Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

[WilliamSeger]

Even wondered why I and my "Russian propaganda sites" make these predictions if we know that there is something to cover up and had to fear your magnificent checks and balances would finally uncover it and wash away our puppet president?

Didn't think so.

In the States, we call it "whistling past the graveyard."

Get real: If Mueller does find a "smoking gun," even most Trump supporters won't actually be surprised. But they also won't care, so they'll continue to deny it and smear Mueller.

 

[Crossbow]

Ever wondered why I and my "Russian propaganda sites" make these predictions if we know that there is something to cover up and had to fear your magnificent checks and balances would finally uncover it and wash away our puppet president?

Didn't think so.

Well since you asked me a question, then I will do my best to answer your question.

I really do not know why you continually write inane posts based on crap data. Also, I really do not know why you often post gibberish.

However, I do know that you do write inane posts that are based on crap data. Also, I do know that you post gibberish.

Further, I have noticed that you do occasionally acknowledge the flaws in your arguments, however you persist in proceeding with these arguments all the same.

In any event, I really do not care just what it is that motivates your actions. After all, I am sure that it would be much better for you to discuss such matters with your therapist as opposed to me.

And in the meantime, if you can ever figure out what it is that you are bitching about, then please let the rest of us know.

 

[Crossbow]

We were talking about "smoking gun." I don't think you have any smoking guns in any of this. Is there stuff other than smoking guns? Sure. But you are the one who brought up the term.

Then try reading the book Collusion by Luke Harding for your answers.

There are numerous and well documented cases of Trump and important Trump supporters who received large funds from Russia and who may well be FSB assets.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then try reading the book Collusion by Luke Harding for your answers.

There are numerous and well documented cases of Trump and important Trump supporters who received large funds from Russia and who may well be FSB assets.

Unless they filled out the memo line on the heck, that isn't a smoking gun that the money was for collusion.

 

[Crossbow]

Unless they filled out the memo line on the heck, that isn't a smoking gun that the money was for collusion.

This post makes no sense.

If you are not too busy trying to justify that torture is constitutional, then I would appreciate a re-write.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This post makes no sense.

If you are not too busy trying to justify that torture is constitutional, then I would appreciate a re-write.

You said they received money. Unless the check says it was for collusion, you don't have a smoking gun for collusion.

 

[Crossbow]

You said they received money. Unless the check says it was for collusion, you don't have a smoking gun for collusion.

Thanks for the re-write but you are still not making any sense.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Thanks for the re-write but you are still not making any sense.

Payments are not smoking guns.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Then try reading the book Collusion by Luke Harding for your answers.

There are numerous and well documented cases of Trump and important Trump supporters who received large funds from Russia and who may well be FSB assets.

In case anybody missed Luke making the case, here it is again.

 

[Crossbow]

Payments are not smoking guns.

You do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Well since you asked me a question, then I will do my best to answer your question.

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You do not know what you are talking about.

Okay

 

[Craig4]

You said they received money. Unless the check says it was for collusion, you don't have a smoking gun for collusion.

You're right. It's evidence for a conspiracy which is a crime. If you and I discuss hacking e-mails and releasing them to the public in exchange for money and then I give you money, that's conspiracy. Hacking e-mails is a violation of Title 18 USC (the criminal code of the US) and we discussed doing it and then I give you said money, we are both guilty of conspiracy even if you never hacked any e-mails. We talked about breaking the law and then one of us made an overt act to further the plot (paying you).

 

[fagin]

You said they received money. Unless the check says it was for collusion, you don't have a smoking gun for collusion.

They still use cheques in your part of the world?

How quaint.

One day you might even get this new fangled thingy called the interwebs.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You're right. It's evidence for a conspiracy which is a crime. If you and I discuss hacking e-mails and releasing them to the public in exchange for money and then I give you money, that's conspiracy. Hacking e-mails is a violation of Title 18 USC (the criminal code of the US) and we discussed doing it and then I give you said money, we are both guilty of conspiracy even if you never hacked any e-mails. We talked about breaking the law and then one of us made an overt act to further the plot (paying you).

Yea,if you had a smoking gun of that, that would be awesome. But you don't.

 

[Craig4]

Yea,if you had a smoking gun of that, that would be awesome. But you don't.

I suspect the special counsel does, on Manafort and Gates.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I suspect the special counsel does, on Manafort and Gates.

Maybe. A smoking gun wouldn't be required.

 

[Crossbow]

It was a rhetorical question.

Well then, I am sorry to have disturbed your train of thought.

After all, sometimes it can be difficult for one to determine when you are posting crap data or when you are posting gibberish or when you posting a mixture of crap data and gibberish.

 

[Crossbow]

Okay

At least you have finally gotten around to acknowledging the obvious on this one point.

Good for you!

 

[Ambrosia]

Thanks for your concern. If you are unable to decipher my humour in response to the parrots,

I am able to decipher your 'humour' just fine. I am just an outsider to these threads who is telling you that you're making yourself look stupid.

I recommend you stick to my "source material" to learn something, as the "source material" of the parrots is what has apparently deceived you in the first place

You don't know what 'source material' I read to form my opinions, I can say though that if you are swallowing the party line of RT hook line and sinker, then looking stupid might be the least of your concerns.

All media is slanted to a greater or lesser extent, both from inbuilt bias from the writers beliefs that unconsciously influences the writer/editor, as well as bias from outside influence. (see Fox News for an egregious example)

So you shouldn't trust any of it at face value. Instead go to the sources they used for their stories and then find other sources to corroborate/disprove them. It's easier of course to just pick your favourite flavour of journalist and believe what they tell you.
It's ironic to think that it's harder to get to the truth these days when we have so much more information thats much easier to get than in days gone by, but hey.

You can now return to calling me a moron for not slavishly following your point of view and dismissing my thoughts because I think differently to you.

Oh and as far as "Saint Mueller" goes (see how using childish names diminishes your point) lets just wait a while, I think he's just getting warmed up and the real fireworks haven't been lit yet.