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

Good1 said:
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.
More...
You are probably barking up the wrong tree. While I doubt you will find the word "Collusion" in Federal Statutes, I am confident you will find the kinds of activities proscribed in statutes that the short tweetable word "Collusion" can stand for. "Collusion" is a catch all word that can stand for a number of illegal activities when it comes to U.S. citizens and foreign citizens and governments cooperating either actively or passively to interfere with normal processes in the U.S. such as elections. Just as the Constitution is, U.S. Statues may also be broadly drawn so that they can be deployed in a wide range of instances deemed harmful to democratic processes and the normal functioning of government; even in instances that were not anticipated at the time the Statute was drawn. Who would have thought, for example, that the campaign of a candidate for President of the United States would be "colluding" with a sanctioned foreign government in their effort to win the election. No reasonable person would have thought this would happen; yet it did! We are blazing new legal ground at a breath taking pace.
 
Last edited:
Good1 said:
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.
More...

I posted in this thread yesterday

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...rimes-expected-by-sept-1.323476/#post-4699392

Yawn.

images
 
Good1 said:
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.
More...

If I was quoting Gooliani then why did I say 'they' instead of 'him' or 'he'

Learn some English instead of trolling.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1024263146008207361

1)No one met with Russians.

2)So they met with Russians?

3)No close advisers met.

4)My campaign chair, son & son-in-law met.

5)It was about adoption

6)But we wanted dirt on Hillary.

7)I didn’t know about it.

8)I knew about it.

9)No collusion.

10)Collusion is not a crime.

Here is what Trump could be charged with because of this meeting:

1.Violation of campaign finance laws for accepting a thing of value from a foreign national in relation to an election
2.If he knew that the source of the information was from illegal hacking, he could be charged with accessory after the fact to a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
3.He could also be charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the fair administration of elections
4.In addition, he could be charged with obstruction of justice for misdirecting investigators by dictating a misleading press release

That's just what we know. Nobody really knows what else Mueller is sitting on.

Only Mueller knows what Mueller knows.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I don't make you monkeys, I just train you.
More...

Oh. When did you stop beating your wife?

Your comments yesterday and your quips today can't get away from the fact that exGOPer tried to report that Giuliani has admitted to collusion, and lost that argument.
 
Good1 said:
Oh. When did you stop beating your wife?

Your comments yesterday and your quips today can't get away from the fact that exGOPer tried to report that Giuliani has admitted to collusion, and lost that argument.
More...

And yet you couldn't quote me, the post you quoted said 'they' and not 'him' or 'he' to refer to a one person but keep lying like a good conservative, that's what your ilk is really known for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top