The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
So you brought up Benghazi.
No i didn't, and truth be told, the fact that the rule of so is in your head tickles me funny bone.
Im your obsession
Im your obsession
I love that song.
So you brought up Benghazi.
How is that a problem?
It's what you just said we don't have sufficient evidence for.
I haven't argued that there wasn't a connection. I argued that the circumstantial evidence so far hasn't eliminated the scenario of the discussions between the two parties never materializing.
...but even if Kilimnik simply told Manafort he wanted polling data, or if someone (with knowledge) told Papadopoulos info about hacked emails, some manner of these discussions DID take place.
I haven't argued that there wasn't a connection. I argued that the circumstantial evidence so far hasn't eliminated the scenario of the discussions between the two parties never materializing.
So, contrary to your previous claim, the evidence indicates such discussions did happen. Specifically, this:
is incorrect.
Its almost as if Republicans believe that Cohen had engaged in some kind of cunning plan that first, involved spending a decade of his life committing crimes for Trump [without Trump's knowledge and against what Trump's wishes would be], and second to the lie about it so that he could spend the next three years of his life in jail, so that he could get a book deal.
Okay so what's the narrative been reduced to now? That Trump, the bestest at everything, is so monumentally bad at picking members of his most intimate inner circle that at this point damn near literally all of them have either turned evil or betrayed him?
A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence.
Which of the allegations against him do you think Trump is not innocent of?
if they did, the Epimenides ParadoxWP would be a real issue for them.... no one lies 100% of the time .. .
Prosecutors are allowed to threaten to charge people for being a criminal.
Another serious question: Why should anyone care what TBD was implying?Prosecutors are allowed to threaten to charge people for being a criminal.
That was my point. I don't think anyone is arguing that Cohen flipped out of the goodness of his heart. Pressure was applied by the DA and he gave testimony. That pressure in and of itself does not make his statements false, which is what I believe TBD was implying.
Another serious question: Why should anyone care what TBD was implying?
Serious response? Because despite his obvious games, he can actually post intelligently when he wants to. Granted it's a small percentage now, but it sometimes ebbs its way out.
Seriously: I missed that, possibly because I now tend to skip over his posts without reading them.
"When this story is finally told — when the sordid details are revealed, the dots finally connected — the Republican Party will be the political and institutional version of Mr. Cohen, who squandered his integrity in the service of a man of borderless corruption." - Peter Wehner Link
Peter Wehner is an American writer and Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank.
"When you filed a false tax return in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 was all that out of blind loyalty to the President?"
"No"
Peter Wehner is a fanatical, neocon pro-war Prosperity Gospel fanatic Never Trumper.
The fact that this gutter punk thinks that Cohen, the multiple tax evading, financial grifter, had integrity to be squandered is testament to this clown's idiotic opinions.
Don't take my word for ask Mikey the Grifter:
Good to see leftists cozying up to neo-cons, cool, cool