It wasn't a hoax

Why do you avoid facts?

 

When I see someone say the phrase it isn't the hoax it most likely is.

 

I've never doubted your ability to provide links. In fact that's what I was posting about in #301:

But as I've noted, I've followed your rabbit holes before on this topic, and they've always come out empty, which leads me to believe that your "knowledge" of this topic is totally dependent on talking point articles which tells you what it's links say, and you then come here and tell us what you were told the links says, post the links, and feel like a good boy helping the dem machine.

The problem with that is that the propaganda you're spoonfed is meant for simple people who don't want to analyze, they want to be told what to believe. So while your "evidence" might be good enough for you, others want real evidence, and you don't know where or what that is, you only have a link that you were told is the keys to the Russia Collusion kingdom.

 

How do you avoid facts that are never provided.
When you show me a fact we can discuss it

 

We all read it. Where did you think I got the information from.
Mueller has a great way of exagerating nothing into some hope you have been banking on but when its time to lay out the facts, for some reason you and Mueller come up empty handed.
I provided you with what was claimed as Russian election interference. If you have something else to add, add it.

Heres your first hint, sweeping and systematic isn't evidence. Its just an opinion. Sweeping and systematic of what and how was it spread.

 

Not really, there was a lot going on that predicated the investigation. Remember, the bar for investigations is never that high.

 

Vacuous declaration, nonargument.

Please provide an argument to back up your claim.

 

I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.

 

If it didn't, I'd have left a long time ago. It's worth weeding through the nonarguments to get to them, however.

 

OK. I will continue to help you out by pointing that the OP is nuts.

 

Not specific.

"his entire body of work" is a nonargument

To support an argument requires something specific.

Your assert he is not a conservative. That is your argument.

On what, precisely, do you base that claim?

Oh, I made no attempt to end an issue. All of my posts are open ended, take it for granted.

Unless, of course, all you have is a nonargument.

On the prior post, I thought that was a fair assumption.

You haven't proven me wrong, thus far.

 

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rod-rosenstein-testimony-transcript-on-russia-investigation

 

Looks like the man in charge doesn't know much..

 

Can you explain to this committee and the American people why the FBI did nothing regarding that allegation?

 

McCabes transcript
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...w-mccabe-testimony-on-russia-probe-transcript

 

David Frum pimped for the war on Iraq. He has zero credibility.

 

You don't get to dictate the requirements to prove yourself wrong, I base my judgement on his non-conservative status on having several of his works over the years, and, no, I'm not obsessed with the need to prove anything to you so I'm not going to wast e my time going trough his work to prove it.

 

Let's be clear: the Trump campaign colluding with Russia was a hoax; the Clinton Campaign colluding with Russians was not.

"For five years, that’s been the story line. The original claim was that Russians had “cultivated” Mr. Trump as an asset and held blackmail evidence over his head. When those over-the-top accusations fell apart, Democrats shifted to arguing that Mr. Trump and his associates had secretly colluded with the Kremlin to win the election. The press strove mightily to unearth nefarious Trump campaign contacts with Russians, though it came up with little of substance.


Contrast this to the many Russians routinely interacting with Hillary Clinton campaign contractors and surrogates, as documented by Mr. Durham’s latest indictment. Only one of them is the defendant, Igor Danchenko, the Russian national who turns out to have been the primary source for the Steele dossier, and whom Mr. Durham now charges with lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation." (1)

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...ussiagate-durham-danchenko-steele-11636669515

 

Just put everything I write between these two html tags: <suggestion></suggestion>

Don't have a conniption.

Scarborough's a conservative.

I"ve seen no evidence to counter that, and since you make the claim, it's in your ballpark to do something with the ball..

If you can't hit a home run, why step up to the plate? What, you want to chat?

If you don't want to debate, just say so, otherwise, I will assume you do.

On that assumption, if the argument is not there, or if there is no argument, that ball I'm going to call. yeah, I know, I'm not very nice, sorry about that.

NO one says, let alone me, you have to agree with that call, but I'm going to call it, nevertheless. And when I do, if I do, so what?
YOu can either take it, refute it, or leave it. But, if you leave it, why did you step up to the plate in the first place?

And only under the assumption you want to debate. If you don't, don't respond, or just say so, and we can put each other on ignore

 

No, he's not. He's a member of the ruling class with a show on MSNBC. He's not even near the ballpark of conservatism.

 

That outcome is already well understood, so?

But, you forgot to mention this:

Senator Feinstein: (36:53)
You supervised Mueller’s investigation. Please, can you identify for us any findings in Mueller’s 448 page report that rely on information from the Steele dossier?

Rod Rosenstein: (37:09)
I don’t believe there’s any such information.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rod-rosenstein-testimony-transcript-on-russia-investigation