We have the memo!

[NYC17]

Yep.

And Manafort has already countersued Mueller.

And the Justice Department has said his suit lacks merit.

The. Justice. Department.

Who appointed their leadership again?

[Dacien]

If you are so certain there was or is no foul play on the part of Trump's team then why are you so insistent on defending him at every turn? Surely the facts will out.

Why am I attacking the Trump-Russia narrative? Because I think it's a wash. This has much less to do with Trump for me personally, and much more to do with the attack from the left which I think has no merit.

But I agree with you, we need more information to bear out what we believe fully based on what we know now.

[Deleted]

Do you not understand the context of the argument you were having with someone? You were attempting to completely separate the plea deals from the Russia investigation. I showed you how specious your argument was, and clarified the reality for you.

You're welcome.

i understand the context completely. You INFER that the plea deals, and the cooperation with Mueller, means they are cooperating in a negative fashion towards Trump - otherwise, why would you bring it up, just to state the obvious? Which is why I said it was your ASSumption that they were "cooperating". I am sorry, next time I will spell it out more specifically, I just thought you could understand that.

[Edge-]

Yep.

And Manafort has already countersued Mueller.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/do...rticle/2648023

Which even the DoJ views as a nonsense civil suit.

[Machismo]

And Flynn didn't even have anything to do with the election.

The only plea deal/indictment from Mueller having anything even tangentially related to Trump-Russia collusion is Papadoupolos, and that's him lying about the timeline of being offered dirt, nothing more. No admission of seeking out stolen emails, no setting up meetings for the express purpose of obtaining stolen emails, all the plea deal tells us is that he was offered dirt in a meeting, then lied about it.

But, it does have plenty to do with the Trump administration, something that is covered under this investigation. Hell, Mueller can go after Stormy Daniels.

[Deleted]

And the Justice Department has said his suit lacks merit.

The. Justice. Department.

Who appointed their leadership again?

LOL - who gives a fuck? The court will decide if it has merit.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/do...rticle/2648023

Which even the DoJ views as a nonsense civil suit.

So fucking what? Let the courts decide.

[Elegiac]

Why am I attacking the Trump-Russia narrative? Because I think it's a wash.

If it's a wash, then why bother?

Totally isn't because you're worried that it might have substance that would threaten seeing your despicable agenda enacted, is it?

[Dacien]

If it's a wash, then why bother?

Totally isn't because you're worried that it might have substance that would threaten seeing your despicable agenda enacted, is it?

No, I just like having a dialogue about it. If I didn't enjoy talking about it I wouldn't be here.

[Machismo]

LOL - who gives a fuck? The court will decide if it has merit.

- - - Updated - - -



So fucking what? Let the courts decide.

So, that means you think Hillary is innocent, since there has been no court decision to say she was guilty, right?

It's clear you are getting upset. Obviously, the barrage of information is causing damage to your thought bubble.

[NYC17]

i understand the context completely. You INFER that the plea deals, and the cooperation with Mueller, means they are cooperating in a negative fashion towards Trump - otherwise, why would you bring it, just to state the obvious? Which is why I said it was your ASSumption that they were "cooperating". I am sorry, next time I will spell it out more specifically, I just thought you could understand that.

No, they obviously pled out of far more and serious charges because they have such positive news regarding Trump.

I bring it up because plea deals in and of themselves have a connotation to them and you needed clarity. Your pathetic attempts at disconnecting the plea deals from the Russia investigation also needed to be countered with factual information. I understand how that concept is foreign to you, but it's a legitimate debate tactic whether you accept it or not.

But holy shit, that was some ridiculous absurd pretzel twisting you just did there. I understood what you were trying to do, I just didn't think anyone would be that ignorant as to have tried it to begin with, let alone reiterate it as somehow an argument-bolstering point.

Haha.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL - who gives a fuck? The court will decide if it has merit.

- - - Updated - - -



So fucking what? Let the courts decide.

So you're going with "no" for your answer.

Entirely unsurprising.

[Machismo]

No, I just like having a dialogue about it. If I didn't enjoy talking about it I wouldn't be here.

Well, you have stated in the past that you goal is to piss off liberals. It's not as if you are coming into it with any sense of logical consistency.

Man, I'm glad I didn't vote for a less-moral, less conservative version of Bill Clinton.

[Kiri]

i understand the context completely. You INFER that the plea deals, and the cooperation with Mueller, means they are cooperating in a negative fashion towards Trump - otherwise, why would you bring it up, just to state the obvious? Which is why I said it was your ASSumption that they were "cooperating". I am sorry, next time I will spell it out more specifically, I just thought you could understand that.

Aren't you guys doing the same thing? Both sides are the same in this regard etc, etc. People just need to wait and see what the investigation eventually ends up bringing to light, instead of constantly infering what is going on by the random tidbits of information coming out.

[Elegiac]

No, I just like having a dialogue about it. If I didn't enjoy talking about it I wouldn't be here.

Repeatedly stating "no, this is false" or "we need more information" isn't a dialogue, it's just deflection.

But let's have a chat about how you felt the need to throw the country under the bus for the sake of a vanity project.

[Dacien]

Well, you have stated in the past that you goal is to piss off liberals.

Oh nonsense.

The last two times you brought this up I quoted exactly what I said: "I'm much more opposed to the left than I am supportive of Trump".

This makes number three.

[Deleted]

No, they obviously pled out of far more and serious charges because they have such positive news regarding Trump.

ASSumption, specualtion, no facts to back that up.

SO you're going with "no" for your answer.

Entirely unsurprising.

??

I am going with "I don't give a fuck if the DOJ filed a motion to toss the case - let the courts decided if the case is without merit."

[NYC17]

Aren't you guys doing the same thing? Both sides are the same in this regard etc, etc. People just need to wait and see what the investigation eventually ends up bringing to light, instead of constantly infering what is going on by the random tidbits of information coming out.

Actually, Ransath and people like him are inferring from nothingness. They assume because Mueller's investigation hasn't leaked that no evidence of anything has been found. They're relying on pure ignorance and and a lack of understanding to "prove" their point.

So no, it's not the same thing. It's a very different thing.

[Machismo]

Oh nonsense.

The last two times you brought this up I quoted exactly what I said: "I'm much more opposed to the left than I am supportive of Trump".

This makes number three.

Once again, that's not actually what I was talking about. Let me know when you are willing to answer my previous question. If you need, I can ask it again.

[Deleted]

Actually, Ransath and people like him are inferring from nothingness. They assume because Mueller's investigation hasn't leaked that no evidence of anything has been found. They're relying on pure ignorance and and a lack of understanding to "prove" their point.

So no, it's not the same thing. It's a very different thing.

Riiiiight - how about the other 4 concurrent investigations that haven't found a damn thing either? Plenty of leakers on those committees...but nothing.

[Machismo]

ASSumption, specualtion, no facts to back that up.



??

I am going with "I don't give a fuck if the DOJ filed a motion to toss the case - let the courts decided if the case is without merit."

Aren't you making assumptions when you discuss Hillary? After all, she has yet to be convicted, and that seems to be the metric you want to use. That's very hypocritical of you.

[NYC17]

ASSumption, specualtion, no facts to back that up.



??

I am going with "I don't give a fuck if the DOJ filed a motion to toss the case - let the courts decided if the case is without merit."

It's not an assumption. It's an understanding of how plea deals work. If you don't have that understanding there's an easy way to gain it.

So, your answer is still "no I have no idea who appointed the DOJ leadership". Seems like an odd stance from such a staunch defender of Trump.