Mueller's Final Report on Trump Crimes expected by Sept. 1

[Good1]

The question is not about them admitting reality since that is tantamount to admitting crimes which they will never do (I am not a crook-Nixon) - we know there was collusion because of hard evidence of emails and testimony of witnesses - the question is of them justifying that collusion is not a crime which they wouldn't have done if there was no collusion.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1024069293540040704

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 thread, not this one.

 

[exGOPer]

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 thread, not this one.

So those emails that Don Jr. lied about are not hard evidence? Sure.

And nobody said they are saying 'OK collusion', try not to argue a strawman.

 

[Good1]

So those emails that Don Jr. lied about are not hard evidence? Sure.

And nobody said they are saying 'OK collusion', try not to argue a strawman.

Okay, well maybe collusion, but it's not illegal.

Next they'll move on to, "Maybe it's illegal, but it's the democrats' fault we did this."

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.

 

[exGOPer]

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.

Where did I say I was quoting Gooliani? How can I put words in his mouth when I never referenced him in the post?

Your lack of comprehension is made up by your lack of lexical knowledge which is nothing compared to your keenly developed moral bankruptcy defending shitbags like these.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I'm as lost as the Fox team were when trying to understand Gulliani.. now it seems there are two meetings?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1023975850574864389

Makes perfect sense to me...

 

[Slartibartfast]

Oh really, what's that lawyers name?

This is the point with Good1 where in the real world he would get a smack.

 

[Spike Trader]

You know it's bad when the Trump children are nowhere to be seen.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I saw this and it reminded me of the Trump/Guliani strategy.

It it will work too, on trump fans.

 

[Good1]

Where did I say I was quoting Gooliani? How can I put words in his mouth when I never referenced him in the post?

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 inner circle, and or Guliani. Right now, Guliani represents Trump's inner circle. So when you make it appear that someone from Trump's inner circle is saying "Okay, ...maybe collusion..." you put words in Guliani's mouth.

When I called you out, you started running from this context, naming Cohen. Well, Cohen is not Guliani, nor is Cohen in Trump's inner circle. Then you run further to outside political analysts, who are not in Trump's inner circle. Then you run to the Jr. meeting and try to involve Sr. with it. Then you run further and insist a dictionary term connects with the circumstances of the meeting.

Finally, when you've run so far, and out of rope, you hung yourself by denying the context was about Guliani, and how you are implying that Guliani is changing tune from "NO COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION..." to "Okay,...collusion...", denying even that you even mentioned anything about 'Ok, collusion' before I pulled the quote.

Now you want to run further by throwing dust in the air as you try to escape: "moral bankruptcy", "lack of comprehension", "lack of lexical knowledge".

No, these describe you, as you come here reporting like CNN. You're the one who can't and/or won't link a dictionary term to the Trump Jr. meeting.

Basically, you're asking for a pass:

'Please Mr. Good1, can you ignore everything I smeared Guliani with and just make your own mental leap from the dictionary to the Jr. meeting, cause that's all I got!' -- exGOPer

This is not a defense of Guliani or Trump, it's about calling you out for shitty journalism...the misrepresentation of facts: no one in Trump's inner circle has changed tunes from "NO COLLUSION" to "okay,...collusion...".

Make fun of Guliani's argument about the legality of collusion, but he is not admitting to collusion at this point, regardless your shitty reporting.

 

[Good1]

This is the point with Good1 where in the real world he would get a smack.

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.