Mueller Investigation pt4

[Venom]

The "Mueller probe" been "going to drop any day now" for about 10,000 years it feels like.

I predict the results will be a tad underwhelming to the people who've been hyping it up for months now.

They'll probably recommend some people in office step down or arrest more close associates of the Trump 2016 team at best.

 

[a_unique_person]

Fine example of irony.

can I break it down for you? People link to Seth Abramson, who is a known prevaricator, and people said he is more thorough than Maddow (which: ) he is thorough thorough. Yet in his first few tweets he says that Whittaker said the Mueller probe was legitimate. Which utterly destroys his silly little tweet rant.

Although what made it special was when you posted a statement that was the quintessential example of irony one is every likely to see.

And that is fantastic.

Have you heard about his family?

• His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities
• The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion
• My opponent's second cousin is a Mormon
• His uncle was a flagrant heterosexual
• His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church
• His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature
• His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homosapien
• His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease
• His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine
• His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers
• And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian

 

[Belz...]

I predict the results will be a tad underwhelming to the people who've been hyping it up for months now.

They'll probably recommend some people in office step down or arrest more close associates of the Trump 2016 team at best.

So no Jr or Kushner?

Also, as soon as Trump steps down from the Presidency, he's in legal jeopardy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Stop stringing buzzwords and nonsense together, and instead make your case: you claim that this sentence nullifies Abramson's argument. Explain yourself and support your claim.

Spit take.... directly quoting Seth's words is stringing buzzwords together. Delicious.

Seth said: "pre-AG he said, in effect, that the probe was legitimate."

Is Seth right or wrong?

C'mon, he is totes thorough, even more so than Maddow!

/you are not going to dance away from the simple question by 1. misrepresenting what I said originally or 2. pretending that you didn't say I was "confused."

 

[Belz...]

Spit take.... directly quoting Seth's words is stringing buzzwords together. Delicious.

No, YOUR words, not his. Is there not a single English sentence that you can understand?

Seth said: "pre-AG he said, in effect, that the probe was legitimate."

Is Seth right or wrong?

Don't ask me to make your case for you. Abramson reported Whittaker's words. Now you're supposed to tell us how it destroys the former's own arguments, remember?

 

[The Big Dog]

Have you heard about his family?

• His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities
• The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion
• My opponent's second cousin is a Mormon
• His uncle was a flagrant heterosexual
• His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church
• His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature
• His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homosapien
• His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease
• His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine
• His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers
• And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian

Ummm.... yeah... Y'all know what prevaricator means correct? And that is a pejorative term, right?

Of course....

 

[The Big Dog]

No, YOUR words, not his. Is there not a single English sentence that you can understand?



Don't ask me to make your case for you. Abramson reported Whittaker's words. Now you're supposed to tell us how it destroys the former's own arguments, remember?

Hey, the snarky comment about understanding reading! No answer....

wait a tick!

Well, we finally have an answer of a sort, don't we. Which is totally nice. Something we can focus on with laser like focus.

The claim: "Abramson reported Whittaker's words."

Who knows whether our correspondent is correct or not correct? Anyone, anyone at all know whether this is correct? Did Abramson report Whittaker's words?

 

[Belz...]

Hey, the snarky comment about understanding reading!

Well start understanding the English language and I'll stop pointing out that you don't. Stop playing a game where you always have to "win" points and perhaps that'll help you make an actual argument.

Well, we finally have an answer of a sort, don't we.

What do you mean "finally"? It was right there in Abramson's thread. Did you need my confirmation in order to understand that those were Whittaker's words?

Who knows whether our correspondent is correct or not correct?

Why don't you amaze me with the answer rather than play games?

 

[dudalb]

Dear Leader is above the law.Why can't you people get that?

 

[The Big Dog]

It was right there in Abramson's thread. Did you need my confirmation in order to understand that those were Whittaker's words?

It was? Whittaker said it was legitimate? Really?

Wow, now that would be a scoop!

Where did Whittaker say "pre-AG he said, in effect, that the probe was legitimate"?

On the cusp of a breakthrough folks.

that is assuming that Seth was "right."

 

[Belz...]

It was? Whittaker said it was legitimate? Really?

You're the one saying that there's some important revelation there. You tell me.

You won't, because you don't actually know.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're the one saying that there's some important revelation there. You tell me.

You won't, because you don't actually know.

whooHoo! a post without a snarky little shot about reading comprehension. Nice.

Now, you want ME to tell you how to support your claims?

Here they are:

"Abramson reported Whittaker's words."

Followed by

"Did you need my confirmation in order to understand that those were Whittaker's words?

Yes, i need you to confirm those are Whittaker's words like i have asked several times, and trying to flip and flounder the question back on to me is simply not gonna cut it.

tick tock!

/by the way folks, anyone saying that there is an important revelation here is lying. The fact that seth is a stone cold ******* moron is well known already

 

[Belz...]

whooHoo! a post without a snarky little shot about reading comprehension. Nice.

Now, you want ME to tell you how to support your claims?

No, sorry. When I say "your", I mean TBD's claims. I realise that your continued problems with the English language may make this confusing, as when you use "your" you mean mine, but you have to understand that when other people use that possessive, it means TBD (you).

Hope that clears things up for TBD (you).

Now, is TBD (you) saying or is TBD (you) not saying that Abramson was incorrect in quoting Whittaker? And how does that destroy Abramson's argument either way. TBD (you) has been very slippery about answering these questions and supporting TBD's (your) claim.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, sorry. When I say "your", I mean TBD's claims. I realise that your continued problems with the English language may make this confusing, as when you use "your" you mean mine, but you have to understand that when other people use that possessive, it means TBD (you).

Hope that clears things up for TBD (you).

Now, is TBD (you) saying or is TBD (you) not saying that Abramson was incorrect in quoting Whittaker? And how does that destroy Abramson's argument either way. TBD (you) has been very slippery about answering these questions and supporting TBD's (your) claim.

Awww crumbs.

Well folks, we all knew that there was literally no way in hell that our correspondent was ever going to support his claims, like TBD was confused or "Abramson reported Whittaker's words" asking "Did you need my confirmation in order to understand that those were Whittaker's words?"

as most of you have no doubt already surmised, Whittaker never said pre-AG that Mueller's investigation was legitimate, and that is because Seth is a total fraud and is about as thorough in researching issues as Maddow is.

Now Belz, ya'll go right ahead and snark out some next level nonsense about my reading comprehension or whatever, whatever it takes to avoid responding to a direct question or supporting your numerous and totally baseless claims.

Mic drop

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may have held.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.

 

[tyr_13]

Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may hold.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.

I understand what you're saying. I don't have anyone on ignore, but my 'mental ignore' list means I skip many, many posts looking for something substantive.

 

[The Big Dog]

Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may hold.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.

Sorry, I should know better, but sometimes I wonder if I will ever get a straight answer to a simple question devoid of snarky accusations about my reading comprehension.

As we see, I never did. You probably knew straight away that Seth was totally lying about what he claimed Whittaker said, but some times I have to lay out the process in stark fashion.

I made my point, and you have made yours. Hopefully our correspondent will learn something from it.

/plus someone learned what prevaricator meant! Plus plus!

 

[carlitos]

Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may have held.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.

I hadn't had an ignore list for a long time, and brought it back for the trolling and counter-trolling here. Just before your post, there was a whole screen full of hidden posts with one stuck in the middle. Not a perfect solution, but my blood pressure seems better even though it's a PITA.

 

[Belz...]

Awww crumbs.

Sorry, was that lesson too complicated? I can dumb it down, if you want.

Well folks

Please stop addressing your imaginary audience. I guarantee you're the only one you're refering to.

we all knew that there was literally no way in hell that our correspondent was ever going to support his claims

I didn't make a claim. Perhaps this is yet another word you're having trouble with, but since "your" confused TBD (you), I don't know that I can help.

as most of you have no doubt already surmised, Whittaker never said pre-AG that Mueller's investigation was legitimate, and that is because Seth is a total fraud and is about as thorough in researching issues as Maddow is.

That doesn't even follow.

Now Belz, ya'll go right ahead and snark out some next level nonsense about my reading comprehension or whatever

Well if you want me to stop, perhaps showing some reading comprehension would help.

 

[Steve]

Personal observation:

This back and forth with a certain member heavily dilutes any informative content this thread may have held.

More and more I just scroll through numerous posts to try to find any worthwhile content.

It didn’t use to be this way.

I was thinking exactly that as I was scrolling through the thread.