You were the one that said "you cannot establish a pattern for something by citing something else." And you were wrong.
So try again.
WSJ : “Mr. Comey was concerned by information showing potential evidence of collusion”
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
You were the one that said "you cannot establish a pattern for something by citing something else." And you were wrong.
So try again.
And I was wrong and on what? Be specific
I thought I was specific.
You stated: "you cannot establish a pattern for something by citing something else."
I gave you the example of a judge establishing a pattern for a crime based on another crime.
You responded by saying I wasn't a judge and to try again. I don't see how not being a judge makes this comparison invalid. I also don't see how, since "this is not just a congressional investigation" invalidates the fact that the current investigation is not long by governmental investigation standards.
You're really just shoveling a lot of shit in this thread, and still not proving a single piece of hard evidence that there was any collusion. Thankfully, it's a slow day and I had some time to burn.
Absolutely irrelevant to the issue, the TIME TAKEN by TWO DIFFERENT investigating units (Congress vs FBI) is no way relevant to ONE judge establishing a pattern in two crimes.
And proof was already provided of collusion, you just don't want to believe it because it exposes your guy as a traitor
They are both government investigations. Therein is the relevancy, even if you don't want to accept it and are doing your best to hide in semantics.
Where was the proof? I've asked you repeatedly, all you do is point to the fact that the WSJ has an article, and that this must be proof. Yet there is no proof presented.
Except the FBI is an independent agency - Congress carries out investigations for partisan reasons. So it's not relevant and your deflection not accepted
And I have provided the proof repeatedly, it's in the very article that I linked. A claim was made and the article was the proof, that's how it works.
You don't have to accept it at all. Doesn't make it false, though. Both are government agencies.
The article has no proof. It merely states that the author of the article heard from a source who heard that Comey possibly has evidence of collusion. It says those exact words. Possible evidence.
That's all the article has. You're full of shit - no surprise there.
Congress is a government agency???????????
HAhahahahahahahah
Thanks for the quotable quote
Nobody used the word possibly, that's your justifying your anchoring.
LMFAO, you just called Congress a government agency but want to pretend that you are winning this argument???