Search results

So you came over here to help exGOPer out with ad hominems? Why don't you just admit exGOPer lost here, and you lost over there?

You know he's getting his ass kicked when Frederick Soresight has to pile on , hoping to stop the damage to his ideological friend (s).

Just because I'm kicking your ass in another thread on the Magnitsky/Browder fiasco, you come over here to try and help exGOPer who is losing badly in this thread by turning up the noise volume to distract from the smell of exGOPer's shitty reporting.

Your first post referenced Guliani. HereAgainstTrump referenced Guliani. Your response to HereAgainstTrump referenced Guliani's comments on the legality of collusion: "Next they'll move on to, "Maybe it's illegal, but it's the democrats' fault we did this." So you are talking about Trump's...

Not a strawman. You put those words in Giuliani''s mouth, and/or in the Trump circle. And you still have yet to link any dictionary definition to any circumstance in, or leading into the Jr. meeting.

No you don't have hard evidence yet, unwilling or unable to link a dictionary definition with anything in, or leading up to the Jr. meeting. Right, no one in Trump's circle has changed their tune from "no collusion" to, "OK, collusion". The legality of collusion is a subject for another...

You opened this thread implying, more than implying, that someone in Trump's circle, who has said "no collusion" before, is now admitting to collusion, adding that collusion is not illegal. Regardless of the legality of collusion, no one in Trump's circle has changed the tune from no collusion...

I'm not asking for shit either. I'm telling you that you have lost this argument unless you can link a dictionary definition to the actual circumstances surrounding this meeting. And when you can't do that, we will have more proof that you are misleading readers into thinking anyone in or...

Oh so you are asking me for a dictionary definition to support your case? It should be easy for you to quote the dictionary to support your case, linking the definition to what transpired in, and leading up to this meeting. I don't think you can or will.

So where does Cohen say he colluded in the Jr. meeting? Whether he says he knew or not, what, about this meeting constitutes collusion?

You don't know how associated this documentary is to any official Russian narrative, if at all. So you don't know up down left right while you claim you'll never click on it. You are saying Putins administration has never spoken the truth and never will? Or who is this Russian State you speak...

Actually, the documentary follows the money better than Browsers has followed the money. Well ur not US so you don't have to worry about being a traitor. But you do have to worry about being a bigot who looks only through the lens of an existing bias, Browers official narrative, as...

And Cohen proves (or even suggests) collusion, how?

No its not like Sasha Boring Cohen who tricks people for idiot consumption which I don't click on. If you want to prove something you may have to go into a lot of detail, hence, the documentary. There is such a thing as fast forward if you think the evidence is being presented too slow. What...

Oh really, what's that lawyers name?

That's not what he said. He didn't say, "ok, maybe it's collusion." Where do you think he said that?

Ok, so it looks like you really are just getting quotes from the internet, with no clue where the quote comes from, or what it refers to. It so happens it refers something else that appeared on some Russian TV channel. I'm talking about a film by Andrei Nekrasov, which is discussed in this...

In this situation I'm getting information from a well done documentary on the subject. So the "internet" is where you are getting your information?

I searched it. Didn't find the source.

Where are you pulling that quote from...if you know.