Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Crayola64 said:

...

 

<snip>

 

Whatever you just posted took more effort (I didn’t read it

 

<snip>

 

...

 

Thank you for making my point for me.  The next time I want to argue against something, I’ll simply ask you to argue for it, and rest my case.

 

With that said, you’re a very boring person.

 

Please PM me when you’ve grown up a bit and want to learn something.

 

Have a blessed day.

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:


you don’t understand what “making that call” constitutes.  Neither does DR.  Hence your failure to understand why that tweet is not noteworthy

That tweet was a confirmation of what we already knew. The call is meaningless? I sorta thought the dems think it's a big deal. The centerpiece of their "case".

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

That tweet was a confirmation of what we already knew. The call is meaningless? I sorta thought the dems think it's a big deal. The centerpiece of their "case".


calling it credible isn’t the equivalent of weighing evidence.  I don’t care what the dems think.  Any emphasis that the complaint was credible is overblown.  And anything, like that tweet, attacking that determination is misdirected.  Both sides can be wrong you goof 

Edited by Crayola64
Posted
8 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:


calling it credible isn’t the equivalent of weighing evidence.  I don’t care what the dems think.  Any emphasis that the complaint was credible is overblown.  And anything, like that tweet, attacking that determination is misdirected.  Both sides can be wrong you goof 

So, attacking the credibility of an overblown complaint is wrong? If I'm ever in court again I'll be tempted to hire you...………………………..for my opponent.

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, attacking the credibility of an overblown complaint is wrong? If I'm ever in court again I'll be tempted to hire you...………………………..for my opponent.


no, attacking the statutory credibility  determination is wrong.  So is the dems pointing to it.  It’s a low-level threshold determination.  
 

you can attack the credibility of the complaint all you want.  I’m talking about the statutory determination, they are two distinct things.

 

why is that so hard for you to grasp?  You look so dumb because you dont know what you’re talking about.  

Edited by Crayola64
Posted
6 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:


no, attacking the statutory credibility  determination is wrong.  So is the dems pointing to it.  It’s a low-level threshold determination.  
 

you can attack the credibility of the complaint all you want.  I’m talking about the statutory determination, they are two distinct things.

 

why is that so hard for you to grasp?  You look so dumb because you dont know what you’re talking about.  

You are nothing but a goal post mover. The farce being perpetrated upon Trump is political in reality and in any kind of a real court would be thrown out.

Posted
43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 


When the NYT is reporting this, Soft-Coup 2.0 is officially *****. 

Wonder if Schiffy recuses himself now? hahahahaha I kid, I kid. Ds don't recuse, recusals are only for Republicans. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You are nothing but a goal post mover. The farce being perpetrated upon Trump is political in reality and in any kind of a real court would be thrown out.


what are you talking about.  That’s exactly what the tweet was referring to.  Just because you don’t understand things doesn’t mean the goal posts moved.  It means you are confused 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Trump just said he has a lot respect for whistleblowers as long as they are real. 

 

What a joke 

Why is it a joke? You don’t really believe all whistleblowers are to be believed without question do you? 

Posted
1 minute ago, Crayola64 said:


what are you talking about.  That’s exactly what the tweet was referring to.  Just because you don’t understand things doesn’t mean the goal posts moved.  It means you are confused 

You're so full of horseshit. Don't you have an ambulance to chase?

Posted
Just now, 3rdnlng said:

You're so full of horseshit. Don't you have an ambulance to chase?


I deal with much bigger cases than that little one! 
 

dumb dumb dumb

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

He named Biden, his #1 leading opponent, and asked for the "favor" of investigating him. How many times do you think Trump has used that move before:

 

 

So once someone becomes a candidate for POTUS they can't be investigated?

Edited by Gary M
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

So once someone becomes a candidate for POTUS they can't be investigated?


Now about that Steele dossier...  :lol:

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

So once someone becomes a candidate for POTUS they can't be investigated?

And....Shouldn’t the same hold true for SCOTUS candidates? Or are we going to continue to ask them about high school parties?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:


Now about that Steele dossier...  :lol:

 

Come at least give him a chance to answer before throwing that out there!!!!  :angry:

Posted
26 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

So once a Democrat becomes a candidate for POTUS they can't be investigated?

 

FIFY.

Posted
2 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

No one asked the question for information, just to be douchey. 

 

They wanted to know if you were coming from a well informed position or a position based public or MSM opinion.   So instead of answering their simple yes or no question you evaded and as an good lawyer knows evading a question typically looks bad.  Sooooo good job looking bad.  

×
×
  • Create New...