I understand they're all going over Miss Print's for cookies and to open their homemade Christmas subpoenas.
You are such a "jokester". But let's get serious.
Let's discuss why you seem to want to destroy the credibility of Klayman's PAST WORK in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and the death of Ron Brown. Let's discuss why you apparently want to see the murders and treason, committed by democRATS the last 9 years, go uninvestigated and unprosecuted. How about that? Let's discuss the case of Ron Brown ... or are you going to run from the topic like you always do?
Let's discuss your failure to cite even ONE INSTANCE in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate or the death of Brown where Klayman told an untruth. You suggested Klayman lied when he said Nolanda Hill says Brown told Clinton that he was going to turn state's evidence. Yet you don't seem able to provide even ONE INSTANCE where Klayman was misleading or lying during that time when we all hailed Klayman.
Tell us why you had no response when I pointed out that were Klayman lying about Nolanda Hill's testimony, she would surely have denied his claim ... but she didn't. Why do you think that is? If he were lying about her testimony the liberal media, hating Klayman like it does, would have picked up any denial and published it on the front page. Where are those headlines? They don't exist, do they? Were his claim a lie, then the three judge panel that he submitted the claim to when he requested that the Brown case be reopened should have reprimanded Klayman for making false claims ... but they didn't, did they? No, you apparently hate Klayman so much that you are willing to discredit ANYTHING he learned during those dark years ... and thus let Clinton and the DNC get away with MASS MURDER and TREASON.
And why did you try to make Ron Brown's situation as something it was not. You kept repeating the claim that Brown was "on top of the world" when in fact he was under investigation by literally everyone and was clearly about to be indicted (as his wife and son ALREADY had been) for a long list of serious crimes. He had hired a $750 hour lawyer (indicating how serious his plight was).
You even suggested that Brown had absolutely "no motive" for turning state's evidence. Now THAT sure doesn't jibe with the facts. Here was a guy at a focal point in Chinagate and campaign finance illegalities, whose world was rapidly falling apart, who was facing years in prison unless he struck a deal with a prosecutor that even Reno couldn't control ... and you say he had "no motive" for talking. And after saying there was no motive, you then said you believe he was murdered, possibly by Clinton's people. But when I asked you to provide a motive in that case, you didn't respond. The obvious motive was the one staring you in the face but you hate Klayman so much that you'd rather dismiss it than see Klayman get ANY credit for ferreting out the truth.
Finally, tell me why you tried to pass the photo of Brown's wound off as the result of an "autopsy" during a previous discussion. When I challenged you on this, you just ran from the thread, rather than admit that it was NOT the result of an autopsy in the criminal sense of the word. Recently, you tried to repeat the claim. You ran when I challenged you that time too. The WHOLE POINT of the Brown matter is that there was no autopsy and there should have been.
And here you are again ... with a witty (sarcasm) one-liner.