Oh no. Not Maggie. Please. She is vital to the show. We need her. What an upset this will be.

Dead to this show since the writers decided that whole thing where Alex was clearly attracted to him just…doesn't count.

It pains me to defend this awful man who single handedly ruins every film he's a part of…but he did nothing wrong and this "controvery" is complete hysterical bullshit.

Literally could apply to either side of the argument in this case.

This was in response to public outcry against recent reformations in the law with regards to battery against strangers. Per the BBC…

Which was after the email leak. She was denying the validity of emails she knew to be genuine whilst essentially head of the DNC.

She absolutely was. She was the chairperson for goodness sake.

I think we just found out.

Congrats, you successfully baited me into responding again with your abuse. But I'm the troll, obviously.

I've been here much longer than you. I'm not a regular to any "Politics Corner". And I've specifically said I don't believe in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. You could scarcely have gotten more wrong in your hysterical fumbling to vilify me. Basically…fuck off, you're an utterly clueless dickhead.

About what I'd expect. You'd probably sooner choke than admit being in the wrong.

I love that you call me a "lying sack" but when it's pointed out you are in fact lying the best you can muster is "ok".

Donna Brazile outright said they were falsified when repeatedly pressed to explain her passing along debate questions. It was a long time before she finally conceded they were real and she did in fact do it.

I make no defence of the man, I find him to be rather unbearable.

I referred to an evidentiary double standard in the media and you told me I couldn't see a difference between the Seth Rich case and something I wasn't even talking about. How was it not?

It's interesting you took that from my comment when it's not what I said or meant at all.

When they will call one story that cites anonymous sources an "unfounded conspiracy theory" whilst devoting most of their airtime to stories citing equally anonymous sources that they treat as fact, that is an objective double standard. You might try to justify it, that's your choice, but it remains a double standard…

Most have been denied. Some people are just desperate to believe anything negative about him and really don't care how credible it is.

There isn't zero evidence. An investigator is claiming his source has informed him of email links to Wikileaks. Kim Dotcom has stated they were in contact. Julian Assange has dropped repeated hints as to Rich being the source of the leak. This might all be untrue, but then so might the dozens of "an anonymous…

I'm in the UK actually but yeah, I think you accusing me of being a Russian shill is a good note to end any and all contact with you on.