacking-efforts-1500202806?mod=e2twp

>>158220
There were also attempts by the federal government to hack into these systems as well.

And Reality Winner, whose Facebook was full of anti-Government posts without any impact to her SC, leaking a document that just so happened to come by her desk, that paints a slight picture of what MAY have happened, without actually leaking any of the evidence to back it up, and who was caught immediately after the leak is all suspect as fuck. For all we know, the report concludes it was the Russians because of their other alleged actions in the election.

>>158235
Nothing in your post addresses the legitimacy of my evidence.

There is nothing unusual about the federal government conducting scans to test the security of voting systems. The controversy over it stems from dumb state-level officials resisting Obama's classification of voting systems as "critical infrastructure" because they saw it as some kind of federal power grab, when in reality it is an incredible weakness to have the cybersecurity of these systems distributed to 50 different groups that do not all have access to the latest security updates and intel that the federal level has.

The conspiracy that Reality Winner is suspicious also has many holes. First of all, she is far from the first to have weird activity not impact her security clearance. Chelsea Manning was recommended to lose her clearance for violent outbursts before her leaks but did not. It is not so simple to take away someone's clearance once they have it, especially when you have so many employees to monitor. Also her social media posts were not anti-government but more specifically anti-Trump, giving a motive to why she would leak this.

Reality Winner being caught quickly is also not a conspiracy but is very simple. The NSA did a quick scan of their employees personal email accounts and hers was the only one in contact with The Intercept. The conspiracy seems to be the "documents happened to come by her desk" but given that she faces jail time of 10 years, she has no incentive to send those documents in an obvious way. It was more likely just dumb.

And of course the report she leaked would not contain all the classified evidence. She was just a contractor and would not have access to everything. All of the conspiracy surrounding her is just connecting unrelated stuff that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the document.

>>158220
>The proof that ties it to Russia is classified

Haha holy shit.

>>158046
Calm down DNC snitch

>>158265
You never heard of a classified leak?

>>158265
I hope you're still laughing when Mueller paints the full picture. The NSA's word carries much more weight than Trump's side at this point. Most Republicans stuck with Nixon until the end too :)

>>158271
>"We now have enough evidence to show that Trump worked with the Russian government to hack the DNC, DCCC, John Podesta's emails, nuclear power plants, and America's voting systems."
>"It's all classified though. You can't see it."

I can't wait.

>>158276
This.

>We know the Russians did it, we have secret proof
>We know Ghadafi did it, we have secret proof
>We know there's WMDs, we have secret proof
>We aren't spying on American Citizens, take our word for it
>We aren't saving user data, take our word
>We aren't torturing people, take our word

I'm seeing a pattern of honesty with the alphabet agencies

>>158278
this defense is laughable. All of those are independent events from a vast group of people over time that happened for varying reasons. You cannot prove how they connect to the Trump/Russia issue. Additionally most manipulation of information came from the administration of the time and not the agencies themselves.

If you are going to use the phrase "pattern of honesty" then please look at the pattern by Trump's side on this case. The official line used to be they never met with a single Russian. Now their whole campaign has and yet you still defend their honesty on the topic, over the honesty of a group that has yet to lie on this topic. Makes sense.

>>158289
The group calls Guccifer 2.0 a Russian hacker and uses obvious and deliberate choices made by him to label him as so. They said the "hack" of the DNC was too complex to not be state agents, when in reality it's simplicity is one of the few things that gives the "Russian hacker" theory and credence.

>>158289
Lol You can't prove anything, all you have is faith in man

>>157617

>and conscience

I think you meant "jew marxist" beliefs, communist faggot. Like when the "public sector" people working in the State Department rushed through as many colored refugee trash as they could from the muslim majority nations Trump wanted to ban...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/refugees-entering-us-doubled-rate-ruling-trump-tra/

>>158300
and then what is your faith in? That Trump's side doesn't lie? Lol

>>158338
Faith in God.

My ancestors are smiling at me, can you say the same?

If the MSM, internet shills and sock puppets continue to paint Trump as a liar, we must accept whatever proof the IC presents seems to be the message presented here.
Elevating the Trump administration above all the other lying, colluding, pay to play, money laundering, ect.. Politicians in DC has been a sight to behold. The focus is Trump, will continue to be Trump and if any other politician has dirt dug up on them it will be ignored and the focus will be put back on the only lying politician in DC, Trump.
So when Mueller is finished and presents his findings, keep in mind, no matter how convincing the evidence, Trump is the only person in DC that is a threat to the USA, right? Oh, and keep in mind, the IC has only lied to the American people a few times, probably for the greater good of we the people, of course.

>>158411
Shills make me more resolute. If anything, knowing they're here makes me know their position must be incredibly weak for it to even need hired help to support it on the internet

>>158411
nobody needs to paint him as a liar though. He does that himself but apparently you'd rather not see that.

>>158359
yeah dawg God is definitely taking sides in this political argument. Your ancestors would be disgusted by what you've made

>>158522
I made you mad, and I'm proud :)

>>158522
Nigga you sound like a pussy ass bitch

>>158522
>nobody needs to paint him as a liar though. He does that himself but apparently you'd rather not see that.
Which politician didn't lie when it suited their interests?

>>158359

If there was a God, you might have a point. Trouble is, it's probably more likely there isn't a God, at least the way you and your lot speak for him. Bunch of white people in warmer latitudes having hot flash daydreams about what their God would be like...is not what God is like at all.

Fact is, nobody knows if there is a supreme governing god. There's really no proof of this, and the argument ALWAYS comes down to what the individual, and the ones from who he removes choice, says about a thing, like a God.

As far as reality goes, at least according to about 300 million entities on this planet, is that it's all one thing.

Non-duality, baby. It's a trip.

Claiming there is a ruling God without that God speaking for him/her/its-self, is simply speaking your internal truths as truths for all. It's speaking for everyone, basically. It's an attempt to remove their choices. People get irritated when you remove the wrong choices. Others, well, they might be persuaded with game tokens and nipples.

Your ancestors are all of us. They no longer make choice here. We do.

Long live the Self! Fight, fight, fight for Self!
Never, never, ever, never give up Self!

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.

>>157573
Are you implying that a person, group and country only has one motive and that their plans can't seem to go against each other at times? Especially a group whose individual members have their own motives, means and actions?

This is extremely childish thinking, forcing a collective view of people in order to craft a narrative

>>158710
While there is no evidence for the divine, there is also no evidence against. There is no point arguing with people who are adamant in their belief on either side of the issue. You are just wasting away precious moments of your life worried about what other people do with theirs.

>>157660
How would you transfer the volume of information stolen from the DNC servers over a wireless connection? You wouldnt.
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
This is what evidence means. Physical data that you could personally verify.

>>157877
No, it cant. Speeds of that caliber are by either fiber optics or being physically there

>>157328
>It's all Obama's fault you guys Trump is incapable of making decisions for himself

Wew lads I didn't know the "It's Obama's fault" excuse was still in style.

>>158763
Here we see a Shill using "wew lads" to try to fit in