>Then you haven’t read the Times enough.

Or maybe I've done a good job avoiding the sensational stuff.

In other words if you find their reporting to be so grossly over-exaggerated and overblown why are *you* reading it so religiously ? Doesn't seem to be a good use of your time. (Much like your time in this here post, it would appear).


>“Fascinating and truly unbeleivable” would be clear
>evidence of Russian collusion. Everything else is
>exaggeration, speculation, and what Huckleberry Finn called
>“stretchers.” The Times froths over with that kind of
>desperate reporting and the wider public laps it up in a
>frenzy akin to the one taking place here.

Hahahaha uh wat, bro. Yes, indeed, clear evidence of Russian collusion would *definitely* be fascinating and unbelievable.

Many of the revelations to date related to 45*, this admin, and the investigation are *also* fascinating and unbelievable. Both can be, and are, true. They are not mutually exclusive.