>If you have damaging data on two people
Do you have any reason to think that Wikileaks has the data on both sides, but only presents half?
Do you have any reason to think that Wikileaks has the data on both sides, but only presents half?
You claimed "he had nothing on Trump". And the links clearly counter that.
That's my last reply to you. I don't like my discussion partners to sleazily try and retroactively change their claims to something nobody ever talked about when shown counter arguments. That's not an honest mistake, that's simply dishonest and a waste of time.
and "undermines the democratic process by using slush funds, illegal foreign donations and a slew of felonious crimes" is hardly a moral equivalent.
So I double down on my assertion: Wikileaks has nothing on Trump.