Mueller Investigation pt4

[Imhotep]

That TBD thinks that we've heard everything is precious and naive.

I don't believe he does think that, we could ask him I suppose.

What he's made pretty obvious is that he's just here to score "touchdowns" against "libs".

Unfortunately he's down 21-0 in his current game, he just missed a field goal.

 

[Steve]

I don't believe he does think that, we could ask him I suppose.

What he's made pretty obvious is that he's just here to score "touchdowns" against "libs".

Unfortunately he's down 21-0 in his current game, he just missed a field goal.

That should be "grand slams".

 

[The Big Dog]

He received non-disclosed payments from Russia and Turkey.

It is weird, we are talking about suspicious contacts with Russia and you mention Turkey. Weird.

The "non-disclosed" payment from Russia was for a speech/appearance in 2015 which was widely reported in the news. How is that suspicious?

It is funny, when you break them down, it really does not look that bad for Trump, or even Flynn for that matter if you compare it to real hogs, like the Clintons.

 

[Imhotep]

That should be "grand slams".

Then he needs to establish a base runner first right? Which requires making contact with the ball...

 

[Imhotep]

No I don't recall him receiving payments from the Russians that were not disclosed, perhaps you are thinking of another large country in the area?

You mentioned Turkey indirectly.

...and another swing and a miss

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't believe he does think that, we could ask him I suppose.

What he's made pretty obvious is that he's just here to score "touchdowns" against "libs".

Unfortunately he's down 21-0 in his current game, he just missed a field goal.

Yeah, I admit I have 21 fewer, however, we are playing 4 dimensional golf, and the big dog has been draining those gimmies y'all have been giving me.

 

[Imhotep]

The "non-disclosed" payment from Russia was for a speech/appearance in 2015 which was widely reported in the news. How is that suspicious?

Highlighted for ya

 

[Belz...]

can I "quote" you on that?

I suppose the scare quotes mean that you intended to say "misrepresent" instead?

 

[Steve]

I suppose the scare quotes mean that you intended to say "misrepresent" instead?

You can be sure that he does not actually mean quote.

 

[The Big Dog]

Highlighted for ya

Thanks, why was he supposed to disclose that payment in 2015?

/by the way, as is obvious, the communications were not suspicious, it was just another alleged process violation of the most trivial sort.

 

[Paul2]

what are the suspicious contacts with the Russians you are referring to?

A list if you please...

I have a request for evidence from you still outstanding, so, first things first.

 

[Imhotep]

Thanks, why was he supposed to disclose that payment in 2015?

/by the way, as is obvious, the communications were not suspicious, it was just another alleged process violation of the most trivial sort.

This is getting dumb. Who said he was supposed to disclose those in 2015?

Maybe just read up on the whole thing, like I said it's old news.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have a request for evidence from you still outstanding, so, first things first.

Sorry, I am running LIFO, but given that I have been able to open so many peoples eyes on the dearth of suspicious contacts, I am delighted to assist you with your inquiries, which are...?

 

[The Big Dog]

This is getting dumb. Who said he was supposed to disclose those in 2015?

Maybe just read up on the whole thing, like I said it's old news.

Uh, you highlighted the words "un-disclosed." Perhaps you will wish to enlighten us on how and when they were supposed to be disclosed?

 

[Imhotep]

Uh, you highlighted the words "un-disclosed." Perhaps you will wish to enlighten us on how and when they were supposed to be disclosed?

Oh so you meant "2015 payment" and not "payment in 2015". I get it now.

They were supposed to be disclosed when he was asked to disclose them, and given a form, which he filled out.

Who's us? You seem to be the only unenlightened one, my friend.

 

[Paul2]

Sorry, I am running LIFO, but given that I have been able to open so many peoples eyes on the dearth of suspicious contacts, I am delighted to assist you with your inquiries, which are...?

No problem. Here it is:

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

2. What is that evidence?

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh so you meant "2015 payment" and not "payment in 2015". I get it now.

'k.

hoo boy

 

[The Big Dog]

No problem. Here it is:

had i not responded to this? i thought i linked to an article?

oh bother, i will have to do some digging...

 

[The_Animus]

I use taking apart absurd posts to practice my logical thinking.

If that's the purpose, I can get behind that. But anyone hoping for a genuine discussion, to persuade them, or to shame/embarrass them has fallen for the trap.

I agree except with the part about not responding. If 40% of the voters in this country actually buy into the troll logic, they absolutely should be responded to - as thoroughly and directly as possible, laying out why they are wrong, or why their logic is invalid.

I agree it can still be good to engage the people who sometimes fall for troll logic but who will listen to valid arguments supported by evidence and potentially change their minds.

I'm just saying engaging the trolls themselves is a waste of time and energy and is exactly what they want.

My two cents on it is I don't really see how the trolls are "winning". Their goal is to get under the skin, or needlessly irritate their "opposition".

Does anyone here actually get flustered, angry, or upset at statements that disagree with yours? I can say I certainly don't.

Just from reading posts here it certainly seems some people do and it's not like anyone wants to admit it if it does. But that isn't the sole purpose of their game. They also want distract and divert attention to themselves and their nonsense and to draw other posters into refuting that nonsense instead of discussing whatever more relevant and important thing was previously being discussed.

 

[Imhotep]

Thanks, why was he supposed to disclose that payment in 2015?

Last post.

The above would be better worded as 2015 payment.

Makes sense?