Kushners boss gets his
Moderator: Biker
- CaptQuint
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 30361
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:18 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
So the FBI is going to arrest John McCain?
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
Your continued refusal to answer the simple question what do you think collusion means indicates to me that you understand there was collusion and are afraid to get into a discussion on it since you know your position regurgitating talking points is not defensible.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 12:03 amI don’t know that Steele broke any laws, as he’s not an American citizen. Those who used his dossier and leaked it, that’s another thing.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 10:59 pmI continue to distinguish between collusion and conspiracy, because they have different meanings. I asked you what you think collusion means, you failed to answer. Trump and co did collude, they did work with them, it's right there in the Mueller report. Would you like to explore the parts of the Mueller report that lay out collusion? Let's start with you admitting you know what the word means.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 10:30 pmYou keep going back and forth between collusion and conspiracy. Neither the Trump nor the Trump team colluded with the Russians. They didn't work with them. Whatever the Russians did, they did on their own, without help from Team Trump.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 8:45 pm The investigation found that they did in fact collude, though as trump's lawyer pointed out long ago collusion isn't actually a crime. The report cleared them of criminal conspiracy, not the same thing.
What do you think the word collusion means exactly?
The big question is, when are they going tog o after Christopher Steele?
What imaginary crime would they go after Steele for exactly?
Steele did nor break any laws, and would not have broken any laws if he were American. Nor did anyone who used his dossier, which was privately collected, not classified and always acknowledged to contain only raw intel. You can read the whole thing on buzzfeed. What imaginary crimes would they go after anyone who used his dossier for anything for? What imaginary crimes would steele have been on the hook for if he were american?
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
The def of collusion is in the dictionary. No need to post it here.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 12:24 amYour continued refusal to answer the simple question what do you think collusion means indicates to me that you understand there was collusion and are afraid to get into a discussion on it since you know your position regurgitating talking points is not defensible.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 12:03 amI don’t know that Steele broke any laws, as he’s not an American citizen. Those who used his dossier and leaked it, that’s another thing.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 10:59 pmI continue to distinguish between collusion and conspiracy, because they have different meanings. I asked you what you think collusion means, you failed to answer. Trump and co did collude, they did work with them, it's right there in the Mueller report. Would you like to explore the parts of the Mueller report that lay out collusion? Let's start with you admitting you know what the word means.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 10:30 pmYou keep going back and forth between collusion and conspiracy. Neither the Trump nor the Trump team colluded with the Russians. They didn't work with them. Whatever the Russians did, they did on their own, without help from Team Trump.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 8:45 pm The investigation found that they did in fact collude, though as trump's lawyer pointed out long ago collusion isn't actually a crime. The report cleared them of criminal conspiracy, not the same thing.
What do you think the word collusion means exactly?
The big question is, when are they going tog o after Christopher Steele?
What imaginary crime would they go after Steele for exactly?
Steele did nor break any laws, and would not have broken any laws if he were American. Nor did anyone who used his dossier, which was privately collected, not classified and always acknowledged to contain only raw intel. You can read the whole thing on buzzfeed. What imaginary crimes would they go after anyone who used his dossier for anything for? What imaginary crimes would steele have been on the hook for if he were american?
Steele shopped his dossier around to media and intel, as well as meeting with state department officials. The feds used the dossier, even though they’d been informed that Steele meant to stop trump being elected. Feds leaked information to media after the election to harm trump. Ten thousand thundering typhoons, there are currently 3 investigations ongoing, you bashi bazook! (I thought you might appreciate that.)
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
*trimmed*
I asked you what crime you think steele or anyone else had committed, and I asked you what nationality has to do with any crime you think anyone committed. You can't come up with any, think about that. You've been told to think there's some crime there, but if you explore your view even a teeny bit and ask yourself what crime, you can't come up with one.
'Feds leaking information' can be a crime where the information is classified, the Steele report wasn't though and you can't really leak something already published in full on the internets. What feds leaked what information to who and why did they wait until after the election to do it?
There is a need to post it here since you are so reluctant to say what it means. 'Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose'. You keep repeating the no collusion talking point, which is false. Would you like to look at examples of the trump team colluding with the russian operation from the Mueller report?VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 1:40 am
The def of collusion is in the dictionary. No need to post it here.
Steele shopped his dossier around to media and intel, as well as meeting with state department officials. The feds used the dossier, even though they’d been informed that Steele meant to stop trump being elected. Feds leaked information to media after the election to harm trump. Ten thousand thundering typhoons, there are currently 3 investigations ongoing, you bashi bazook! (I thought you might appreciate that.)
I asked you what crime you think steele or anyone else had committed, and I asked you what nationality has to do with any crime you think anyone committed. You can't come up with any, think about that. You've been told to think there's some crime there, but if you explore your view even a teeny bit and ask yourself what crime, you can't come up with one.
'Feds leaking information' can be a crime where the information is classified, the Steele report wasn't though and you can't really leak something already published in full on the internets. What feds leaked what information to who and why did they wait until after the election to do it?
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
circles within circles.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 9:38 am *trimmed*There is a need to post it here since you are so reluctant to say what it means. 'Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose'. You keep repeating the no collusion talking point, which is false. Would you like to look at examples of the trump team colluding with the russian operation from the Mueller report?VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 1:40 am
The def of collusion is in the dictionary. No need to post it here.
Steele shopped his dossier around to media and intel, as well as meeting with state department officials. The feds used the dossier, even though they’d been informed that Steele meant to stop trump being elected. Feds leaked information to media after the election to harm trump. Ten thousand thundering typhoons, there are currently 3 investigations ongoing, you bashi bazook! (I thought you might appreciate that.)
I asked you what crime you think steele or anyone else had committed, and I asked you what nationality has to do with any crime you think anyone committed. You can't come up with any, think about that. You've been told to think there's some crime there, but if you explore your view even a teeny bit and ask yourself what crime, you can't come up with one.
'Feds leaking information' can be a crime where the information is classified, the Steele report wasn't though and you can't really leak something already published in full on the internets. What feds leaked what information to who and why did they wait until after the election to do it?
No conspiracy, no collusion. We’ve discussed the leaks before, please refer back to those conversations. And, as always, I am content to await the 3 investigations into this whole thing. I believe it will bear out my belief that there was a deliberate effort to undermine trump both before and after the election.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
You don't discuss anything, past 'discussions' look just like this one with you ignoring everything put to you and just spouting the talking points. I can only assume you understand you can't defend your talking points, I don't see why else you'd be so resistant to exploring them in any way. The list of questions you're evading has already sprawled to a half dozen or so, it's ridiculous for you to really think you are discussing anything.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 3:37 pmcircles within circles.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 9:38 am *trimmed*There is a need to post it here since you are so reluctant to say what it means. 'Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose'. You keep repeating the no collusion talking point, which is false. Would you like to look at examples of the trump team colluding with the russian operation from the Mueller report?VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 1:40 am
The def of collusion is in the dictionary. No need to post it here.
Steele shopped his dossier around to media and intel, as well as meeting with state department officials. The feds used the dossier, even though they’d been informed that Steele meant to stop trump being elected. Feds leaked information to media after the election to harm trump. Ten thousand thundering typhoons, there are currently 3 investigations ongoing, you bashi bazook! (I thought you might appreciate that.)
I asked you what crime you think steele or anyone else had committed, and I asked you what nationality has to do with any crime you think anyone committed. You can't come up with any, think about that. You've been told to think there's some crime there, but if you explore your view even a teeny bit and ask yourself what crime, you can't come up with one.
'Feds leaking information' can be a crime where the information is classified, the Steele report wasn't though and you can't really leak something already published in full on the internets. What feds leaked what information to who and why did they wait until after the election to do it?
No conspiracy, no collusion. We’ve discussed the leaks before, please refer back to those conversations. And, as always, I am content to await the 3 investigations into this whole thing. I believe it will bear out my belief that there was a deliberate effort to undermine trump both before and after the election.
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
You have this thing where you ask irrelevant questions and then impart on them some deep significance that they do not hold. When I don’t answer, because it’s stupid, you then act as if you’ve been ignored for a reason other than that. “What is the definition of collusion?” “I think you don’t know and that’s why you won’t answer!”
We talked about collusion, we talked about who leaked, we talked about the meetings with Steele, the fbi, state department, the involvement of the dNC in farming this, we talked about Ohr, Strzok, Page, Clapper...
But then you come back and say it didn’t happen? It’s there, in the record.
We talked about collusion, we talked about who leaked, we talked about the meetings with Steele, the fbi, state department, the involvement of the dNC in farming this, we talked about Ohr, Strzok, Page, Clapper...
But then you come back and say it didn’t happen? It’s there, in the record.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
You have this thing where you're a tedious fucking coward who only pretends to want to discuss anything but really just wants to bleat out the talking points and run away from anything that would make him question them. You don't answer because you can't, it's that simple. Try coming up with something I can't answer.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:07 pm You have this thing where you ask irrelevant questions and then impart on them some deep significance that they do not hold. When I don’t answer, because it’s stupid, you then act as if you’ve been ignored for a reason other than that. “What is the definition of collusion?” “I think you don’t know and that’s why you won’t answer!”
We talked about collusion, we talked about who leaked, we talked about the meetings with Steele, the fbi, state department, the involvement of the dNC in farming this, we talked about Ohr, Strzok, Page, Clapper...
But then you come back and say it didn’t happen? It’s there, in the record.
Collusion is laid out in the report, I have offered to explore specific examples of it in the report and you have ignored that. It's not rocket science, you see what's coming - 1 define collusion, 2 look at specific examples in the report of collusion, 3 you have to admit your talking point is wrong. You'll spend all day explaining why you won't waste time addressing the topic rather than just addressing it. The reason is simple, you can't face 3.
We haven't really talked about collusion, or who leaked what, or anything you claim, you bleat the talking points and refuse to answer anything or explain anything. It is there in the record, and you are refusing my offer to take a look at that record. You are not looking at the record, you are looking at the talking points you have been told to bleat. It's not the same thing.
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
It’s all in the record. You can search it.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:16 pmYou have this thing where you're a tedious fucking coward who only pretends to want to discuss anything but really just wants to bleat out the talking points and run away from anything that would make him question them. You don't answer because you can't, it's that simple. Try coming up with something I can't answer.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:07 pm You have this thing where you ask irrelevant questions and then impart on them some deep significance that they do not hold. When I don’t answer, because it’s stupid, you then act as if you’ve been ignored for a reason other than that. “What is the definition of collusion?” “I think you don’t know and that’s why you won’t answer!”
We talked about collusion, we talked about who leaked, we talked about the meetings with Steele, the fbi, state department, the involvement of the dNC in farming this, we talked about Ohr, Strzok, Page, Clapper...
But then you come back and say it didn’t happen? It’s there, in the record.
Collusion is laid out in the report, I have offered to explore specific examples of it in the report and you have ignored that.
We haven't talked about collusion, or who leaked what, or anything you claim, you bleat the talking points and refuse to answer anything or explain anything. It is there in the record, and you are refusing my offer to take a look at that record. You are not looking at the record, you are looking at the talking points you have been told to bleat. It's not the same thing.
I think you must be lonely. That’s why you do this circular thing. You just want to talk to someone. I’m here for you.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
You can't answer any questions I ask, can't back claims you have made, and will not stick to the topic. Always with you you run away and start with these ad hominems trying to blame your pathetic performance on my meanie tactic of asking you questions on the topic. You claim a guy committed a crime, I ask what crime and you start whining that the question is irrelevant. You say it depends on nationality and I say why does it depend on nationality, and that is irelevant too. These questions follow directly from your false claims, you are just too childish to admit you can't answer because your claims were false. Really pathetic from an old timer.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:39 pmIt’s all in the record. You can search it.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:16 pmYou have this thing where you're a tedious fucking coward who only pretends to want to discuss anything but really just wants to bleat out the talking points and run away from anything that would make him question them. You don't answer because you can't, it's that simple. Try coming up with something I can't answer.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:07 pm You have this thing where you ask irrelevant questions and then impart on them some deep significance that they do not hold. When I don’t answer, because it’s stupid, you then act as if you’ve been ignored for a reason other than that. “What is the definition of collusion?” “I think you don’t know and that’s why you won’t answer!”
We talked about collusion, we talked about who leaked, we talked about the meetings with Steele, the fbi, state department, the involvement of the dNC in farming this, we talked about Ohr, Strzok, Page, Clapper...
But then you come back and say it didn’t happen? It’s there, in the record.
Collusion is laid out in the report, I have offered to explore specific examples of it in the report and you have ignored that.
We haven't talked about collusion, or who leaked what, or anything you claim, you bleat the talking points and refuse to answer anything or explain anything. It is there in the record, and you are refusing my offer to take a look at that record. You are not looking at the record, you are looking at the talking points you have been told to bleat. It's not the same thing.
I think you must be lonely. That’s why you do this circular thing. You just want to talk to someone. I’m here for you.
I'm familiar with the record, I've offered over and over to show you specific exampes of collusion in the record and you are pretending you cannot see what I am saying.
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
A complete mischaracterization of the events as they transpired. I’m not looking up definitions for you, I’m not reanswering things I’ve answered ad nauseum, and I’m not engaging in circular conversations. I am here to talk to you if you need to talk. Or drop me a pm, if you like. I’m listening.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:48 pmYou can't answer any questions I ask, can't back claims you have made, and will not stick to the topic. Always with you you run away and start with these ad hominems trying to blame your pathetic performance on my meanie tactic of asking you questions on the topic. You claim a guy committed a crime, I ask what crime and you start whining that the question is irrelevant. You say it depends on nationality and I say why does it depend on nationality, and that is irelevant too. These questions follow directly from your false claims, you are just too childish to admit you can't answer because your claims were false. Really pathetic from an old timer.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:39 pmIt’s all in the record. You can search it.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:16 pmYou have this thing where you're a tedious fucking coward who only pretends to want to discuss anything but really just wants to bleat out the talking points and run away from anything that would make him question them. You don't answer because you can't, it's that simple. Try coming up with something I can't answer.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:07 pm You have this thing where you ask irrelevant questions and then impart on them some deep significance that they do not hold. When I don’t answer, because it’s stupid, you then act as if you’ve been ignored for a reason other than that. “What is the definition of collusion?” “I think you don’t know and that’s why you won’t answer!”
We talked about collusion, we talked about who leaked, we talked about the meetings with Steele, the fbi, state department, the involvement of the dNC in farming this, we talked about Ohr, Strzok, Page, Clapper...
But then you come back and say it didn’t happen? It’s there, in the record.
Collusion is laid out in the report, I have offered to explore specific examples of it in the report and you have ignored that.
We haven't talked about collusion, or who leaked what, or anything you claim, you bleat the talking points and refuse to answer anything or explain anything. It is there in the record, and you are refusing my offer to take a look at that record. You are not looking at the record, you are looking at the talking points you have been told to bleat. It's not the same thing.
I think you must be lonely. That’s why you do this circular thing. You just want to talk to someone. I’m here for you.
I'm familiar with the record, I've offered over and over to show you specific exampes of collusion in the record and you are pretending you cannot see what I am saying.
- beagleboy
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:23 pm
- Location: Free born
Re: Kushners boss gets his
So he's insisting you answer his questions?
That's original.
That's original.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
Feel free to quote your previous answers that you feel address anything you are running away from. Feel free to explain why you continue to pretend you can't see my repeated offers to go over the record with you and give you specific examples of the collusion you are claiming doesn't exist. You're a liar, and you're running away as usual. You'll keep bleating about how answering isn't worth your time though, however much time it takes to claim it isn't worth your time. Very convincing as always.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:57 pmA complete mischaracterization of the events as they transpired. I’m not looking up definitions for you, I’m not reanswering things I’ve answered ad nauseum, and I’m not engaging in circular conversations. I am here to talk to you if you need to talk. Or drop me a pm, if you like. I’m listening.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:48 pmYou can't answer any questions I ask, can't back claims you have made, and will not stick to the topic. Always with you you run away and start with these ad hominems trying to blame your pathetic performance on my meanie tactic of asking you questions on the topic. You claim a guy committed a crime, I ask what crime and you start whining that the question is irrelevant. You say it depends on nationality and I say why does it depend on nationality, and that is irelevant too. These questions follow directly from your false claims, you are just too childish to admit you can't answer because your claims were false. Really pathetic from an old timer.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:39 pmIt’s all in the record. You can search it.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:16 pmYou have this thing where you're a tedious fucking coward who only pretends to want to discuss anything but really just wants to bleat out the talking points and run away from anything that would make him question them. You don't answer because you can't, it's that simple. Try coming up with something I can't answer.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 4:07 pm You have this thing where you ask irrelevant questions and then impart on them some deep significance that they do not hold. When I don’t answer, because it’s stupid, you then act as if you’ve been ignored for a reason other than that. “What is the definition of collusion?” “I think you don’t know and that’s why you won’t answer!”
We talked about collusion, we talked about who leaked, we talked about the meetings with Steele, the fbi, state department, the involvement of the dNC in farming this, we talked about Ohr, Strzok, Page, Clapper...
But then you come back and say it didn’t happen? It’s there, in the record.
Collusion is laid out in the report, I have offered to explore specific examples of it in the report and you have ignored that.
We haven't talked about collusion, or who leaked what, or anything you claim, you bleat the talking points and refuse to answer anything or explain anything. It is there in the record, and you are refusing my offer to take a look at that record. You are not looking at the record, you are looking at the talking points you have been told to bleat. It's not the same thing.
I think you must be lonely. That’s why you do this circular thing. You just want to talk to someone. I’m here for you.
I'm familiar with the record, I've offered over and over to show you specific exampes of collusion in the record and you are pretending you cannot see what I am saying.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
- beagleboy
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:23 pm
- Location: Free born
Re: Kushners boss gets his
Now onto name calling. The ultimate sign of a true intellect.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
- VinceBordenIII
- Loves swimmin' with bowlegged women!
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
See? There it is. Circular.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 3:42 pmYou don't discuss anything, past 'discussions' look just like this one with you ignoring everything put to you and just spouting the talking points. I can only assume you understand you can't defend your talking points, I don't see why else you'd be so resistant to exploring them in any way. The list of questions you're evading has already sprawled to a half dozen or so, it's ridiculous for you to really think you are discussing anything.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 3:37 pmcircles within circles.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 9:38 am *trimmed*There is a need to post it here since you are so reluctant to say what it means. 'Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose'. You keep repeating the no collusion talking point, which is false. Would you like to look at examples of the trump team colluding with the russian operation from the Mueller report?VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 1:40 am
The def of collusion is in the dictionary. No need to post it here.
Steele shopped his dossier around to media and intel, as well as meeting with state department officials. The feds used the dossier, even though they’d been informed that Steele meant to stop trump being elected. Feds leaked information to media after the election to harm trump. Ten thousand thundering typhoons, there are currently 3 investigations ongoing, you bashi bazook! (I thought you might appreciate that.)
I asked you what crime you think steele or anyone else had committed, and I asked you what nationality has to do with any crime you think anyone committed. You can't come up with any, think about that. You've been told to think there's some crime there, but if you explore your view even a teeny bit and ask yourself what crime, you can't come up with one.
'Feds leaking information' can be a crime where the information is classified, the Steele report wasn't though and you can't really leak something already published in full on the internets. What feds leaked what information to who and why did they wait until after the election to do it?
No conspiracy, no collusion. We’ve discussed the leaks before, please refer back to those conversations. And, as always, I am content to await the 3 investigations into this whole thing. I believe it will bear out my belief that there was a deliberate effort to undermine trump both before and after the election.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
Yes me asking you simple questions you can't answer because they demonstrate you are wrong, and you refusing to either answer or acknowledge seeing those questions because you know you are wrong, then me asking them again because despite knowing you are wrong you can't stop responding with sad little attempts to avoid answering, is kinda circular.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 6:20 pmSee? There it is. Circular.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 3:42 pmYou don't discuss anything, past 'discussions' look just like this one with you ignoring everything put to you and just spouting the talking points. I can only assume you understand you can't defend your talking points, I don't see why else you'd be so resistant to exploring them in any way. The list of questions you're evading has already sprawled to a half dozen or so, it's ridiculous for you to really think you are discussing anything.VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 3:37 pmcircles within circles.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 9:38 am *trimmed*There is a need to post it here since you are so reluctant to say what it means. 'Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose'. You keep repeating the no collusion talking point, which is false. Would you like to look at examples of the trump team colluding with the russian operation from the Mueller report?VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 1:40 am
The def of collusion is in the dictionary. No need to post it here.
Steele shopped his dossier around to media and intel, as well as meeting with state department officials. The feds used the dossier, even though they’d been informed that Steele meant to stop trump being elected. Feds leaked information to media after the election to harm trump. Ten thousand thundering typhoons, there are currently 3 investigations ongoing, you bashi bazook! (I thought you might appreciate that.)
I asked you what crime you think steele or anyone else had committed, and I asked you what nationality has to do with any crime you think anyone committed. You can't come up with any, think about that. You've been told to think there's some crime there, but if you explore your view even a teeny bit and ask yourself what crime, you can't come up with one.
'Feds leaking information' can be a crime where the information is classified, the Steele report wasn't though and you can't really leak something already published in full on the internets. What feds leaked what information to who and why did they wait until after the election to do it?
No conspiracy, no collusion. We’ve discussed the leaks before, please refer back to those conversations. And, as always, I am content to await the 3 investigations into this whole thing. I believe it will bear out my belief that there was a deliberate effort to undermine trump both before and after the election.
- Burn1dwn
- Non-Gay Omar
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm
Re: Kushners boss gets his
So 5 days after Trump bypasses Congress to continue to arm Saudi Arabia with a loophole, and this thread is 50% AH and VB arguing about the Mueller Report. Makes sense...
- beagleboy
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:23 pm
- Location: Free born