I still haven't got a clue what his point is. It's baffling.
Printable View
Nah, it was back in 2016, but it was the same kind of stuff that was in the OIG report, only much juicier. The main takeaway is that it appears to line up, but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, as any further developments would require officials to take some form of action on what appears in the report.
I only asked for the evidence you like to say you always rely upon when concluding that the media dismissed whatever you are alluding to as a conspiracy theory so we can see if there is now any more credibility. If you haven't got the evidence or the courage of your convictions to say what needs investigating and move beyond innuendo or "it's on the laptop" then no biggie!
Rudy Glueyani here always crumbles under the slightest questioning.
That Michael Cohen audio is interesting. Trump seemed to be very casually chatting about paying off women, almost as if it wasn't a one (or two or three) off.
Does he seem worried that Cohen will flip? You betcha...
Hahaha!
Here's how it went guys...
WB posted a page of a document asking for an explanation of it without telling me what exactly it was that he wanted me to explain. He might as well have posted a page of Nigella's cookbook and said "explain this!!!" ... Do you want to know how to prepare the recipe correctly? Do you want me to explain what type of cuisine it is? Do you want me to explain what cooking is?
Counter from me asking if he can explain it as he was the one who posted it and I wasn't sure what he was trying to prove.
WB responded by saying a lot, but without saying anything. Without giving any detail about why this particular page of the document was important and what point he was trying to make in regards to it.
I kindly explained what each note on the page is related to, hoping this would provide a response as to where this was all going.
WB Responded in riddles again, which are now becoming so vague (even for him) it becomes impossible to know what he was trying to prove and leaves another poster wondering if he even knows.
Asked by another poster to clarify what his point was and provide sources, which is something that he claims he is capable of doing to back up all of his statements/opinions.
WB responded by saying something vague again and saying the sources are no longer available. Then proceeded to tell the posters how obvious his point is and that they are idiots for not understanding... But not once in this entire charade getting close to explaining what the f**k this was all about.
There we have his M.O. - Avoid, riddle, deflect and repeat. Which, previously in this thread, is how I described every interaction with him will turn out and why I suggested that I'm surprised people still entertain him. I will revert back to my voyeuristic role again. Have fun guys.
Trump punches man live on USA National TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rDUeqsq54s
The sort of thing you come across if you leave YOutube running a few hours :hehe:
I don’t think anyone worse of Trump having seen that.
Fair play some of the Yanks attempt st comedy is utterly cringe worthy as above clip shows
He was actually practising for future trade negotiations with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img...tin-994213.jpg
A deconstruction of lardy's Trump Russia Collusion conspiracy theory ..
https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news...les-trump-rus/
Our lardy did mention useful idiots the other day, how ironic is that! :biggrin:
I wouldn't fret. Rudy Guiliani, unprompted, said in a couple of interviews yesterday that collusion isn't a crime anyway. So even if someone or his family was accused of doing it as a result of corroboration of disclosures by a lying traitorous scumbag of an ex- personal lawyer of 10 years standing then there would be no criminal comeback.
Probably just coincidence that Guiliani is trawling the studios trying to get his retaliation in first because as you have consistently said collusion is a nothingburger.