If Democrats/Liberals Believe Michael Wolff's Thesis...

[forkup]

Do you concede that Trump not expecting to win in no way undermines the Russia narrative like you put it? You can't change an argument when your first argument gets undermined. You answer mine and then I'll go on the record.

Why are you running from this query?
Did Trump make arrangements with the Kremlin to help him win?

I'm not running from anything, perfectly wiling too answer, but not before you prove yourself capable of conceding, or defending your original argument. Otherwise the OP (your OP)devolves into you moving the goalposts every time you can't defend your argumentation.

Then I'll assume

a. you imagine that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to aid in his election

and

b. you do so based on an inordinate loyalty to the American Bolshevik, as ironic as that is, and not a smidgen of evidence.


Your dismissed.

You are hilarious. All I want is you defending your original OP, before I'm willing to extent it to anything else. So when I ask you to do so, you revert to literally not just put words in my mouth , but too dismiss me on the bases on the words you imagine me saying? You can't invent this stuff.

You're free to deny those 'words in your mouth.'


I notice you haven't.

I notice you are unwilling to defend your original OP. What does it say about a persons honesty when they aren't willing to defend what they say even when politely asked to do so?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why are you running from this query?
Did Trump make arrangements with the Kremlin to help him win?

I'm not running from anything, perfectly wiling too answer, but not before you prove yourself capable of conceding, or defending your original argument. Otherwise the OP (your OP)devolves into you moving the goalposts every time you can't defend your argumentation.

Then I'll assume

a. you imagine that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to aid in his election

and

b. you do so based on an inordinate loyalty to the American Bolshevik, as ironic as that is, and not a smidgen of evidence.


Your dismissed.

You are hilarious. All I want is you defending your original OP, before I'm willing to extent it to anything else. So when I ask you to do so, you revert to literally not just put words in my mouth , but too dismiss me on the bases on the words you imagine me saying? You can't invent this stuff.

You're free to deny those 'words in your mouth.'


I notice you haven't.

I notice you are unwilling to defend your original OP. What does it say about a persons honesty when they aren't willing to defend what they say even when politely asked to do so?

It says that I direct this conversation, not you.

 

[nat4900]

No doubt you have evidence....and you'd best overnight same to Mueller....he hasn't been able to find any.

Check with Manafort, Flynn and Gates...if Mueller has NOT found any evidence.
LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

No doubt you have evidence....and you'd best overnight same to Mueller....he hasn't been able to find any.

Check with Manafort, Flynn and Gates...if Mueller has NOT found any evidence.
LOL

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

Gettin' nervous, huh?

 

[forkup]

I'm not running from anything, perfectly wiling too answer, but not before you prove yourself capable of conceding, or defending your original argument. Otherwise the OP (your OP)devolves into you moving the goalposts every time you can't defend your argumentation.

Then I'll assume

a. you imagine that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to aid in his election

and

b. you do so based on an inordinate loyalty to the American Bolshevik, as ironic as that is, and not a smidgen of evidence.


Your dismissed.

You are hilarious. All I want is you defending your original OP, before I'm willing to extent it to anything else. So when I ask you to do so, you revert to literally not just put words in my mouth , but too dismiss me on the bases on the words you imagine me saying? You can't invent this stuff.

You're free to deny those 'words in your mouth.'


I notice you haven't.

I notice you are unwilling to defend your original OP. What does it say about a persons honesty when they aren't willing to defend what they say even when politely asked to do so?

It says that I direct this conversation, not you.

It says you have not a grain of intellectual honesty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then I'll assume

a. you imagine that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to aid in his election

and

b. you do so based on an inordinate loyalty to the American Bolshevik, as ironic as that is, and not a smidgen of evidence.


Your dismissed.

You are hilarious. All I want is you defending your original OP, before I'm willing to extent it to anything else. So when I ask you to do so, you revert to literally not just put words in my mouth , but too dismiss me on the bases on the words you imagine me saying? You can't invent this stuff.

You're free to deny those 'words in your mouth.'


I notice you haven't.

I notice you are unwilling to defend your original OP. What does it say about a persons honesty when they aren't willing to defend what they say even when politely asked to do so?

It says that I direct this conversation, not you.

It says you have not a grain of intellectual honesty.

No....it says I put you in your place.....and you're upset.


Get used to it.

 

[nat4900]

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

YOU'D be WRONG......as usual...........

Keep up the mantra of "where is the collusion" and since collusion is not a legal crime but an ethical one.......Most of us will concentrate on OBSTRUCTION of an INVESTIGATION.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

YOU'D be WRONG......as usual...........

Keep up the mantra of "where is the collusion" and since collusion is not a legal crime but an ethical one.......Most of us will concentrate on OBSTRUCTION of an INVESTIGATION.

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

"YOU'D be WRONG......as usual..........."


Now you're lying.

That seems to be the go-to for Liberals.




Bad news from NBC???

"Will President Trump be charged with collusion in 2018? Not a chance."
Opinion | Will Trump be charged with collusion in 2018?

 

[nat4900]

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

"YOU'D be WRONG......as usual........

Flynn had to plead GUILTY before a judge making him a FELON....

His felony was lying to the FBI about WHY he met with the Russians and THAT reason was to tell them that sanctions against them would be lifted by a Trump administration.....The very fucking definition of COLLUSION.........LOL

 

[Reasonable]

I think you aren't getting the difference between not EXPECTING to win. And not WANTING too win. The second would create problems, the first not so much. See one can do everything they can to try to win and still not expect it, something that your quotes support. What they don't support is that they didn't want to win.

Well then, let's get you on the record:

Did Trump make arrangements with the Kremlin to help him win?

Now....focus like a laser:

Do you concede that Trump not expecting to win in no way undermines the Russia narrative like you put it? You can't change an argument when your first argument gets undermined. You answer mine and then I'll go on the record.

Why are you running from this query?
Did Trump make arrangements with the Kremlin to help him win?

I'm not running from anything, perfectly wiling too answer, but not before you prove yourself capable of conceding, or defending your original argument. Otherwise the OP (your OP)devolves into you moving the goalposts every time you can't defend your argumentation.

Then I'll assume

a. you imagine that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to aid in his election

and

b. you do so based on an inordinate loyalty to the American Bolsheviks, as ironic as that is, and not a smidgen of evidence.


You're dismissed.

Still ignoring the president’s own staff called him 23 different words for stupid.
Ha ha
I to watch this simple bitch make a fool of herself.

 

[Reasonable]

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

"YOU'D be WRONG......as usual........

Flynn had to plead GUILTY before a judge making him a FELON....

His felony was lying to the FBI about WHY he met with the Russians and THAT reason was to tell them that sanctions against them would be lifted by a Trump administration.....The very fucking definition of COLLUSION.........LOL

Flynn is now singing like a bird in order to keep his son and himself out of jail and Trump knows this. He knows Flynn knows about his connections to Russia which is why he’s been acting more erratic than usual.
Trump admitted he’s guilty when he asked Sessions to PROTECT him from the Russian probe. Innocent people don’t need protection.

 

[bripat9643]

Most of know knew this crap about Trump before his book. Trump has always been a liar and charlatan, has always been a Shyster , a low moral con man.

Snowflakes are all liars and charlatans, so they think Trump is just like them. No politician is lower or more dishonest than Hillary Clinton, yet all the snowflakes voted for her. That's all that needs to be said.

 

[bripat9643]

Well then, let's get you on the record:

Did Trump make arrangements with the Kremlin to help him win?

Now....focus like a laser:

Do you concede that Trump not expecting to win in no way undermines the Russia narrative like you put it? You can't change an argument when your first argument gets undermined. You answer mine and then I'll go on the record.

Why are you running from this query?
Did Trump make arrangements with the Kremlin to help him win?

I'm not running from anything, perfectly wiling too answer, but not before you prove yourself capable of conceding, or defending your original argument. Otherwise the OP (your OP)devolves into you moving the goalposts every time you can't defend your argumentation.

Then I'll assume

a. you imagine that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to aid in his election

and

b. you do so based on an inordinate loyalty to the American Bolsheviks, as ironic as that is, and not a smidgen of evidence.


You're dismissed.

Still ignoring the president’s own staff called him 23 different words for stupid.
Ha ha
I to watch this simple bitch make a fool of herself.

Says a proven liar.

 

[bripat9643]

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

"YOU'D be WRONG......as usual........

Flynn had to plead GUILTY before a judge making him a FELON....

His felony was lying to the FBI about WHY he met with the Russians and THAT reason was to tell them that sanctions against them would be lifted by a Trump administration.....The very fucking definition of COLLUSION.........LOL

Flynn is now singing like a bird in order to keep his son and himself out of jail and Trump knows this. He knows Flynn knows about his connections to Russia which is why he’s been acting more erratic than usual.
Trump admitted he’s guilty when he asked Sessions to PROTECT him from the Russian probe. Innocent people don’t need protection.

He already plead guilty, moron. What would he be singing about?

 

[Reasonable]

The logic clearly escapes you....

1.If he didn't wish to win, why would he contact the Kremlin for help?

It does NOT matter if trump asked for help......HIS ENTOURAGE DID....

Besides, nitwit, the Kremlin wanted the useful idiot in the WH for their own gains; it does NOT matter what Trump wants.

No doubt you have evidence....and you'd best overnight same to Mueller....he hasn't been able to find any.

How do you know Mueller has no evidence of Trump’s wrong doing? Have you spoken to him?
You’re just not used to how a professional like Bob Mueller acts because you’re too used to watching a total non professional as president.

FYI: In a federal investigation into a large cast of characters ( felons) you don’t reveal what you have on the top guy until the END of the investigation.

Once Trump is indicted I guarantee you’ll hop aboard the right wing smear machine and try to smear the FBI for doing their jobs.
Guaranteed!

 

[Reasonable]

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

"YOU'D be WRONG......as usual........

Flynn had to plead GUILTY before a judge making him a FELON....

His felony was lying to the FBI about WHY he met with the Russians and THAT reason was to tell them that sanctions against them would be lifted by a Trump administration.....The very fucking definition of COLLUSION.........LOL

Flynn is now singing like a bird in order to keep his son and himself out of jail and Trump knows this. He knows Flynn knows about his connections to Russia which is why he’s been acting more erratic than usual.
Trump admitted he’s guilty when he asked Sessions to PROTECT him from the Russian probe. Innocent people don’t need protection.

He already plead guilty, moron. What would he be singing about?

I already said it. To keep his son and himself out of jail. Flynn cut a deal to be charged with lesser crimes in order for his cooperation in giving up what he knows about Trump.
But as always I don’t expect you to know any of this from your past practice of not knowing anything.

 

[Reasonable]

Do you concede that Trump not expecting to win in no way undermines the Russia narrative like you put it? You can't change an argument when your first argument gets undermined. You answer mine and then I'll go on the record.

Why are you running from this query?
Did Trump make arrangements with the Kremlin to help him win?

I'm not running from anything, perfectly wiling too answer, but not before you prove yourself capable of conceding, or defending your original argument. Otherwise the OP (your OP)devolves into you moving the goalposts every time you can't defend your argumentation.

Then I'll assume

a. you imagine that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to aid in his election

and

b. you do so based on an inordinate loyalty to the American Bolsheviks, as ironic as that is, and not a smidgen of evidence.


You're dismissed.

Still ignoring the president’s own staff called him 23 different words for stupid.
Ha ha
I to watch this simple bitch make a fool of herself.

Says a proven liar.

Look in the mirror. I don’t need to ever lie because I have the facts on my side.
I know you’re butthurt for making you look like a total ass on a daily basis.
I understand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

I'll answer for you. No.

"YOU'D be WRONG......as usual........

Flynn had to plead GUILTY before a judge making him a FELON....

His felony was lying to the FBI about WHY he met with the Russians and THAT reason was to tell them that sanctions against them would be lifted by a Trump administration.....The very fucking definition of COLLUSION.........LOL

OK, dunce, first. let's prove you a liar.

This was the question you presumably tried to respond to:
Has there been any guilty plea or indictment vis-a-vis 'collusion'?

This is your lie:
Flynn had to plead GUILTY before a judge making him a FELON....


The Flynn plea was to a 'process crime'....lying to the FBI.
Had there been no Mueller farrago, there would be no process crime.

The Flynn plea had nothing to do with the bogus 'collusion' mirage.

QED.....you lie like a rug.

True of so very many of your ilk, bovineLiberals.

 

[Reasonable]

Not one member of the cult can even address trump’s staff calling him a moron and worse.
Wolff has taped conversations to prove what he wrote. He’s a smart guy and sooo much smarter than anyone trying to smear him.

 

[Reasonable]

Michael Flynn has signed a plea deal with Robert Mueller. Trump should be very worried.