holy hell that Ukraine stuff

[Berzerker]

and how does she feel about the Steele Dossier and the Clinton campaign?

 

[FriendlyFire]

and how does she feel about the Steele Dossier and the Clinton campaign?

Thats why Steele went with hes findings to the FBI ?
Also the former Australian President went to the FBI ?

 

[Arakhor]

I just quoted you twice attributing "really" to me, there was no 'if' in your posts"

I did not "quote" you using the word "really". If you were confused by the multiple potential uses of speech marks, then perhaps that is something you should work on, rather than attacking me for something I haven't done.

 

[Estebonrober]

Biden was in charge of US policy in Ukraine before and during the election. If the Dems did ask Ukraine for help beating Trump then Biden's up to his balls in the slop. We cant investigate Ukrainian corruption and interference in the 2016 election without involving Joe. His kid's cushy 'job' is the tip of the iceberg. I want to know what happened to all that money we poured into the country, I want to know if there were any kickbacks - like to the Clinton campaign and Foundation.

I really am done talking to you since you are beyond reason these days. I'll just state two things. First if the democratic party is guilty of a crime that does not cleanse Trump of the same crime that is beyond the pale stupid. Second there are legal ways to have a foreign nation investigate american corruption, just because democrats know how to push the levers in proper order for proper reasons and Trump and his administration has no idea how that works does not excuse Trump either. This is what you get when you vote for stupid dumpster fires. . .

 

[El_Machinae]

It IS really frustrating that investigating previous administrations is going to be increasingly hard to do. With all my heart, I wish Trump had been reputable. If there's something to Biden, I'd want to know.

Before the election, Trump promised to become 'so presidential' and to release his tax returns. If he'd kept that promise, pivoted to being acceptable, then today's conversation would be different.

Once Biden drops out, or if, then investigations into his actions will be less politically difficult.

 

[Berzerker]

Thats why Steele went with hes findings to the FBI ? Also the former Australian President went to the FBI ?

You didn't answer the question. Steele went to the media and the FBI because the Clinton campaign wanted the dossier out there so she would win. I dont think he was the former Aussie President but he didn't go to the FBI with the dossier - that thing of value the Democrats solicited from foreigners in violation of campaign finance laws used by the FBI to convince a judge to let them spy on Trump.

I did not "quote" you using the word "really". If you were confused by the multiple potential uses of speech marks, then perhaps that is something you should work on, rather than attacking me for something I haven't done.

Thats right, you didn't quote me using the word 'really' because I didn't use it - thats the point. If you weren't attributing the word to me why use it? You called me a liar and I'm attacking you? Do you understand the words that are coming out of your mouth?

I really am done talking to you since you are beyond reason these days. I'll just state two things. First if the democratic party is guilty of a crime that does not cleanse Trump of the same crime that is beyond the pale stupid. Second there are legal ways to have a foreign nation investigate american corruption, just because democrats know how to push the levers in proper order for proper reasons and Trump and his administration has no idea how that works does not excuse Trump either. This is what you get when you vote for stupid dumpster fires. . .

If the Democrats are guilty of the same crime then they're hypocrites and that hurts their impeachment effort. Trump didn't want to use Obama's ambassadors and apparatus to investigate the 2016 election, I wonder why. Voting for Hillary gave us Trump and you're lecturing the rest of us about voting for stupid dumpster fires?

 

[Zelig]

I wonder why.

It's because Trump is a dumdum. Don't try to read into his actions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thats right, you didn't quote me using the word 'really' because I didn't use it - thats the point. If you weren't attributing the word to me why use it? You called me a liar and I'm attacking you? Do you understand the words that are coming out of your mouth?

As always, the best defense against a libel charge is to just point out that what was said is demonstrably true. I strongly suggest that if you are going to accuse @Arakhor of libeling you choose something other than calling you a liar.

 

[Arakhor]

I didn't call you a liar, Berzerker, I called you a shill, because of your seemingly endless water-carrying for Trump, come what may. Now, would you actually like me to explain why I used the word "really" in inverted commas, or are you just going to continue accusing me of doing things I didn't do?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I didn't call you a liar, Berzerker, I called you a shill, because of your seemingly endless water-carrying for Trump, come what may. Now, would you actually like me to explain why I used the word "really" in inverted commas, or are you just going to continue accusing me of doing things I didn't do?

Calling them "inverted commas" hardly seems to recommend you as an expert in explaining their proper usage. Just sayin'.

 

[Berzerker]

As always, the best defense against a libel charge is to just point out that what was said is demonstrably true. I strongly suggest that if you are going to accuse @Arakhor of libeling you choose something other than calling you a liar.

So if I call you a liar I cant be sued for libel?

I didn't call you a liar, Berzerker, I called you a shill, because of your seemingly endless water-carrying for Trump, come what may. Now, would you actually like me to explain why I used the word "really" in inverted commas, or are you just going to continue accusing me of doing things I didn't do?

You accused me of shilling for someone who doesn't need my help telling lies. That means you're accusing me of lying too, thats what shills do, they lie on behalf of someone else. I know why you used "really", to make a distinction between me and everyone else who is 'guilty' of telling us what Trump thinks. You think he's lying about why he wants Ukraine to investigate the 2016 election and I dont, so why am I the one who "really" knows his true motive? Why am I the 'Trump whisperer' and you're not? The insult doesn't even make sense. You're claiming to know what he really thinks, I'm just relying on what he has repeatedly said. As for carrying water, make your criticisms of Trump fair and accurate and I wont feel the need to disagree.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So if I call you a liar I cant be sued for libel?

I think everyone would agree that finding some comment I made, somewhere, that wasn't true would be pretty easy to do, so you could easily mount an "it isn't libel if it is true" defense. Of course, such a defense would come even easier to someone who called you a liar, since again I think everyone would agree that just about every post you make includes some sort of gross distortion of the truth. In fact, I think it would be hard for you to make a suit stick if someone called you a "habitual liar," or a "consistent liar."

You might have a shot if they called you a "constant liar," since all you would have to do is point to some post you made that did not include any obvious falsehoods. Challenging, but possibly doable. Since I seldom actually read the drivel you post I wouldn't really know.

 

[Truthy]

We already know Peter Strzok of the FBI was texting about bringing Trump down. What role did he play in using the Steele Dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign? A big one. In Jan '17 Chuck Schumer said on TV the intelligence community hated Trump and they had all sorts of ways to get him. That doesn't mean everyone at the FBI, CIA, NSA, ETC hated Trump, the number of people who pushed RussiaGate is relatively small, but they were in positions of power thanks to 8 years of Obama. When US intel said Russia was behind the hack it came from maybe a few hand picked people at various agencies.

I dont know who stole the emails, Julian Assange said it wasn't the Russians and he has earned my trust. But if it was a whistleblower the DNC was able to turn an embarrassment into an all out deep state attack on their opponent by accusing him of conspiring with foreigners when in reality they were doing that in Ukraine.

I've become suspicious of how the Trump campaign came to learn about Russian dirt on Hillary. It looks to me like he was set up, some professor (Misfud) tells him thru Papadoupolous the Russians have dirt and then Putin allegedly sends his team to NYC to do what? If Putin had the emails why wouldn't he just publish them? The tower meeting in NYC was just what the deep state needed to tie Trump to Putin.

Btw, Assange pissed off our intel community by leaking a document showing how they could make hacks look like they came from other governments, so it basically comes down to believing Assange or the likes of John Brennan and James Clapper.



Biden was in charge of US policy in Ukraine before and during the election. If the Dems did ask Ukraine for help beating Trump then Biden's up to his balls in the slop. We cant investigate Ukrainian corruption and interference in the 2016 election without involving Joe. His kid's cushy 'job' is the tip of the iceberg. I want to know what happened to all that money we poured into the country, I want to know if there were any kickbacks - like to the Clinton campaign and Foundation.

I don't have the time to follow every tentacle of this story and debunk every last claim you make. But throughout this thread, every time I've put in the effort, I've shown you to be wrong. Let's quickly take this Peter Strozk thing. He's already been investigated by the IG and Congress. He said mean things about Trump to his girlfriend. Mueller fired him. No evidence of deep state coups. If you want to hold out for John Durham to say something new, that's your prerogative. But for the time being, you don't get to make claims that Trump's DoJ has debunked.

 

[Estebonrober]

You didn't answer the question. Steele went to the media and the FBI because the Clinton campaign wanted the dossier out there so she would win. I dont think he was the former Aussie President but he didn't go to the FBI with the dossier - that thing of value the Democrats solicited from foreigners in violation of campaign finance laws used by the FBI to convince a judge to let them spy on Trump.



Thats right, you didn't quote me using the word 'really' because I didn't use it - thats the point. If you weren't attributing the word to me why use it? You called me a liar and I'm attacking you? Do you understand the words that are coming out of your mouth?



If the Democrats are guilty of the same crime then they're hypocrites and that hurts their impeachment effort. Trump didn't want to use Obama's ambassadors and apparatus to investigate the 2016 election, I wonder why. Voting for Hillary gave us Trump and you're lecturing the rest of us about voting for stupid dumpster fires?

I'm shifting gears, you are the dumpster fire. Just because he didn't get his personnel in place to do this through proper channels in a legal manner does not excuse him breaking the law repeatedly you shill.

To be clear if Trump and Biden both go down and both the RNC and DNC are damaged severely because all of this my heart will swoon.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't have the time to follow every tentacle of this story and debunk every last claim you make. But throughout this thread, every time I've put in the effort, I've shown you to be wrong. Let's quickly take this Peter Strozk thing. He's already been investigated by the IG and Congress. He said mean things about Trump to his girlfriend. Mueller fired him. No evidence of deep state coups. If you want to hold out for John Durham to say something new, that's your prerogative. But for the time being, you don't get to make claims that Trump's DoJ has debunked.

In Berzerker's world if something he says has been debunked a hundred times that doesn't mean that if he says it once more and no one bothers to argue he can't claim everyone agreed that it is true. I find that it is best just to mock him outright rather than fall into the trap of debunking his nonsense over and over and over.

 

[Truthy]

That is sage advice

 

[Berzerker]

I think everyone would agree that finding some comment I made, somewhere, that wasn't true would be pretty easy to do, so you could easily mount an "it isn't libel if it is true" defense. Of course, such a defense would come even easier to someone who called you a liar, since again I think everyone would agree that just about every post you make includes some sort of gross distortion of the truth. In fact, I think it would be hard for you to make a suit stick if someone called you a "habitual liar," or a "consistent liar."

You might have a shot if they called you a "constant liar," since all you would have to do is point to some post you made that did not include any obvious falsehoods. Challenging, but possibly doable. Since I seldom actually read the drivel you post I wouldn't really know.

Everyone agrees just about all my posts are lies but you dont really know because you seldom read them?

I don't have the time to follow every tentacle of this story and debunk every last claim you make. But throughout this thread, every time I've put in the effort, I've shown you to be wrong. Let's quickly take this Peter Strozk thing. He's already been investigated by the IG and Congress. He said mean things about Trump to his girlfriend. Mueller fired him. No evidence of deep state coups. If you want to hold out for John Durham to say something new, that's your prerogative. But for the time being, you don't get to make claims that Trump's DoJ has debunked.

You cant be bothered with understanding Strzok's role in obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on Trump's campaign but he has been exonerated? I didn't know the IG's report was out, I thought it was due very soon though. He was fired long after the FISA warrant.

 

[Berzerker]

In Berzerker's world if something he says has been debunked a hundred times that doesn't mean that if he says it once more and no one bothers to argue he can't claim everyone agreed that it is true. I find that it is best just to mock him outright rather than fall into the trap of debunking his nonsense over and over and over.

Truthy said he wasn't informed on the matter of Strzok's role obtaining the FISA warrant.

I don't have the time to follow every tentacle of this story and debunk every last claim you make.

I think everyone would agree that finding some comment I made, somewhere, that wasn't true would be pretty easy to do, so you could easily mount an "it isn't libel if it is true" defense. Of course, such a defense would come even easier to someone who called you a liar, since again I think everyone would agree that just about every post you make includes some sort of gross distortion of the truth. In fact, I think it would be hard for you to make a suit stick if someone called you a "habitual liar," or a "consistent liar."

You might have a shot if they called you a "constant liar," since all you would have to do is point to some post you made that did not include any obvious falsehoods. Challenging, but possibly doable. Since I seldom actually read the drivel you post I wouldn't really know.

I'm having no trouble at all finding gross distortions in your posts

 

[Truthy]

Really proving Tim wrong. Top notch work.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Everyone agrees just about all my posts are lies but you dont really know because you seldom read them?

Your posts are predictable.
Although you claim to be a libertarian you always defend Trump and can't fault anything he does.
Although you claim to not be a racist whenever the police shoot a black person you are always making excuses for them.
Not just sometimes, always.