A home for the weary.
https://www.wwtbambored.com/
There goes his chance for a pardon.Bob Juch wrote:"The president of the United States hindered this investigation more than George Papadopoulos ever could," a lawyer for Papadopoulos said.
jarnon wrote:Papadopoulos is now in a federal prison in Wisconsin. Here are more (unconfirmed) details about his skullduggery:
Papadopoulos’s Russia Ties Continue to Intrigue
Uhh, wrong again. You are getting perilously close to Flock territory.BackInTex wrote: While the DNC's skullduggery with Russians IS confirmed.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40981 ... ier-beforesilverscreenselect wrote:Uhh, wrong again. You are getting perilously close to Flock territory.BackInTex wrote: While the DNC's skullduggery with Russians IS confirmed.
What's missing in your "sources," (two of which are specifically labeled as opinion or editorial), is any evidence of collusion between Hillary's campaign and anyone associated with Russia. Christopher Steele is not and has never been an agent or representative of Russian interests and no matter how many times right wingers attempt to label him as such without evidence doesn't make it a fact. He is a former MI6 agent who has a lot of information sources in Russia and his company was hired by the DNC (and by Republican opponents of Trump before that), but to call him an agent of the Russian government or any Russian interests is like saying that an FBI agent investigating the mob is somehow a mobster himself.flockofseagulls104 wrote:https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40981 ... ier-beforesilverscreenselect wrote:Uhh, wrong again. You are getting perilously close to Flock territory.BackInTex wrote: While the DNC's skullduggery with Russians IS confirmed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 2910b58421
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... y-clinton/
SSS: Please reply quickly with some excuse to discount the facts or evidence I just presented you without even considering it and a snarky statement that includes my name.
Snarky comment(s) directed at me:What's missing in your "sources," (two of which are specifically labeled as opinion or editorial), is any evidence of collusion between Hillary's campaign and anyone associated with Russia. Christopher Steele is not and has never been an agent or representative of Russian interests and no matter how many times right wingers attempt to label him as such without evidence doesn't make it a fact. He is a former MI6 agent who has a lot of information sources in Russia and his company was hired by the DNC (and by Republican opponents of Trump before that), but to call him an agent of the Russian government or any Russian interests is like saying that an FBI agent investigating the mob is somehow a mobster himself.
What's also ignored is the fact that's come up many times in every report other than the right wing sources you love is that the so-called Steele dossier is only one part of the documentation that was provided to FISA courts on multiple occasions to continue the investigation of Trump.
What you and all the other right wingers are arguing is that Hillary on the one hand colluded with some shadowy Russian interests to get dirt on Trump while on the other hand, another part of this Deep State conspiracy, James Comey then sat on that same evidence until after the election was over. Do you realize how silly that sounds?
1. If you assume that every left-wing assertation is a fact, it is easy to discount and ignore anything that you disagree with. No one but you, aSSShole, apparently has the whole story.silverscreenselect wrote:Now presenting the SSS formula for refuting Flock:
Show the fallacy in his argument (in this case, labeling right wing opinions as fact and assuming without any evidence that Christopher Steele is a Russian agent)
Call him out for his fallacious arguments and show him how ridiculous he is.
Brace myself for him to call me an aSSShole for the umpteenth time.
Perhaps you've missed what's been coming out in court all week and what Manafort and Corsi have admitted to. Those aren't left-wing assertation (as you call it) of facts; those are court filings and admissions against criminal interest.flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. If you assume that every left-wing assertation is a fact, it is easy to discount and ignore anything that you disagree with. No one but you, aSSShole, apparently has the whole story.
What has come out this week that had Trump tied to Russia? It's o.k. to provide a quote with a link.silverscreenselect wrote:Perhaps you've missed what's been coming out in court all week and what Manafort and Corsi have admitted to. Those aren't left-wing assertation (as you call it) of facts; those are court filings and admissions against criminal interest.flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. If you assume that every left-wing assertation is a fact, it is easy to discount and ignore anything that you disagree with. No one but you, aSSShole, apparently has the whole story.
If you'd been on the Titanic 100 years ago, you'd be yelling that the iceberg was fake news. But cheer up, in just a few days, you're going to see Trumptanic.
And if you keep acting ridiculous, you're going to get ridiculed. Example A: Donald Trump.
But a friend of a friend...BackInTex wrote:What has come out this week that had Trump tied to Russia? It's o.k. to provide a quote with a link.silverscreenselect wrote:Perhaps you've missed what's been coming out in court all week and what Manafort and Corsi have admitted to. Those aren't left-wing assertation (as you call it) of facts; those are court filings and admissions against criminal interest.flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. If you assume that every left-wing assertation is a fact, it is easy to discount and ignore anything that you disagree with. No one but you, aSSShole, apparently has the whole story.
If you'd been on the Titanic 100 years ago, you'd be yelling that the iceberg was fake news. But cheer up, in just a few days, you're going to see Trumptanic.
And if you keep acting ridiculous, you're going to get ridiculed. Example A: Donald Trump.
I believe they've pleaded guilty to lying. I believe that's all anyone, including you, know for sure.whether this has anything to do with trump, I don't know, and neither do you. I am waiting to see what the evidence is before I make any judgement. It's you that is acting ridiculous.silverscreenselect wrote:Perhaps you've missed what's been coming out in court all week and what Manafort and Corsi have admitted to. Those aren't left-wing assertation (as you call it) of facts; those are court filings and admissions against criminal interest.flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. If you assume that every left-wing assertation is a fact, it is easy to discount and ignore anything that you disagree with. No one but you, aSSShole, apparently has the whole story.
If you'd been on the Titanic 100 years ago, you'd be yelling that the iceberg was fake news. But cheer up, in just a few days, you're going to see Trumptanic.
And if you keep acting ridiculous, you're going to get ridiculed. Example A: Donald Trump.
Report: Trump Organization planned to give $50 million penthouse to Putin amid Moscow dealBackInTex wrote:What has come out this week that had Trump tied to Russia? It's o.k. to provide a quote with a link.silverscreenselect wrote:Perhaps you've missed what's been coming out in court all week and what Manafort and Corsi have admitted to. Those aren't left-wing assertation (as you call it) of facts; those are court filings and admissions against criminal interest.flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. If you assume that every left-wing assertation is a fact, it is easy to discount and ignore anything that you disagree with. No one but you, aSSShole, apparently has the whole story.
If you'd been on the Titanic 100 years ago, you'd be yelling that the iceberg was fake news. But cheer up, in just a few days, you're going to see Trumptanic.
And if you keep acting ridiculous, you're going to get ridiculed. Example A: Donald Trump.
Bob Juch wrote:Report: Trump Organization planned to give $50 million penthouse to Putin amid Moscow dealBackInTex wrote: What has come out this week that had Trump tied to Russia? It's o.k. to provide a quote with a link.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 156031002/
And besides, discussing a "plan" is nothing.It's unclear whether Trump was aware of the plan, which never came to fruition due to the Trump Tower deal in Russia falling through.
No, Flock, you're burying your head in the sand so you won't see or hear anything.flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I believe they've pleaded guilty to lying. I believe that's all anyone, including you, know for sure.whether this has anything to do with trump, I don't know, and neither do you. I am waiting to see what the evidence is before I make any judgement.
Cohen through his plea is admitting these statements are lies. The pleadings go on to say:In the letter to [Congress], COHEN knowingly and deliberately made the following false representations:
a. The Moscow Project ended in January 2016 and was not discussed extensively with others in the Company.
b. COHEN never agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the Moscow Project and “never considered” asking
Individual 1 to travel for the project.
c. COHEN did not recall any Russian government response or contact about the Moscow Project.
The timeline of Cohen's talks with the Russians indicates that Cohen was pursuing this project with the Russians up until June 14, which was the same day that the news of the DNC hack became public.In truth and in fact, and as COHEN well knew, COHEN’s representations about the Moscow Project he made to [Congress] were false and misleading. COHEN made the false statements to (1) minimize links between the Moscow Project and Individual 1 and (2) give the false impression that the Moscow Project ended before “the Iowa caucus and . . . the very first primary,” in hopes of limiting the ongoing Russia investigations.
If you post something here, I and everyone else have standing to imply anything about what you wrote, just as you have standing to imply anything about what I wrote. I could be offended by your referring to me as an aSSShole all the time, but it just goes to show how petty and juvenile you are so I ignore it.flockofseagulls104 wrote:You, sir, have no standing or business implying anything about what I wrote, other than being a smart ass moral arbiter.
I thought you were some kind of writer. Implying is only done by the writer, while inferring is only done by the reader.silverscreenselect wrote:If you post something here, I and everyone else have standing to imply anything about what you wrote, just as you have standing to imply anything about what I wrote. I could be offended by your referring to me as an aSSShole all the time, but it just goes to show how petty and juvenile you are so I ignore it.flockofseagulls104 wrote:You, sir, have no standing or business implying anything about what I wrote, other than being a smart ass moral arbiter.