Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I pull facts to support my argument. That's why I brought up the issue with David Pecker, to corroborate the allegation that this was done for the campaign.You are guilty of the very shit you try to lay off on me.
You are stubborn — but you remain quite flatly wrong.
LolI pull facts to support my argument. That's why I brought up the issue with David Pecker, to corroborate the allegation that this was done for the campaign.
What did you do?
"No"
"Nonsense"
"absolutely ridiculous"
No attempt to provide an argument with facts. Just deny, deny, deny.
You're posting here is exactly as I said.Lol
No. You don’t.
And your mind is rusted and welded shut.
You make some stupid as claim and when I note that it’s an absurdity, you cry.
Doesn’t change the fact that you are not conversant with logic.
You’re dishonest.You're posting here is exactly as I said.
No attempt to form an argument. Just "no".
Buying the damaging stories was done explicitly to protect the campaign. That makes them a campaign expense. Did David Pecker lie under oath about his meeting with Trump and Cohen?
I repeat myself because you never responded to it. It's a good point.You’re dishonest.
I have made rational and coherent arguments. And I’ve very well refuted some of your more petty claims. Repeating yourself (as you do endlessly) isn’t the same as engaging in a discussion or argument.
You’re dismissed.
This is not a refutation:Lie. I have responded to and refuted you. As you know.
It's an unsupported allegation with no logic or explanation.No. It’s speculation.
David Pecker's testimony is not speculation.Your speculation? I agree.
incredible, ain't it?Can you think of any other candidate over your voting life you would vote for if he stole money from a charity, was convicted of what is tantamount to election interference, was found to have cheated on his taxes, raped a woman, orchestrated a violent attempt to block the elected prez's certification, and tried to use fake electors to steal an election?
It's quite relevant. It shows that Trump had already been part of an attempt to use money to bury stories to protect his campaign.No. It was irrelevant.
So? Not a crime. Even if we accept that Trump knew.It's quite relevant. It shows that Trump had already been part of an attempt to use money to bury stories to protect his campaign.
No. It isn’t. That’s just your wishful spinning.The NDA with Clifford was consistent with that attempt.
Again. So what?Pecker would have been the one paying for Clifford's NDA if his lawyers hadn't put a stop to it.
Explain how it isn’t consistent.No. It isn’t. That’s just your wishful spinning.
Pecker’s catch and kill efforts were consistent with the Clifford NDAClaiming that things are consistent isn’t support for that very contention.
Back to mindlessly repeating your own shit.Pecker’s catch and kill efforts were consistent with the Clifford NDA
Since the testimony is that Trump asked Pecker to do it for the campaign, we would logically believe the NDA for Clifford is for the same reason. To protect the campaign.
This isn’t complicated. Where is the problem with this logic?
Because you haven’t refuted it.Back to mindlessly repeating your own shit.
You are a very boring little hack.
