|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43758 Posts
On June 08 2019 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 01:57 Danglars wrote:I'm sympathetic to people who honestly thought there was something to Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election. I'm a little less so to people who persist in calling reporters "hacks," who were proven right through the investigation. It's one part embarrassment that they were not partners in being fooled, and one part hope that attacking the man instead of the report will make Trump's contentions less supported. Find who's been most right, label them, dismiss them, ignore the underlying evidence. But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
Lest you wonder, the documents I reviewed included evidence that Kasanof’s interview with the FBI and Kilimnik’s emails to State about the peace plan were in Mueller’s possession by early 2018, more than a year before the final report. Good luck wagering that he's making all this up. I'd try a different tack, particularly to separate yourself from other people labeling and attacking journalists as political hacks rofl. This is why every corrupt government official who was involved in perpetrating this fraud upon the American people needs to be prosecuted. I can't think of any other way to fix this. There are ample facts already publicly available showing that what these people did was wrong, yet the diehard "Trump conspired with the Russians" crowd couldn't care less about the real truth.
It's not a fraud buddy.
We literally have Trump campaign managers coordinating with Russian agents. Trump's own son meeting with Russian agents who promised him illegally obtained info in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump on national television requesting Russian aid. Russian aid given.
You keep pushing this narrative but you've never been able to address all the established facts of the collusion. If he didn't collude then why was there so much collusion going on?
|
On June 08 2019 03:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 01:57 Danglars wrote:I'm sympathetic to people who honestly thought there was something to Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election. I'm a little less so to people who persist in calling reporters "hacks," who were proven right through the investigation. It's one part embarrassment that they were not partners in being fooled, and one part hope that attacking the man instead of the report will make Trump's contentions less supported. Find who's been most right, label them, dismiss them, ignore the underlying evidence. But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
Lest you wonder, the documents I reviewed included evidence that Kasanof’s interview with the FBI and Kilimnik’s emails to State about the peace plan were in Mueller’s possession by early 2018, more than a year before the final report. Good luck wagering that he's making all this up. I'd try a different tack, particularly to separate yourself from other people labeling and attacking journalists as political hacks rofl. This is why every corrupt government official who was involved in perpetrating this fraud upon the American people needs to be prosecuted. I can't think of any other way to fix this. There are ample facts already publicly available showing that what these people did was wrong, yet the diehard "Trump conspired with the Russians" crowd couldn't care less about the real truth. It's not a fraud buddy. We literally have Trump campaign managers coordinating with Russian agents. Trump's own son meeting with Russian agents who promised him illegally obtained info in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump on national television requesting Russian aid. Russian aid given. You keep pushing this narrative but you've never been able to address all the established facts of the collusion. If he didn't collude then why was there so much collusion going on?
I was going to go into that as well, but it's been done to death. Plus, I have, on numerous occasions, posted facts that clearly dispute what xDaunt says, only to be ignored. He lives in the alternate reality that many Trump supporters inhabit. It's very interesting and frightening at the same time.
|
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen.
|
On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen.
If I were to ask the same thing about Hillary, what kind of answer would you give, or expect from a conservative? If your answer is something along the lines of "the justice system we have is riddled with flaws(corruption)", then there you go.
|
On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen.
Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal.
|
The bar for "Clap him in irons and put him behind bars" is a lot higher than the bar for "throw him out of office, we shouldn't trust this man to be in charge of the country.
Also, the legal definitions of crimes can be pretty specific. If a mob boss tells an underling "I don't want that guy to testify at my son's trial," and then the underling goes and does something to keep that witness from testifying, such as murder, kidnapping, blackmail, or threats, obstruction of justice can't be proven in court. But everyone knows that the mob boss was ultimately responsible.
|
United States43758 Posts
On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen.
That's not how it works.
|
On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal.
I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem....
I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem?
|
United States43758 Posts
On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal.
When you quote the Mueller report you always seem to manage to get the words wrong. I've pointed this out in the past but it doesn't seem to change. I feel like if you'd read it you would manage to quote it correctly. Like when you misquote "does not exonerate" as "does exonerate".
|
On June 08 2019 05:57 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem.... I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem?
Nader is one of Mueller's most important witnesses. Mueller, as an ethical prosecutor, should note all of the reasons why his witnesses may not be credible. Pending federal prosecution is a very big reason in this regard.
If you want to play the connections game, you're going to find that Nader has far more connections to Obama and the Clintons than to Trump. Just look at who Nader's defense lawyer is. In short, I don't think that you want to go down this path.
|
On June 08 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. When you quote the Mueller report you always seem to manage to get the words wrong. I've pointed this out in the past but it doesn't seem to change. I feel like if you'd read it you would manage to quote it correctly. Like when you misquote "does not exonerate" as "does exonerate".
I don't cite anything wrong. I cite it accurately and in context to show how its conclusions are bullshit. Stated another way, I actually read it critically. You don't.
|
On June 08 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 05:57 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem.... I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem? Nader is one of Mueller's most important witnesses. Mueller, as an ethical prosecutor, should note all of the reasons why his witnesses may not be credible. Pending federal prosecution is a very big reason in this regard. If you want to play the connections game, you're going to find that Nader has far more connections to Obama and the Clintons than to Trump. Just look at who Nader's defense lawyer is. In short, I don't think that you want to go down this path.
You really need to stop this game of 'Well trump did it, but so did the clintons so clearly you can't complain'
If he is on both side then both sides are wrong. That does not give Trump a pass at all, and that is who we are talking about.
You need to take the blinders off at some point
|
On June 08 2019 06:05 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:57 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem.... I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem? Nader is one of Mueller's most important witnesses. Mueller, as an ethical prosecutor, should note all of the reasons why his witnesses may not be credible. Pending federal prosecution is a very big reason in this regard. If you want to play the connections game, you're going to find that Nader has far more connections to Obama and the Clintons than to Trump. Just look at who Nader's defense lawyer is. In short, I don't think that you want to go down this path. You really need to stop this game of 'Well trump did it, but so did the clintons so clearly you can't complain' If he is on both side then both sides are wrong. That does not give Trump a pass at all, and that is who we are talking about. You need to take the blinders off at some point
If you think that's what I'm arguing, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
|
On June 08 2019 06:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:57 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem.... I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem? Nader is one of Mueller's most important witnesses. Mueller, as an ethical prosecutor, should note all of the reasons why his witnesses may not be credible. Pending federal prosecution is a very big reason in this regard. If you want to play the connections game, you're going to find that Nader has far more connections to Obama and the Clintons than to Trump. Just look at who Nader's defense lawyer is. In short, I don't think that you want to go down this path. You really need to stop this game of 'Well trump did it, but so did the clintons so clearly you can't complain' If he is on both side then both sides are wrong. That does not give Trump a pass at all, and that is who we are talking about. You need to take the blinders off at some point If you think that's what I'm arguing, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
Maybe you're just shit at arguing? Or maybe you assume people cant see into you deflecting?
|
At the risk of piling on, he does debate poorly. He cherry-picks lines/words, ignores well sourced facts, ignores entire posts, and engages in tons of whataboutism.
However, I give him and everyone else credit for attempting to discuss anything at all. That's something that I haven't been able to find anywhere but here. Literally. Reddit is trash, Facebook is trash, website comment sections are trash, and most in person conversations are trash. At least the guy is fucking engaging. And I do genuinely appreciate anyone who does that.
|
On June 08 2019 06:17 Ayaz2810 wrote:
At the risk of piling on, he does debate poorly. He cherry-picks lines/words, ignores well sourced facts, ignores entire posts, and engages in tons of whataboutism.
However, I give him and everyone else credit for attempting to discuss anything at all. That's something that I haven't been able to find anywhere but here. Literally. Reddit is trash, Facebook is trash, website comment sections are trash, and most in person conversations are trash. At least the guy is fucking engaging. And I do genuinely appreciate anyone who does that.
As mad as I get at xD and Dang, I still appreciate them giving their opinions. I don't think anyone on this thread doesn't to be honest.
I might want to choke them sometimes, but I also never want them to leave lol
|
I'm not sure about appreciating xDaunt, it seems pretty clear hes not debating in good faith at this point. He dodges half the points thrown at him. Better than the average Trumper maybe, but that's an incredibly low bar.
|
On June 08 2019 06:23 Little-Chimp wrote:
I'm not sure about appreciating xDaunt, it seems pretty clear hes not debating in good faith at this point. He dodges half the points thrown at him. Better than the average Trumper maybe, but that's an incredibly low bar.
To defend someone I just insulted, he does get maybe 10 questions thrown at him at once.
|
On June 08 2019 06:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:57 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem.... I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem? Nader is one of Mueller's most important witnesses. Mueller, as an ethical prosecutor, should note all of the reasons why his witnesses may not be credible. Pending federal prosecution is a very big reason in this regard. If you want to play the connections game, you're going to find that Nader has far more connections to Obama and the Clintons than to Trump. Just look at who Nader's defense lawyer is. In short, I don't think that you want to go down this path. You really need to stop this game of 'Well trump did it, but so did the clintons so clearly you can't complain' If he is on both side then both sides are wrong. That does not give Trump a pass at all, and that is who we are talking about. You need to take the blinders off at some point If you think that's what I'm arguing, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
Comments like these needs to go. It's not giving an opinion but just bland deflections.
|
United States43758 Posts
On June 08 2019 06:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. When you quote the Mueller report you always seem to manage to get the words wrong. I've pointed this out in the past but it doesn't seem to change. I feel like if you'd read it you would manage to quote it correctly. Like when you misquote "does not exonerate" as "does exonerate". I don't cite anything wrong. I cite it accurately and in context to show how its conclusions are bullshit. Stated another way, I actually read it critically. You don't.
No. You're just a liar.
On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump.
Literal text of the Mueller report:
it also does not exonerate him.
You clarified that what you meant was
On May 25 2019 01:51 xDaunt wrote:
refuses to explicitly exonerate him on the obstruction charge
Unfortunately that's also a lie. What the report does is explicitly refuses to exonerate him on obstruction. That's the difference between not explicitly stating that something is the case, ie leaving it implicitly stated, and explicitly stating that something is false.
You have repeatedly and clearly lied about the content of the Mueller report over and over. You are a liar. And not just a liar, but one so foolish as to lie about the content of a public document that many people in this topic have read. What's even more confusing is that you are now in the process of lying about whether you told those previous lies in a public topic of which the people here are all readers.
Stop lying xDaunt. You've literally nothing to gain from it. We all know you're a liar. Your lies aren't credible. Just stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
