Of course it's conjecture, what evidence did you present to show that six months is enough time for an investigation like this. And I bought up Watergate, you were pretending that six months is too long for an investigation to conclude
WSJ : “Mr. Comey was concerned by information showing potential evidence of collusion”
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Of course it's conjecture, what evidence did you present to show that six months is enough time for an investigation like this. And I bought up Watergate, you were pretending that six months is too long for an investigation to conclude
1. Evidence is in precedent. As in, "it was normal before, and it's normal now". Generally accepted to be normal. I'm really surprised you're having such a hard time with this.
2. You did bring up Watergate. Please show me where I said that six months was too long for an investigation.
1. On what basis did you establish the baseline of normal - that's the evidence I am asking you for. How did you establish six months as not long time, on what basis?
2.Here
If previous congressional investigations lasted 2 years or more, and this one is at 6 months, any sane person would consider the statement that it is not that long yet as factual. Because long is over the usual. Not long is under the usual. Just like any sane person would say the sky is blue or that 1 plus 1 is 2.
Saying "When I see proof, I'll happily embrace it. Conjecture, though, that's just more spam. Been seeing that plenty for months." doesn't equate to me saying that 6 months is too long for an investigation. All it says is more articles in the meantime showing the same conjecture are the same old. In this case, spam.
You really, really take a lot of liberty to conveniently support your "anchoring". I get it, I really do. You're trying to desperately dig yourself out of a hole on this. If you like I can offer you a way out to save face, because you're really not doing a good job of it on your own. I know, maybe you could put another "LMAO" or "HAHAHA" in there. Or perhaps a "heh".
One small, very important note: Comey did not ask the DOJ for more money, he asked the senate committee, which has no jurisdiction over funds for these types of matters.
Doesn't matter. As usual, you're trying to fall back on to any little semantic point you can in order to get out.
If a typical winter season lasts 4 months in a particular locale, and you're in week 3, saying "winter hasn't been long" is still factual. This is the key point you are missing.
Try again.
LOL, who says it doesn't matter. You cannot establish pattern for something by citing something else.
So when a judge says there is a pattern of behavior for a rapist by bringing up other times he has raped someone, that's not establishing a viable pattern? Really?
Oh, forgot to put in my LOL.
There.
By the way, now we're on 5 pages of absolutely no evidence presented (still) on collusion.
Except you are not the judge and this isn't even remotely related.
Saying the moon should rotate around the earth in 365 days because the earth does that around the sun is nonsense.
Now try again