• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Cohen denies report of secret Prague trip: 'Mueller knows everything!'

I will rephrase. Give me the name of at least one guy who claims to have proven at least one point of the democrat dossier.

^
I'm always amazed that even in this day and age, there are still internet posters who think they're somehow scoring a point by either signalling that they will reject any evidence that contradicts their spew or in fact rejecting said evidence, and then demanding that another poster provide them with "evidence".



Seriously, marke, who do you think you're fooling here? Your words are right there on the page. You constantly shifted the goalposts, and Vern provided a nice summary of that reeking dishonesty. Trump could admit everything lie on TV, and you'd just say that Obama and Mueller tricked him into doing it, then ignore it.

It is not Trump who is exposing the crooked dossier for what it is. It is dozens of republican congressmen, conservative spokespeople and qualified unbiased investigators.

Like David Nunes?

:lamo






I'm trying to do you a favor. I'm trying to explain to you that your gambit is far too obvious and far too hamfisted in execution. The more time passes, the more the dossier's claims prove true, the more convictions Mueller racks up. Necessarily, your stupid conspiracy theory expands to include federal judges and juries. Necessarily, it looks even more obviously stupid and dishonest.

But do keep going. Do keep telegraphing that you will call anything indicative of its truth "not evidence", then demand "evidence", as if you'll somehow have won when the people you derp at eventually give up and go talk to someone else.
 
Like David Nunes?

:lamo






I'm trying to do you a favor. I'm trying to explain to you that your gambit is far too obvious and far too hamfisted in execution. The more time passes, the more the dossier's claims prove true, the more convictions Mueller racks up. Necessarily, your stupid conspiracy theory expands to include federal judges and juries. Necessarily, it looks even more obviously stupid and dishonest.

But do keep going. Do keep telegraphing that you will call anything indicative of its truth "not evidence", then demand "evidence", as if you'll somehow have won when the people you derp at eventually give up and go talk to someone else.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

CLINTON CAMPAIGN, DNC PAID FOR RESEARCH THAT LED TO RUSSIA DOSSIER

The Washington Post, October 24, 2017.

Talk about corrupt campaign violations to pay for lying research for the purpose of corrupting the election process in Hillary's favor..
 
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.
CLINTON CAMPAIGN, DNC PAID FOR RESEARCH THAT LED TO RUSSIA DOSSIER

The Washington Post, October 24, 2017.

Talk about corrupt campaign violations to pay for lying research for the purpose of corrupting the election process in Hillary's favor..

^
Note how marke switches from dishonestly demanding evidence he already indicated he would reject, to calling the dossier "crooked" despite the fact it has repeatedly been proven accurate, to switching to claiming it is bad because "DNC paid for research" notwithstanding the fact that the common defense of Trump & Russia is that it's common for politicians to buy opposition research (itself a dishonest defense because the problem isn't paying for opposition research, but rather working with a foreign power the GOP recently called our "greatest geopolitical foe" to influence a US election). Note how he studiously avoids directly addressing anything about which Vern educated him.

He's gone and built a sewer-labyrinth bursting with ****.
 
^
Note how marke switches from dishonestly demanding evidence he already indicated he would reject, to calling the dossier "crooked" despite the fact it has repeatedly been proven accurate, to switching to claiming it is bad because "DNC paid for research" notwithstanding the fact that the common defense of Trump & Russia is that it's common for politicians to buy opposition research (itself a dishonest defense because the problem isn't paying for opposition research, but rather working with a foreign power the GOP recently called our "greatest geopolitical foe" to influence a US election). Note how he studiously avoids directly addressing anything about which Vern educated him.

He's gone and built a sewer-labyrinth bursting with ****.

Sure, the "pee-tapes" have been verified beyond doubt to those who want to believe a lie.
 
Sure, the "pee-tapes" have been verified beyond doubt to those who want to believe a lie.

No, see, if you're going to try to shift the goalposts again, you've got to wait until other people reply so that your goal-post shifting isn't so damn obvious.



Want another undeserved chance? Scroll up and try to respond honestly. Those posts aren't going anywhere.
 
No, see, if you're going to try to shift the goalposts again, you've got to wait until other people reply so that your goal-post shifting isn't so damn obvious.



Want another undeserved chance? Scroll up and try to respond honestly. Those posts aren't going anywhere.

The crappy dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton and gang for the purpose of deceiving voters in the 2016 election to turn away from Trump has many such salacious lies which have never been and will never be verified. Other statements may even be true. Of course there must be some semblance of truth in the whole piece of work if it was to deceive millions of Americans into not voting for Trump.

Yes, it was opposition research of the kind that involves making up credible lies for the purpose of deceiving unsuspecting people into voting for the crook who had the story tale put together in the first place.
 
The crappy dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton and gang for the purpose of deceiving voters in the 2016 election to turn away from Trump has many such salacious lies which have never been and will never be verified. Other statements may even be true. Of course there must be some semblance of truth in the whole piece of work if it was to deceive millions of Americans into not voting for Trump.

Yes, it was opposition research of the kind that involves making up credible lies for the purpose of deceiving unsuspecting people into voting for the crook who had the story tale put together in the first place.

Again, the problem is that anyone who scrolls up will see that you're delaying, repeating something you said earlier, delaying, repeating something you said earlier, and so on. If they use ">>" they will see how patiently Vern attempted to communicate with you. They will see how you ignored him, delayed, repeating something you said earlier.....

...get the picture?





Actually, you know what? I should just lean back and enjoy the shadenfreude: if Mueller's report really does damn Trump, you'll go to your grave still gnawing the ends of your conspiracy theory, and you'll still be wrong.

:2wave:
 
Your investigators claimed they found evidence of Russian hacking. Nothing in those reports ties those separate incidents to the one involving Assange's earlier release of insider DNC emails.

Marke, its one thing to post “nuh uh” over and over. Its another thing to continue to make claims without even attempting to back them up. But it’s quite another to dishonestly “misparaphrase” what I’ve posted. The link says exactly what it says, Russia was behind the hack. Look how your brain just cant process that. So not only have I posted American intelligence agencies saying Russia was behind the hack but I’ve shown you Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russians specifically for that hack. I already posted this blurb

It includes details on how the Russians, using an encrypted file with instructions, delivered their trove of hacked emails to WikiLeaks,

if you had bothered tor read the WP link you would have seen this.

The remarkable timing of the Russian attempt on Clinton’s servers is just one of the new details revealed in the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers, who Mueller alleges hacked the email accounts and computers of Democratic officials and organizations in an audacious effort to influence the U.S. election.

Just another point the dossier got right. Anyhoo, its just a shame that you have to resort to such blatant dishonesty but not surprising. Dishonesty is the eventual destination for most if not all conservative narratives. Marke, why is obedience to lying conservative narratives more important than your integrity? You should read why it was "remarkable timing" before your next dishonest post.
 
Marke, its one thing to post “nuh uh” over and over. Its another thing to continue to make claims without even attempting to back them up. But it’s quite another to dishonestly “misparaphrase” what I’ve posted. The link says exactly what it says, Russia was behind the hack. Look how your brain just cant process that. So not only have I posted American intelligence agencies saying Russia was behind the hack but I’ve shown you Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russians specifically for that hack. I already posted this blurb

It includes details on how the Russians, using an encrypted file with instructions, delivered their trove of hacked emails to WikiLeaks,

if you had bothered tor read the WP link you would have seen this.

The remarkable timing of the Russian attempt on Clinton’s servers is just one of the new details revealed in the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers, who Mueller alleges hacked the email accounts and computers of Democratic officials and organizations in an audacious effort to influence the U.S. election.

Just another point the dossier got right. Anyhoo, its just a shame that you have to resort to such blatant dishonesty but not surprising. Dishonesty is the eventual destination for most if not all conservative narratives. Marke, why is obedience to lying conservative narratives more important than your integrity? You should read why it was "remarkable timing" before your next dishonest post.

You keep posting the dishonest democrat narrative. No investigators have ever even looked at the computers in question to see if they were hacked to begin with. Assange claimed he got the batch of emails I am talking about from a DNC insider. Forensics examiners claim that is consistent with the volume of materials leaked. Investigators have NEVER PROVEN THE DNC COMPUTERS WERE HACKED TO GET THE MATERIAL RELEASED BY ASSANGE IN THE DOCUMENT DUMP IN QUESTION.

Were there other releases? Possibly, but the mainstream media does not make that clear, for political reasons, no doubt. Were the DNC computers hacked in a different case? Maybe. Where is the evidence that examiners examined the computers to determine the facts? I have never seen any evidence that the computers were ever examined so all claims are just opinions as long as nobody has examined the computers to obtain the facts.
 
You keep posting the dishonest democrat narrative. No investigators have ever even looked at the computers in question to see if they were hacked to begin with. Assange claimed he got the batch of emails I am talking about from a DNC insider. Forensics examiners claim that is consistent with the volume of materials leaked. Investigators have NEVER PROVEN THE DNC COMPUTERS WERE HACKED TO GET THE MATERIAL RELEASED BY ASSANGE IN THE DOCUMENT DUMP IN QUESTION.

Were there other releases? Possibly, but the mainstream media does not make that clear, for political reasons, no doubt. Were the DNC computers hacked in a different case? Maybe. Where is the evidence that examiners examined the computers to determine the facts? I have never seen any evidence that the computers were ever examined so all claims are just opinions as long as nobody has examined the computers to obtain the facts.

wow, all caps and in red. How can I argue with those facts? In case you haven't noticed, this is a debate forum. All caps and in red may work at chatrooms but not here. Again Marke, "nuh uh" is not debate. Wait, you know what might work, if you post "nothingburger' in a very large font (color optional).

anyhoo, Mueller's indictment included "details on how the Russians, using an encrypted file with instructions, delivered their trove of hacked emails to WikiLeaks." Just another thing the dossier got right.
 
wow, all caps and in red. How can I argue with those facts? In case you haven't noticed, this is a debate forum. All caps and in red may work at chatrooms but not here. Again Marke, "nuh uh" is not debate. Wait, you know what might work, if you post "nothingburger' in a very large font (color optional).

anyhoo, Mueller's indictment included "details on how the Russians, using an encrypted file with instructions, delivered their trove of hacked emails to WikiLeaks." Just another thing the dossier got right.

What or which additional "trove" of emails are you talking about and what evidence is there that Assange also posted those, or did he? Your info is obviously biased and vague. What specific facts do you have to offer? Have you got dates? Details about which batch? Evidence those emails did not include emails from Hillary's illegal private server? Was there any classified info from Hillary's hacked emails? What was said in those emails that helped the republicans and hurt democrats, truths about what crooked things the democrats were doing they did not want the world knowing about?

Give us your irrefutable facts and details if you want us to believe your regurgitated story tales.
 
Last edited:
What or which additional "trove" of emails are you talking about and what evidence is there that Assange also posted those, or did he? Your info is obviously biased and vague. What specific facts do you have to offer? Have you got dates? Details about which batch? Evidence those emails did not include emails from Hillary's illegal private server? Was there any classified info from Hillary's hacked emails? What was said in those emails that helped the republicans and hurt democrats, truths about what crooked things the democrats were doing they did not want the world knowing about?

Give us your irrefutable facts and details if you want us to believe your regurgitated story tales.

Uh oh,questions. Lots of them even. And bonus, you mention "classified info". You're good if this was a chat room. But its not. its a debate forum. I've made my point and backed it up. Mueller's indictment included "details on how the Russians, using an encrypted file with instructions, delivered their trove of hacked emails to WikiLeaks." Just another thing the dossier got right. Here's a crazy idea, read the links I posted that prove my points. Its not as complicated as you keep making it. "wah wah librul media" doesn't cut it at a debate forum.
 
Last edited:
Uh oh,questions. Lots of them even. And bonus, you mention "classified info". You're good if this was a chat room. But its not. its a debate forum. I've made my point and backed it up. Mueller's indictment included "details on how the Russians, using an encrypted file with instructions, delivered their trove of hacked emails to WikiLeaks." Just another thing the dossier got right. Here's a crazy idea, read the links I posted that prove my points. Its not as complicated as you keep making it. "wah wah librul media" doesn't cut it at a debate forum.

You repeat a lie. Assange did not get the DNC emails he leaked in July 2016 from the Russians. That has never been proven by anyone at any time.
 
You repeat a lie. Assange did not get the DNC emails he leaked in July 2016 from the Russians. That has never been proven by anyone at any time.

again I have to point out this is not a chatroom because the concept of debate seems to befuddle you. You were wrong when you whined about the dossier not being accurate and you were wrong when you deflect-O-whined about the source of the FISA warrants. Other than your whiny "nuh uh's" what have you posted to explain away this

"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.

This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers.

In case you're interested, that's exactly what "undermine our allies and embolden our enemies" looks like.
 
Back
Top Bottom