• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Its hard not to misrepresent your position when you either change it willy-nilly or don't represent it at all. Your continual whataboutism makes it near impossible, but I guess that's the idea.
Click to expand...
The reason I stopped arguing with 9/11 CTists is because the positions didn't need refuting. That can happen in other areas as well. There isn't much here that needs refutation.

Flynn committed crimes.
He got caught.
He confessed.
He worked diligently with Mueller to provide information to help his, personal, case.

Those are facts. Completely and entirely indisputable. Any argument claiming any of those facts are wrong is incorrect and would require extraordinary evidence. None of which has been provided here.
 
plague311 said:
The reason I stopped arguing with 9/11 CTists is because the positions didn't need refuting. That can happen in other areas as well. There isn't much here that needs refutation.

Flynn committed crimes.
He got caught.
He confessed.
He worked diligently with Mueller to provide information to help his, personal, case.

Those are facts. Completely and entirely indisputable.
Click to expand...

"These are the facts, and they are undisputed." - Jack from A Few Good Men
 
plague311 said:
The reason I stopped arguing with 9/11 CTists is because the positions didn't need refuting. That can happen in other areas as well. There isn't much here that needs refutation.

Flynn committed crimes.
He got caught.
He confessed.
He worked diligently with Mueller to provide information to help his, personal, case.

Those are facts. Completely and entirely indisputable. Any argument claiming any of those facts are wrong is incorrect and would require extraordinary evidence. None of which has been provided here.
Click to expand...

Curious that you don't address how he got caught.

Even more curious that you don't address why he confessed.

Most curious that he only worked to help himself and not the president of the United States to which he owed a constitutional blood oath.

Don't you think?

No? Well OK, if you want to just look at pertinent facts and not be distracted by shiny balls . . . squirrel!
 
The Big Dog said:
One thing that is notable about the Mueller document is that it mentions that the FBI began investigating Flynn based on an article in the WaPo which in turn was based on the illegal leak of the Flynn call to the Russian Ambassador.

"Curious" that Mueller has not investigated that felony...

"curious" indeed.

Might explain another reason why Bobby recommended zero jail time.
Click to expand...
Those illegal leaks. We might never have to endure Watergate without those dang leaks
 
Say, what's going on International "Skeptics" Forum?

lack of any curiosity about the 302's and "fortuitous" leak to WaPo.... "completely and entirely indisputable"... "constitutional blood oath"...

Hoo boy, has this thread gone off the rails....

It is adorable that simply because has agreed to a plea bargain that they committed a crime. Poor Flynn got swallowed up in a perjury trap. Thanks Obama.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Say, what's going on International "Skeptics" Forum?

lack of any curiosity about the 304's and "fortuitous" leak to WaPo.... "completely and entirely indisputable"... "constitutional blood oath"...
Click to expand...

No lack of lack of curiosity on my part:

Paul2 said:
1. Is the evidence sufficient to conclude that they falsified the 302s?

2. What is that evidence?
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Keith said:
Curious that you don't address how he got caught.

Even more curious that you don't address why he confessed.

Most curious that he only worked to help himself and not the president of the United States to which he owed a constitutional blood oath.
Don't you think?

No? Well OK, if you want to just look at pertinent facts and not be distracted by shiny balls . . . squirrel!
Click to expand...

Constitutional blood oath...to the President? I missed that one. What is that oath? I don't remember it from my civics class.
 
acbytesla said:
Constitutional blood oath...to the President? I missed that one. What is that oath? I don't remember it from my civics class.
Click to expand...
I believe he was being facetious.

I always love the, "If you don't think like I do, then YOU aren't a skeptic." What's the name for that? Something about the Scottish? Lol

Show your evidence TBD, otherwise you know the way to the CT forum.
 
I Am The Scum said:
We are now in the "Why are you pulling me over for running a red light when there are murderers and rapists roaming the streets?" level of apologetics.
Click to expand...

True, except it's more "Why are you charging the mule for running a red light when you found a suitcase full of drugs in their car and they're cooperating with the prosecution? "


Although to be fair to The Big Dog, they might actually be as competent at law as Trump's lawyers.
 
plague311 said:
I believe he was being facetious.
Click to expand...

I know he was. I just thought I'd jump on the bandwagon.

plague311 said:
I always love the, "If you don't think like I do, then YOU aren't a skeptic." What's the name for that? Something about the Scottish? Lol

Show your evidence TBD, otherwise you know the way to the CT forum.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Big Dog knows actually what a skeptic is.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think the Big Dog knows actually what a skeptic is.
Click to expand...

A skeptic is not someone who jumps to conclusions. Rather, a skeptic withholds judgment, considers all sides of the debate, and then, only when all the evidence has been considered, says, "Look over there!"
 
acbytesla said:
I know he was. I just thought I'd jump on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...

As we say in North Dakota "ope!"

acbytesla said:
I don't think the Big Dog knows actually what a skeptic is.
Click to expand...

The word gets thrown around entirely too much. Not everyone here is a skeptic (I certainly don't consider my self one. Maybe an "in-training", but the word means something), and I don't think a lot of people understand what it means anymore.
 
So who leaked the surveillance of the Flynn call to the ambassador to CIA lackey David Ignatius?

Comey (one of the few people he followed on twitter before his handle was exposed)?

Or John Brennan? (spittle soaked anti-Trump fanatic).

Hmmm....

why not both?
 
The Big Dog said:
So who leaked the surveillance of the Flynn call to the ambassador to CIA lackey David Ignatius?

Comey (one of the few people he followed on twitter before his handle was exposed)?

Or John Brennan? (spittle soaked anti-Trump fanatic).

Hmmm....

why not both?
Click to expand...

I can't think of a reason. You should take your sleuthing to the authorities and get #JusticeForFlynn.

I'm positive you have enough to crack this case wide open.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom