Well I mean, if msn.com know that no evidence was presented there has to be a source for that right? Like amnesty international or something. Anything other than these very trustworthy, word-for-word identical, self-referencing articles that have appeared in the last 5 days.
I could take it all at face value, but then I used to do that back when we were invading Iraq and Afganistan and it turned out that 99% of what I was reading was utter bullshit.
Although it does also mention the case was also about him joining a terrorist organisation which was planning an attack on Russian rail infrastructure.
Well I mean, if msn.com know that no evidence was presented there has to be a source for that right? Like amnesty international or something. Anything other than these very trustworthy, word-for-word identical, self-referencing articles that have appeared in the last 5 days.
I could take it all at face value, but then I used to do that back when we were invading Iraq and Afganistan and it turned out that 99% of what I was reading was utter bullshit.
Best I could find, myself not being fluent in Russian, is this human rights/legal organization still operating in Russia proper which describes the conviction as a result of delivering homemade fliers saying ‘do we really need this kind of President’.
Much better source.
Although it does also mention the case was also about him joining a terrorist organisation which was planning an attack on Russian rail infrastructure.
Google Translate Version
This argument used in current context…
Are you naive or just shilling?