The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump

[eohrnberger]

see eorhn, you're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussing of the facts.

I make a factual statement, and you accuse me of being dishonest. Nice Vern.
Tell me. Do you practice similar duplicity in your personal interactions as well? Do many people actually 'like' you?

You're here to flail at obfuscate them and try to deflect from them. See how you look for any excuse to no deal with the facts.

Spoken from the expert who would know about flailing, obfuscating, deflection. You've established quit a record of it here, Vern.

Of course Trump could veto it.

Wow! I'm amazed. You've supported a fact.

I should have said "it would have done no good to veto it".

It's what you posted, not what you thought you posted, nor what you should have posted. It's what you've posted. I'm going to hold you as tight to this as you appear to hold everyone else.

Why cant you deal with my point instead of looking for any excuse not to.

Again, spoken from the expert who would know about not dealing with another poster's points.

Now if you can manage to somehow get past that, lets discuss the fact the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. Let that soak in. You really should ask yourself how you were unaware of such an over whelming vote and why you are determined to not address it.

Since we can safely conclude that congress (republicans and democrats) were determined to prevent Trump from doing anything concerning Russia.Why do you think the republican controlled congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions? (here's a tip, avoiding the facts or pretending they're a meme doesn't change the facts)

There you go, projecting onto others and other's actions with what you believe. How about you base that on a citation or a quote before making those assertions?

(PS: Just treating you as you've treated me. Don't like it? Change how you treat people, would be my suggestion).

 

[eohrnberger]

So we can safely conclude you have a special definition of "flat". The vile and disgusting "stand down" lies fell flat after 8 investigations.

I thought that the point I raise was Trump / Russian collusion hysteria? Did you miss that? Don't really care what you drag in as a diversion.

Trump's investigation into President Obama's birth certificate fell flat. Even the "Hillary's email" fell flat (but not to conservatives).

Deflect, deflect deflect, from an expert, as I stated in the other post.

So how do you conclude an ongoing investigation that has 1 guilty plea and two indictments "fallen flat"? I would say its "on track". If the guilty plea and indictments aren't enough proof of "on track" then just look how the conservative media is bleating on about "uranium". Seems like they think its on track also.

and on a side note, I bet the uranium investigation falls flat.

It may. It may not.

So far, the corrupt Podesta firm has collapsed and will be gone by the end of the year. I'm sure there's a reason for those people taking that action. Perhaps an investigation will make those public. Perhaps not. Perhaps there'll be a great many people who's flip because of it.

We'll just have to wait and see, just as we'll have to wait and see what else this vortex sucks down.

Rumor has it that there are over some 800 sealed indictments. I wonder who's all implicated? I'd just laugh my ass off if they were all Democrats, but more likely a split between the parties.

(Now see that there Vern? I'm not so partisan as to try and pretend that political corruption doesn't extend into the both national parties. Can you match a similar admission? I wonder, but somehow rather doubt it. I don't think you have it in you)

 

[Vern]

I make a factual statement, and you accuse me of being dishonest. Nice Vern.
Tell me. Do you practice similar duplicity in your personal interactions as well? Do many people actually 'like' you?.......

Let me just go ahead and cut off your incessant whining about me and try to get you to address my point. Please discuss the fact the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. Let that soak in. You really should ask yourself how you were unaware of such an over whelming vote and why you are determined to not address it.

Since we can safely conclude that congress (republicans and democrats) were determined to prevent Trump from doing anything concerning Russia. Why do you think the republican controlled congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions? (here's a tip, avoiding the facts or pretending they're a meme doesn't change the facts)

 

[Vern]

I thought that the point I raise was Trump / Russian collusion hysteria? Did you miss that? Don't really care what you drag in as a diversion.

this is funny for so many reasons. when I talk about the Trump / Russian collusion you whine incessantly about me (see above). when you hilariously say the Mueller investigation is "fallen flat" I give you actual examples of "fallen flat" so you can figure out that "fallen flat" is as hilariously false as "hysteria". so again I ask, how do you conclude an ongoing investigation that has 1 guilty plea and two indictments "fallen flat"? I would say its "on track". If the guilty plea and indictments aren't enough proof of "on track" then just look how the conservative media is bleating on about "uranium". Seems like they think its on track also.

and the best part is you deflected from answering a question directly related to what you posted. I believe you were just whining about deflecting also.

(Now see that there Vern? I'm not so partisan as to try and pretend that political corruption doesn't extend into the both national parties. Can you match a similar admission? I wonder, but somehow rather doubt it. I don't think you have it in you)

Oh look, you passed your own test to determine you're not partisan. eorhn, the true "test" of being a partisan hack is ignoring facts and creating narratives out thin air whenever necessary. You passed that test with the highest grade in the class.

 

[eohrnberger]

Let me just go ahead and cut off your incessant whining about me and try to get you to address my point. Please discuss the fact the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. Let that soak in. You really should ask yourself how you were unaware of such an over whelming vote and why you are determined to not address it.

I chose not to address it because it did not pertain to my point.

Since we can safely conclude that congress (republicans and democrats) were determined to prevent Trump from doing anything concerning Russia. Why do you think the republican controlled congress thought it was important to block trump from removing sanctions? (here's a tip, avoiding the facts or pretending they're a meme doesn't change the facts)

Here's a tip: You are no mind reader.

 

[eohrnberger]

this is funny for so many reasons. when I talk about the Trump / Russian collusion you whine incessantly about me (see above). when you hilariously say the Mueller investigation is "fallen flat" I give you actual examples of "fallen flat" so you can figure out that "fallen flat" is as hilariously false as "hysteria". so again I ask, how do you conclude an ongoing investigation that has 1 guilty plea and two indictments "fallen flat"? I would say its "on track". If the guilty plea and indictments aren't enough proof of "on track" then just look how the conservative media is bleating on about "uranium". Seems like they think its on track also.

Those charged were charged on Trump / Russian collusion related crimes?
Don't think so.

I know Manafort was charged for financial crimes prior to his joining the Trump campaign.

Papadopoulos I do believe he was charged with lying to the FBI, also not a Trump / Russian collusion related crime.

So far, I think fell flat is pretty accurate, but, at the same time, I concede that Mueller's investigation hasn't concluded. There are likely more to come.

and the best part is you deflected from answering a question directly related to what you posted. I believe you were just whining about deflecting also.

From the deflecting expert's lips to all our ears!

Oh look, you passed your own test to determine you're not partisan. eorhn, the true "test" of being a partisan hack is ignoring facts and creating narratives out thin air whenever necessary. You passed that test with the highest grade in the class.

Again, from the expert's lips to all our ears! (Especially the ignoring facts that don't agree with your narrative - issued talking point)

 

[Vern]

I chose not to address it because it did not pertain to my point.

there, that right there is why I say you're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts. I realize you cant help it and I try to be accommodating but its still dishonest and deflecting. Read this slowly, when you post " golly gee, Trump signed the bill that blocked him from removing sanctions" to dispute the accuracy of the Steele Dossier, the overwhelmingly lopsided nature of the vote (the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3 ) absolutely pertains to your point. “nuh uh, that does not pertain to my point” as an excuse to avoid discussing it simply does come from a place of honesty or intelligence.

Again, from the expert's lips to all our ears! (Especially the ignoring facts that don't agree with your narrative - issued talking point)

I have to assume you don’t know what a fact is because I’ve ignored no facts. When you pointed out that Trump certainly could veto something that passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3, I acknowledged you were correct and clarified my point. Ignoring facts is like when you ignore me repeatedly telling you “intent is in the statute” or “ Bush was not president in 2000”. And shock of shocks, look how you create a narrative (“doesn’t pertain to my point) to ignore the fact that the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3 to block trump from removing the sanctions. That’s what “ignoring facts” looks like.

And you have to ignore it because it doesn't agree with your narrative. So to sum up you've literally accused me of exactly what you do.

 

[eohrnberger]

there, that right there is why I say you're not here to have an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts. I realize you cant help it and I try to be accommodating but its still dishonest and deflecting.

Again, from the expert of deflecting.

Read this slowly, when you post " golly gee, Trump signed the bill that blocked him from removing sanctions"

All I stated was that Trump signed the bill. It's called a fact Vern. I know you don't like it when they don't agree with your narrative.

to dispute the accuracy of the Steele Dossier,

There are parts of that which have been disproven. Again, it's called a fact Vern. I know you don't like it when they don't agree with your narrative.

the overwhelmingly lopsided nature of the vote (the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3 ) absolutely pertains to your point. “nuh uh, that does not pertain to my point” as an excuse to avoid discussing it simply does come from a place of honesty or intelligence.

No, that's your talking point, and you're welcome to it. I don't care to discuss that. Too bad you can't make me discuss what you want, but then, the left's idea of free speech is only speech they agree with, so right in character.

I have to assume you don’t know what a fact is because I’ve ignored no facts.

You can assume whatever you need to bolster your narrative. It's not like you haven't all along anyway, so no change there.

When you pointed out that Trump certainly could veto something that passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3, I acknowledged you were correct and clarified my point. Ignoring facts is like when you ignore me repeatedly telling you “intent is in the statute”

You get to clarify your point, then I do as well. I did clarify it in that section (f) of that statute does not require intent, and it was in fact the section of the statute that Hillary violated. Again, called facts Vern, even if they don't agree with your narrative, political ideology or your political agenda, it doesn't matter. They are still facts, like it or not.

or “ Bush was not president in 2000”. And shock of shocks, look how you create a narrative (“doesn’t pertain to my point) to ignore the fact that the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3 to block trump from removing the sanctions. That’s what “ignoring facts” looks like.

And you have to ignore it because it doesn't agree with your narrative. So to sum up you've literally accused me of exactly what you do.

Who do you think caused me to take such a stance by following their example?

 

[Vern]

Let me just ignore the parts where you again whine about me and focus on these nuggets.

All I stated was that Trump signed the bill. It's called a fact Vern. I know you don't like it when they don't agree with your narrative.

You got me eorhn, Trump did sign the bill. Wait, when did I say Trump didn't sign the bill? Oh, I didn't. But speaking "not liking it when they don't agree with your narrative", remember how when I added the context that the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. You ignored it and you ignored the purpose of the bill (to block trump from removing sanctions). You repeatedly ignored those facts and then finally posted the overwhelmingly lopsided vote to block trump “doesn’t pertain to my point." (see how I can use a real example of you ignoring facts not some delusional or dishonest example?). Read this slowly and as many times as necessary: Trump signing the bill in no way disputes that the republican congress thought it was critical to stop himfrom removing the sanctions. You just keep ignoring he had no choice and why the republican congress did it.

There are parts of that which have been disproven. Again, it's called a fact Vern. I know you don't like it when they don't agree with your narrative.

I don't mean to be "hyper technical" but you posted an editorial that showed 1 thing disproven. Lets pretend your editorial is correct (after all it was a Daily Caller editorial) you keep ignoring it confirmed 4 things as true. Your point was "debunked or will be debunked." Not "some parts debunked and some parts confirmed". and of course the editorial left parts as "unsubstantiated" that were "substantiated"(after all it was a Daily Caller editorial). Points such as the republican platform was changed to Putin's liking and Trump attacked nato. And don't forget, concern about trump's integrity was the reason the republican congress passed a bill 98-2 in the senate and 419-3 in the house to block him from removing the sanctions. Oh look, we've gone full circle. Yea, you keep trying to ignore the facts and keep trying to deflect by accusing me of exactly what you do.

No, that's your talking point, and you're welcome to it. I don't care to discuss that.

Yes, we know. You again prove you want to ignore facts that don't agree with your narrative.

 

[eohrnberger]

Let me just ignore the parts where you again whine about me and focus on these nuggets.



You got me eorhn, Trump did sign the bill. Wait, when did I say Trump didn't sign the bill? Oh, I didn't. But speaking "not liking it when they don't agree with your narrative", remember how when I added the context that the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. You ignored it and you ignored the purpose of the bill (to block trump from removing sanctions). You repeatedly ignored those facts and then finally posted the overwhelmingly lopsided vote to block trump “doesn’t pertain to my point." (see how I can use a real example of you ignoring facts not some delusional or dishonest example?). Read this slowly and as many times as necessary: Trump signing the bill in no way disputes that the republican congress thought it was critical to stop himfrom removing the sanctions. You just keep ignoring he had no choice and why the republican congress did it.

Well, since we are getting "hyper technical", I'd like to see you prove either of these assertions that you've just made:

• "the republican congress thought it was critical to stop himfrom removing the sanctions."
• That Trump was even considering removing the sanctions from Russia (implied by the above assertion).

Please prove, using reasonable publicly available sources, that either of these assertions of yours have any foundation.

This is, after all as you've claimed, a debate forum, and assertions such as those that you've just made need to be substantiated, and substantiated without mind reading, if you please.

I don't mean to be "hyper technical" but you posted an editorial that showed 1 thing disproven. Lets pretend your editorial is correct (after all it was a Daily Caller editorial) you keep ignoring it confirmed 4 things as true. Your point was "debunked or will be debunked." Not "some parts debunked and some parts confirmed". and of course the editorial left parts as "unsubstantiated" that were "substantiated"(after all it was a Daily Caller editorial). Points such as the republican platform was changed to Putin's liking and Trump attacked nato. And don't forget, concern about trump's integrity was the reason the republican congress passed a bill 98-2 in the senate and 419-3 in the house to block him from removing the sanctions. Oh look, we've gone full circle. Yea, you keep trying to ignore the facts and keep trying to deflect by accusing me of exactly what you do.



Yes, we know. You again prove you want to ignore facts that don't agree with your narrative.

 

[Vern]

Well, since we are getting "hyper technical", I'd like to see you prove either of these assertions that you've just made:

• "the republican congress thought it was critical to stop himfrom removing the sanctions."
• That Trump was even considering removing the sanctions from Russia (implied by the above assertion).

Oh eohrn, the “hyper technical” comment referred to a numeric value. You said parts when it was only one thing. I was just pointing that out. But the point you are happily deflecting from was your false point “debunked or not yet debunked”. Your own editorial “debunked” your “debunked or not yet debunked’ and shock of shocks you’re not still addressing it.

Anyhoo, I’ve already posted a link showing Trump wanted to remove the sanctions, No shock you missed it because you don’t read your own links. And Trump wanting to get rid of them was no mystery to anybody. Again you should question your sources of info if you didn’t know that or that the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. And don’t forget, you hilariously said the overwhelmingly lopsided vote “didn’t pertain to your point.”

President Trump has fiercely resisted more penalties. Finally, however, comes good news: On Thursday, Congress set aside its partisan bickering long enough to perform the civic duty that Mr. Trump has ducked, giving final passage to legislation imposing sweeping new sanctions on Russia and sharply limiting Mr. Trump’s ability to suspend new and existing ones. The Senate approved it by a 98-to-2 vote, following a similar, resounding 419-to-3 vote in the House.

House overwhelmingly passes Russia sanctions bill - CNNPolitics

Please prove, using reasonable publicly available sources, that either of these assertions of yours have any foundation.

Says the guy who still believes “classified info belongs on the unsecure .gov server.” And what was that based on? Oh yea, wishful thinking. But at least you are admitting you hold me to a higher standard that you hold yourself. And you’re admitting to something else.

Who do you think caused me to take such a stance by following their example?

You’ve just admitted you dishonestly ignore facts and you think its okay because you think I do it. Read this slowly: “wah wah you do it too” is just you admitting you do it. You cant “admit” I did something. And I don’t think you’ll ever understand how truly conservative your “vern made me do it” is.

 

[eohrnberger]

Oh eohrn, the “hyper technical” comment referred to a numeric value. You said parts when it was only one thing. I was just pointing that out. But the point you are happily deflecting from was your false point “debunked or not yet debunked”. Your own editorial “debunked” your “debunked or not yet debunked’ and shock of shocks you’re not still addressing it.

Anyhoo, I’ve already posted a link showing Trump wanted to remove the sanctions, No shock you missed it because you don’t read your own links. And Trump wanting to get rid of them was no mystery to anybody. Again you should question your sources of info if you didn’t know that or that the bill passed the senate 98-2 and the house 419-3. And don’t forget, you hilariously said the overwhelmingly lopsided vote “didn’t pertain to your point.”

President Trump has fiercely resisted more penalties. Finally, however, comes good news: On Thursday, Congress set aside its partisan bickering long enough to perform the civic duty that Mr. Trump has ducked, giving final passage to legislation imposing sweeping new sanctions on Russia and sharply limiting Mr. Trump’s ability to suspend new and existing ones. The Senate approved it by a 98-to-2 vote, following a similar, resounding 419-to-3 vote in the House.

House overwhelmingly passes Russia sanctions bill - CNNPolitics



Says the guy who still believes “classified info belongs on the unsecure .gov server.” And what was that based on? Oh yea, wishful thinking. But at least you are admitting you hold me to a higher standard that you hold yourself. And you’re admitting to something else.


You’ve just admitted you dishonestly ignore facts and you think its okay because you think I do it. Read this slowly: “wah wah you do it too” is just you admitting you do it. You cant “admit” I did something. And I don’t think you’ll ever understand how truly conservative your “vern made me do it” is.

None the less, the fact remains that the president signed the Russian sanction legislation into law when there were a number of veto options available to him, which was my point the entire time.

 

[Vern]

None the less, the fact remains that the president signed the Russian sanction legislation into law when there were a number of veto options available to him, which was my point the entire time.

I don't know what "veto options" mean but none the less, the fact remains that the president wants to do what Putin wants him to do.

White House says there’s no need for new Russia sanctions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.f5ae2f8392e7

Must be hard to be a conservative, always believing things that turn out to be lies, lacking the integrity to admit it, calling yourself an "other". People just don't appreciate the hardships.

 

[Vern]

oops wrong thread