Maybe, but he can be extradited from Hawaii. Kenya would make that much more difficult . . . 

I used the word, as it is the only one that best fits.

She is not a bitch, but she can be bitchy with comments Like "... and boy, it is interesting to be in a room that desperately wants to seem to see these churches and houses of worship stay closed.”

She does not listen to anyone.

She freely shows her hostility towards the press, when none is warranted.

She talks over everyone in the room.

The definition of cunt in pertaining to the qualities of a person include:

• Contemptible
• Despicable
• Stupid
• Unpleasant
• Mean
• Selfish
• Disagreeable
• Unlikable

The word has been around for centuries and even alluded to in Shakespearean plays.

Sorry I triggered you, snowflake.

I'm talking about the FBI, CIA, NSA and Pentagon intelligence that proved Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Where did you dig up this tinfoil crap?

Tell me you're not taking this seriously!

OK... So what would you replace the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Pentagon with?

That's not Hawaiian.

ElDotardo said:

If the email Judicial Watch received is indeed the charging memo, it is a document so careless and ephemeral that it shouldn’t have been used to investigate a ham sandwich, let alone a presidential candidate and incoming president. The “electronic communication” the government produced is heavily redacted. Nevertheless, there’s enough information in it, especially when combined with what we’ve already learned about Crossfire Hurricane, to show that there was no legal or practical justification for the investigation. (You can see the document here, and the full text is at the bottom of this post.)

You're an idiot. There was every legal and practical justification for investigating Trump.

What I don't understand is how he's been able to stop his tax affairs from becoming public. Must be some heavyweight threats been made.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

I'm talking about the FBI, CIA, NSA and Pentagon intelligence that proved Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Its impossible that the Russians could have done that.

And, although Mueller devotes the entire second volume of his investigation report to it, there is zero evidence for it in the report.

Almost the only evidence for it is what appeared in your ABC news - and you hate me for posting it.

BerrySteph said:

Its impossible that the Russians could have done that.

Then take it up with all the intelligence agencies that proved it.

Hand over your evidence to Mueller himself.

I'm sure El Dotardo would pick you up from the airport and drive you to the FBI headquarters personally.

He loves anything that supports the idea that it was all an elaborate hoax.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

Then take it up with all the intelligence agencies that proved it.

I've repeatedly posted the only evidence I've ever seen that the Russians made any attempt to influence the 2016 election.

You hate me every time I do it.