Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Surtur
Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta

"The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort's role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA."

Weird. A non-story probably. On the other hand for certain folk it's certainly not a non-story whenever Mueller acts on some shit. Nice.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur


for months you've been trying to discredit mueller and the investigation as it concerned the trump administration.
as usual you will see no deflective cucking from the left, as you have demonstrated consistently. keep tryharding while not recognising your own clownish hypocrisy.

#ohsquirt

Raisen
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
for months you've been trying to discredit mueller and the investigation as it concerned the trump administration.
as usual you will see no deflective cucking from the left, as you have demonstrated consistently. keep tryharding while not recognising your own clownish hypocrisy.

#ohsquirt

how you doing buddy? I just saw blade runner 2049

Bashar Teg
oh?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
for months you've been trying to discredit mueller and the investigation as it concerned the trump administration.
as usual you will see no deflective cucking from the left, as you have demonstrated consistently. keep tryharding while not recognising your own clownish hypocrisy.

#ohsquirt

Lol you just deflected dipshit.

Bashar Teg
nope. just pointed out OP's laughable hypocrisy.

but as i already stated, i support mueller's investigation and trust his integrity. now.what?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope. just pointed out OP's laughable hypocrisy.

but as i already stated, i support mueller's investigation and trust his integrity. now.what?

You deflected, whined about other shit. Too funny. What a dipstick.

For me this is awesome either way. Either we denounce Mueller and all he has done, or we acknowledge the importance of shit he looks into, all the shit.

Bashar Teg
i just directly addressed the topic with finality, you posturing boy.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i just directly addressed the topic with finality, you posturing boy.

You whined like a dipshit too though. You whined in order to try to make this topic about your whining. Your pals will come in and pounce on it, it'll be funny.

Bashar Teg
oh squirt

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
oh squirt

So Mueller: to be taken seriously or no? To be fair, if the Uranium One thing turns out true I'll come say this is bullshit.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
So Mueller: to be taken seriously or no? To be fair, if the Uranium One thing turns out true I'll come say this is bullshit.

i already answered that. learn to read, squirt.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i already answered that. learn to read, squirt.

Why couldn't you respond without whining?

But we can be real: for months dipshits here presented this f*ckhead as a revenant. Well, is he revenant'ing now?

Bashar Teg
I'm not even sure at this point what variety of strawman you're trying to make of me. you're just ridiculous.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I'm not even sure at this point what variety of strawman you're trying to make of me. you're just ridiculous.

Your deflections have been noted.

How much MSM coverage do you feel this will get? More or less than Trump getting an extra ice cream scoop?

Rockydonovang
Surt, "deflection" would indicate Bashar hasn't already addressed your question but lo and behold:

It's time to move on.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Surt, "deflection" would indicate Bashar hasn't already addressed your question but lo and behold:

It's time to move on.

After he deflected lol. Do you deny his first post was a deflection? We can move on as soon as you say it was, since you felt the need to weigh in. People who constantly whine about deflections need theirs noted, I'd say.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
After he deflected lol. Do you deny his first post was a deflection? We can move on as soon as you say it was, since you felt the need to weigh in. People who constantly whine about deflections need theirs noted, I'd say.
Not really, his first post was a direct response to what you said:

Directly addressing a point you're making is the opposite of a deflection.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not really, his first post was a direct response to what you said:

Directly addressing a point you're making is the opposite of a deflection.

He directly responded to one thing and ignored the main topic. The main "point" as you'd say.

That's a deflection. Are you sadly going to continue to defend this? Since when you ignore the main point and focus on something that wasn't the main point in order to talk shit, that's a deflection.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
He directly responded to one thing and ignored the main topic. The main "point" as you'd say.

When I first read your post, I also interpreted the "on the other hand for certain folk..."to be your main point. Furthermore you weren't very specific in your op about what you wanted the discussion to be about. There's a wide range of possible points or comments one can make in relation to an article you post.

There's a difference between saying something about a genral topic and responding to a direct point.

When you asked Bashar a specific question, he directly responded to you. Granted, while he was answering, he also did "talk sh!t", but that's different from ignoring your point which would imply he didn't respond to what you were saying when he definitely did:


In the same post as he "talked sh!t", he also answered your question. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Surtur
Dude, the title of the thread is about Mueller investigating Tony Podesta.

You desperately trying to act like it wasn't a deflection is...well, what?

In the same post he talked shit he answered? This post he talked shit in:

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
for months you've been trying to discredit mueller and the investigation as it concerned the trump administration.
as usual you will see no deflective cucking from the left, as you have demonstrated consistently. keep tryharding while not recognising your own clownish hypocrisy.

#ohsquirt

Are you gonna continue to cuck for him?

Rockydonovang
Quote and respond to me point by point so that you specifically address what I say.

Elaborating on your own position is not the same as countering mine.

Surtur
You spewed a bunch of nonsense. The main point of the thread is clear, it's about Tony Podesta.

Did you want to continue to cuck?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
The main point of the thread is clear, it's about Tony Podesta.

Did you want to continue to cuck? Tony Pedesta isn't a point, it's a topic, one of multiple that are touched on in the article you posted.

Mueller is also directly mentioned in your OP so it's fair for Bashar to talk about Mueller.

Additionally Bashar did directly address a point that you made in your Op. A deflection is when you address something that is unrelated to the topic or ignore and respond or elaborate about something that is unrelated to a specific point another user makes. What Bashar said was direct response to something you said.

BackFire
Good. This should be a nonpartisan issue. Democrat or Republican, if you did something shady in regards to the election Mueller should go after them.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Tony Pedesta isn't a point, it's a topic, one of multiple that are touched on in the article you posted.

Mueller is also directly mentioned in your OP so it's fair for Bashar to talk about Mueller.

Additionally Bashar did directly address a point that you made in your Op. A deflection is when you address something that is unrelated to the topic or ignore and respond or elaborate about something that is unrelated to a specific point another user makes. What Bashar said was direct response to something you said.

Holy shit dude. The topic is about Tony Podesta. This person ignored everything else and quoted a throw away comment made at the end of my post, ignoring everything else, the meat of the topic.

That's deflecting.

Or if you want to get specific I guess I don't know what you'd call it, cowardly ducking the main reason of the thread in order to focus on one thing to whine about? Would that work?

Rockydonovang
Anyway Surtur as I've directly responded to you on Bashar's debating ettiquite multiple times now, I'm going to address something you said of substance:

Check the source of the article you posted.

And no, it's not going to get as much coverage as Trump's investigation because Trump is the president of the United States.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Anyway Surtur as I've directly responded to you on Bashar's debating ettiquite multiple times now, I'm going to address something you said of substance:

Check the source of the article you posted.

And no, it's not going to get as much coverage as Trump's investigation because Trump is the president of the United States.

You responded in not so sufficient ways, but indeed you did respond.

Okay so I asked how much it will get. I didn't say it'd get zero, since...I know the source I posted.

Will it get as much coverage as if this were a republican? I'd never dream of as much coverage as the Trump investigation lol, holy shit how much blood magic would it take for that to happen?

Surtur
Originally posted by BackFire
Good. This should be a nonpartisan issue. Democrat or Republican, if you did something shady in regards to the election Mueller should go after them.

Indeed, he should look into that Uranium One thing too.

BackFire
Perhaps he has, or will.

Surtur
Originally posted by BackFire
Perhaps he has, or will.

I'm messing with you, he can't. He was in charge of the FBI during that lol. He'd be partially investigating himself.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
Holy shit dude. The topic is about Tony Podesta. ]
More accurately, it's about Mueller investigating Podesta.
Originally posted by Surtur
This person ignored everything else and quoted a throw away comment made at the end of my post, ignoring everything else, the meat of the topic.

Mueller's investigations are relevant to a thread about Mueller investigating someone.

And that "throw away" comment happens to be the only point you made in the Op

Originally posted by Surtur
Or if you want to get specific I guess I don't know what you'd call it, cowardly ducking the main reason of the thread in order to focus on one thing to whine about? Would that work?
You never stated a reason for the thread.

When you clarified, Bashar answered you directly.

Anyway, I'll respond to the question so I'm also not accused of deflecting.

I don't have an issue with Mueller investigating Podesta.

BackFire
Oh ok.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
More accurately, it's about Mueller investigating Podesta.

Mueller's investigations are relevant to a thread about Mueller investigating someone.

And that "throw away" comment happens to be the only point you made in the Op


You never stated a reason for the thread.

When you clarified, Bashar answered you directly.

Anyway, I'll respond to the question so I'm also not accused of deflecting.

I don't have an issue with Mueller investigating Podesta.

Holy shit, you know the point of the thread and so did he(it's why he quoted only that part lol). Ignoring everything else and focusing on that one comment is no better than the shit these people whine about.

It's why him whining about hypocrisy is especially funny.

PS: You didn't deflect, you just complained about someone else's deflection being called out. So you don't have to worry about deflection accusations.

Surtur
Originally posted by BackFire
Oh ok.

Wait, since he was in charge he probably knew so technically at one point he "investigated" and didn't care, if the story is true.

Ha yeah that's a devastating potential reality actually.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
Holy shit, you know the point of the thread and so did he(it's why he quoted only that part lol). Ignoring everything else and focusing on that one comment is no better than the shit these people whine about.


Surtur, the point Bashar directly addressed also happened to be the only point you made in the op:

That is, by default, the main point of your OP.
Originally posted by Surtur
PS: You didn't deflect, you just complained about someone else's deflection being called out. So you don't have to worry about deflection accusations.
angel

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Surtur, the point Bashar directly addressed also happened to be the only point you made in the op:

That is, by default, the main point of your OP.

angel

Dude, the point was obviously the story I posted. Did you want to continue this back and forth where you pretend otherwise? How much longer did you intend to cuck here?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
Dude, the point was obviously the story I posted. A story is just a story until you make a point about it.

You made one point about the story in the OP and Bashar directly addressed it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
A story is just a story until you make a point about it.

You made one point about the story in the OP and Bashar directly addressed it.

Okay man, whatever way you need to justify this cucking.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Surtur
Deflection
no expression

Bentley
Just take the loss Surtur. This is painful to read and undermines your accusation of reflection terribly (as if you cared about people addressing the topic you shouldn't specifically dance around something entirely unrelated for pages).

Bashar Teg
oh my! looks like i picked the wrong night to turn in at responsible hour. epic meltdown.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Surtur
After he deflected lol. Do you deny his first post was a deflection? We can move on as soon as you say it was, since you felt the need to weigh in. People who constantly whine about deflections need theirs noted, I'd say. You are the one whining and you come off worse with every post. Chin up and quit crying there.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Bentley
Just take the loss Surtur. This is painful to read and undermines your accusation of reflection terribly (as if you cared about people addressing the topic you shouldn't specifically dance around something entirely unrelated for pages). Surtur was raped by a democrat years ago. I believe he thinks it was Hillary. She overpowered him and forced him to pleasure her.

Bashar Teg
nicccce

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
for months you've been trying to discredit mueller and the investigation as it concerned the trump administration.
as usual you will see no deflective cucking from the left, as you have demonstrated consistently. keep tryharding while not recognising your own clownish hypocrisy.

#ohsquirt

Let me get this right. He raged and ranted about Mueller's bias against the GOP and Trump but when Mueller starts investigating a Dem, all of a sudden, Surtur is a fool for being interested in it? He seems rather level headed and not so gloaty in the OP. I think your reaction is overblown. Are you pissed that Mueller is coming after someone in your party? Is that why you're reacting like this?

Also, are you going to join the scream fest with the rest of the libtards on Trump's anniversary?


Originally posted by quanchi112
Surtur was raped by a democrat years ago. I believe he thinks it was Hillary. She overpowered him and forced him to pleasure her.

laughing





As for the rest of the thread, Backfire posted what I would have. So just read his post for my opinion.

Also, Raisen, I enjoyed Blade Runner 2049 a lot. It was great. One thing that really stood out was the absurdly excellent cinematography.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
oh my! looks like i picked the wrong night to turn in at responsible hour. epic meltdown.

Lol, this is an epic meltdown to you? What was your 30+ page thing be categorized as then? What comes after epic?

Surtur
Originally posted by quanchi112
Surtur was raped by a democrat years ago. I believe he thinks it was Hillary. She overpowered him and forced him to pleasure her.

Well when there is a good burn...there is a good burn. And this was good. lol.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
Let me get this right. He raged and ranted about Mueller's bias against the GOP and Trump but when Mueller starts investigating a Dem, all of a sudden, Surtur is a fool for being interested in it? He seems rather level headed and not so gloaty in the OP. I think your reaction is overblown. Are you pissed that Mueller is coming after someone in your party? Is that why you're reacting like this?

Also, are you going to join the scream fest with the rest of the libtards on Trump's anniversary?

Indeed and my "ranting and raging" was saying "If this Uranium One thing is true that's a big deal" lol. He was in charge of the FBI then. There is a conflict of interest if true.

As for being interested in this, yeah, it is interesting. I don't know if it's true or if anything will come of it. I'm waiting for this Uranium One thing to either prove to be worth nothing or to get interesting. It's hard to know what to believe with this guy.

Bashar Teg
why don't you whine for another 8 pages about how i'm deflecting your question that i already answered on page 1. smile

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
why don't you whine for another 8 pages about how i'm deflecting your question that i already answered on page 1. smile

You seem to want people to try to beat your record or something. Weird.

Bashar Teg
today on kmc, surt derails his own thread, blames someone else for it, and then cries about it

Robtard
LoL, Surtur REALLY shit the bed in this thread and it's his own bed/thread. Wow. How embarrassing.

Anyhow, it was expected that Mueller's investigation could/would lead him in other directions, if he needs to investigate Podesta for something related, so be it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
today on kmc, surt derails his own thread, blames someone else for it, and then cries about it

Cling to it bro, it might erase those 30+ pages of rage.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
blah blah 30 pages, i'm very butthurt right now

keep derailing your own topic, genius. laughing out loud

Robtard
Remember this thread next time Surtur's dragging R. Swan Mueller through the mud cos something not good for Trump came out. Remember.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
keep derailing your own topic, genius. laughing out loud

Dude it's just a topic on a message board lol. Settle down.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Remember this thread next time Surtur's dragging R. Swan Mueller through the mud cos something not good for Trump came out. Remember.

Notice I never even said "this automatically means something nefarious happened" though.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
Dude it's just a topic on a message board lol. Settle down.

"haha i just trol u. y u serious". (after melting down and derailing his own topic)

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Notice I never even said "this automatically means something nefarious happened" though.
^

Still trying to force a win when it's obvious to all he really shit the bed and the doodoo is everywhere

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"haha i just trol u. y u serious". (after melting down and derailing his own topic)

I never said I was trolling you. But you said "you derailed a thread" like it was a huge deal. I know you have 30 page meltdowns and all, it's okay man.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, Surtur REALLY shit the bed in this thread and it's his own bed/thread. Wow. How embarrassing.


This is extremely low effort trolling on your part...but...it works on Surts haermm

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
^

Still trying to force a win when it's obvious to all he really shit the bed and the doodoo is everywhere

So saying that I never said this meant guilt is trying to "force a win"? Okay.

Bashar Teg

Robtard
@surtur Your intentions in here are obvious to all, so why continue to flail around in your shit covered bed instead of taking the loss and cleaning yourself up with some eWetnaps?

Originally posted by Surtur

Weird. A non-story probably. On the other hand for certain folk it's certainly not a non-story whenever Mueller acts on some shit. Nice.

Surtur

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
@surtur Your intentions in here are obvious to all, so why continue to flail around in your shit covered bed instead of taking the loss and cleaning yourself up with some eWetnaps?

My intent was to show a story of him going about lobbyist Tony Podesta, indeed. Guilt or innocence didn't factor in.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
I guess your response is strange to me. I don't really mind how the thread is going.

happy and amused that you shit the bed? doubt it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
happy and amused that you shit the bed? doubt it.

Hmm? Quan got in a funny line, all around I don't mind it. Its just a thread bro.

Bashar Teg
glad we finally reached the final act in your standard meltdown, where you try to convince everyone that you were not having an emotional crisis.


https://i.imgur.com/Zp3mXpe.png

Surtur
You remind me of that one cop from Dark Knight Rises, Matthew Modine.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
My intent was to show a story of him going about lobbyist Tony Podesta, indeed. Guilt or innocence didn't factor in.

Your intent was and continues to be clear to all, your OP tells it, so continue to:

https://i.imgur.com/ITD0oKD.gif

Surtur
Nice.

Bashar Teg
accurate thumb up

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
not a thread. YOU'RE thread.

Never has a spelling mistake ever been so embarrassing. You even all-caps'd the mistake as if you were emphasizing your fail. "Guys, look. I'm an IDIOT!"

This is what you get for correcting a spelling mistake I made 6 years ago in the GDF. lol laugh

Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/j2Tkp6X.gif

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
Never has a spelling mistake ever been so embarrassing. You even all-caps'd the mistake as if you were emphasizing your fail. "Guys, look. I'm an IDIOT!"

This is what you get for correcting a spelling mistake I made 6 years ago in the GDF. lol laugh

laughing

Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/m3G9PWcm.jpg

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/j2Tkp6X.gif

I do love Bashy the Angry Little Monkey.


wink

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/m3G9PWcm.jpg

Good one, I guess?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/m3G9PWcm.jpg

It's okay, buddy, you tried to retort. But you may be a bit drunk because you weren't arguing with me, at all.

Put down the sauce. Come back when you're sober.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's okay, buddy, you tried to retort. But you may be a bit drunk because you weren't arguing with me, at all.

Put down the sauce. Come back when you're sober.

Uh Oh! Is Bashy gonna get banned for a month for making Drug Fueled Drunk Induced Rants Now!?

confused

dadudemon
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Uh Oh! Is Bashy gonna get banned for a month for making Drug Fueled Drunk Induced Rants Now!?

confused

He just complains about how I ruin everything when he gets drunk. A bit sad, really. I'm fairly harmless.

Surtur
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Uh Oh! Is Bashy gonna get banned for a month for making Drug Fueled Drunk Induced Rants Now!?

confused

Ban him for a month? Bada might as well take the razor blade to Bash's wrists himself then.

Bashar Teg
#projecting

Surtur
Good one.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by dadudemon
Let me get this right. He raged and ranted about Mueller's bias against the GOP and Trump but when Mueller starts investigating a Dem, all of a sudden, Surtur is a fool for being interested in it? He seems rather level headed and not so gloaty in the OP. I think your reaction is overblown. Are you pissed that Mueller is coming after someone in your party? Is that why you're reacting like this?

You seem to have missed Bashar's point. Surt doesn't take Mueller investigating Trump seriously, but takes an interest in him investigating a democrat and then tries to use it to expose our double standards.

Off course, when he actually pressed any left leaning forumer, we all unanimously said we're fine with Mueller investigating Podesta which leaves Surtur with nothing to "expose" in order to try and attack our credibility.

So instead Surtur tries to attack Bashar's credibility by complaining about how bashar's first post was a defelction even though it was a direct response to a point Surtur made in the op. In other words, literally the opposite of a deflection.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Surtur
Ban him for a month? Bada might as well take the razor blade to Bash's wrists himself then.

We should just be grateful that Bashy don't post as much as he used to. Dont' want to confuse him with people Like You Surt!!!!!! People might start thinking that if his daily post count gets to high he is an unemployed basement dweller that is a drug addicted loser.

Nope. WE SURE DON'T WANT THAT!!!!!!


cool

Bashar Teg
you guys need to lick eachother's wounds and penises some more, or are we good for now?

quanchi112
Surtur really is the worst.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Surt doesn't take Mueller investigating Trump seriously, but takes an interest in him investigating a democrat...

The second part of your sentence should be, "Because the democrats were getting very hot and bothered when Mueller was pursuing GOP people."

Of course PVS would say that he trusts Mueller and his integrity: he'd have no foundation and Surtur could say "gotcha." PVS is the type that would allow his house to burn down just to get one up on Surtur or someone like Surtur, on the internet.

Let me put it a different way: PVS would still state that if the entire democratic party was taken down but Mueller. He absolutely will never stand for losing his "internet integrity."

His response was just to be combative. It was tripe. It wasn't until Surtur called him out on it that PVS realized he was about to lose his internet cred and went all in on Mueller's dick. It's a constant e-peen battle between Surt and Team-PVS/Robtard.

Bashar Teg

Surtur
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You seem to have missed Bashar's point. Surt doesn't take Mueller investigating Trump seriously, but takes an interest in him investigating a democrat and then tries to use it to expose our double standards.

Off course, when he actually pressed any left leaning forumer, we all unanimously said we're fine with Mueller investigating Podesta which leaves Surtur with nothing to "expose" in order to try and attack our credibility.

So instead Surtur tries to attack Bashar's credibility by complaining about how bashar's first post was a defelction even though it was a direct response to a point Surtur made in the op. In other words, literally the opposite of a deflection.

Keep cucking for him, you're doing a good job.

We can continue to ignore the main point of the thread wasn't that, but the Podesta thing. A throwaway comment was seized upon in order to b*tch and moan. Did you want to continue? Type a few more paragraphs about it.

Surtur
Originally posted by quanchi112
Surtur really is the worst.

LOL! I just have this image of a 12 yr. old child(of very short stature), hands stuffed in pockets, staring down at the ground kicking the dirt going "Surtur is the worst".

Did you want to throw in an "Awww shucks!" at the end?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*has nothing to respond with so just tries to troll*

Riveting contribution, dear chap!

quanchi112
Originally posted by Surtur
LOL! I just have this image of a 12 yr. old child(of very short stature), hands stuffed in pockets, staring down at the ground kicking the dirt going "Surtur is the worst".

Did you want to throw in an "Awww shucks!" at the end? Another unfunny post from the worst.

Bashar Teg
today on KMC: malignant narcissist seeks attention, continues to be ignored, gets madder.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
today on KMC: malignant narcissist seeks attention, continues to be ignored, gets madder.

I don't think people are ignoring you.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't think people are ignoring you.

In general, I do. He usually just trolls. Nothing much to contribute.

Lestov16
Originally posted by Surtur
You deflected, whined about other shit. Too funny. What a dipstick.

For me this is awesome either way. Either we denounce Mueller and all he has done, or we acknowledge the importance of shit he looks into, all the shit.

Pretty sure Bashar agreed with the latter option in this post proceeding yours

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
... i support mueller's investigation and trust his integrity...

So yeah, as Bash stated and I agree, Mueller's investigation into Podesta is valid, as well as his investigation into Trump.

It's only in your warped biased conspiracy theory mindset that Democrats are hypocritically denouncing Mueller's Podesta investigation, which is the reason you made this thread, as Bash pointed out. Of course, him pointing it out is the reason you got mad and childishly called him a dipstick out of insecure immaturity (just like Trump...).

I must say, you have learned the art of conspiracy theories, juvenile retorts, and biased thinking very well from Time "Jade Helm" Immemorial.

Flyattractor
Good Stuff

yIHAD0u7DWc

Firefly218
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Good Stuff

yIHAD0u7DWc Wow, apparently the Clinton campaign paid for opposition research instead of taking the traditional course of having Russia do it.

Flyattractor
Oh I am sure it was money "Stolen" from their Charity Foundation.

Robtard
Originally posted by Firefly218
Wow, apparently the Clinton campaign paid for opposition research instead of taking the traditional course of having Russia do it.

So if I got this correctly, it seems the Steele Dossier was first funded by Republicans opposing Trump, then Clinton/Dems took it over after Trump won the nomination, yeah?

Two things:

1) Is this illegal, paying for detective-style work of an opponent?

2) Does paying for it automatically mean that what's in the dossier is fake?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Robtard
So if I got this correctly, it seems the Steele Dossier was first funded by Republicans opposing Trump, then Clinton/Dems took it over after Trump won the nomination, yeah?

Two things:

1) Is this illegal, paying for detective-style work of an opponent?

2) Does paying for it automatically mean that what's in the dossier is fake?

No.
No.

Robtard
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No.
No.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jgDA1ZN1--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/m9nskznheq5ly0bbakpq.gif

Bashar Teg
"intention" it's called

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
Wow, apparently the Clinton campaign paid for opposition research instead of taking the traditional course of having Russia do it.

But they swore up and down they had nothing to do with the dossier. Weird. Then when someone from the NYT dares point it out some leftists freak out over it. Yet it's always said it's the Trumpers who can't handle when people talk bad about Trump.

Now, I realize you feel Trump lies and you can't trust him. But there is no valid reason to put any trust in the other side either at this point lol.

Just reinforces my "both sides are shit" idea.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
But they swore up and down they had nothing to do with the dossier. Weird. Then when someone from the NYT dares point it out some leftists freak out over it. Yet it's always said it's the Trumpers who can't handle when people talk bad about Trump.

Now, I realize you feel Trump lies and you can't trust him. But there is no valid reason to put any trust in the other side either at this point lol.

Just reinforces my "both sides are shit" idea.

^

LoL @ distancing himself now

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
^

LoL @ distancing himself now

Lol @ acting like this is the first time I've said it. Nothing else to say after this hilarious exposure of these lying little shits?

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol @ acting like this is the first time I've said it.

Nothing else to say after this hilarious exposure of these lying little shits?

Pointing out your silly tactics is humorous to me.

Oh yeah, impeach them both smile

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Pointing out your silly tactics is humorous to me.

Oh yeah, impeach them both smile

I can relate, it's how I feel when I point out yours.

Robtard
So to get this straight:

-What team Clinton did is shit

-What Junior/Kushner/Manafort (on Trump's orders if we're being honest and not massive phaggots) did is okay

Do I have this correct? If not, explain in detail

Surtur
That's up to you, either gathering opposition research is okay or it's not.

Surtur
So here is what happens Rob: either what both did are okay are both are shit.

You need to choose. Prove you can see both sides for what they are. Or prove you aren't to be taken seriously.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
-That "foreign agent" wasn't connected to a foreign government, he is a private citizen

-Junior met on the grounds that the Russian lawyer had "dirt" on daddy's political rival and that the Russian lawyer was explicitly connected with the Russian government and working on their behalf; the email exchange clearly spells this out

Come on, you really have to try better than this, too easy to counter

Name the law Jr. broke. Or would have broken. I'm dead serious, just name it.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Name the law Jr. broke. Or would have broken. I'm dead serious, just name it.

IOW: "Solve the case for Mueller right now or it's a nothing burger!"

You've tried this silly tactic before, I'm no eLawyer; I leave that to you.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "Solve the case for Mueller right now or it's a nothing burger!"

You've tried this silly tactic before, I'm no eLawyer; I leave that to you.

Who said solve the case? If Trump Jr. committed a crime CITE THE CRIME.

What did he do that was illegal? If you don't know if it was illegal, then this "is what clinton did legal?" is pointless, because you don't have any illegal behavior of Trump Jrs to contrast that with. So if you're basing your argument solely on legalities it fails.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
So here is what happens Rob: either what both did are okay are both are shit.

You need to choose. Prove you can see both sides for what they are. Or prove you aren't to be taken seriously.

-One is hiring what amounts to a private investigator

-One amounts to possible collusion with a foreign government, or the intent to do so


What you're doing now is equalization tactics, because you realize one is actually potentially far more damaging so you try and make them be equal as a means to lesson the blow on the side you're biased towards. You did similar in the Charlottesville thread in regards to the Neo Nazi/White Nationals and the people protesting against them.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
-One is hiring what amounts to a private investigator

-One amounts to possible collusion with a foreign government, or the intent to do so


What you're doing now is equalization tactics, because you realize one is actually potentially far more damaging so you try and make them be equal as a means to lesson the blow on the side you're biased towards. You did similar in the Charlottesville thread in regards to the Neo Nazi/White Nationals and the people protesting against them.

Rob, neither of the things you mentioned are illegal though. Being shady and being illegal aren't always the same thing.

So if you want to play this out with "is it illegal?!" it makes no sense.

IOW: If LEGALITY is what matters, neither did anything wrong.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, neither of the things you mentioned are illegal though. Being shady and being illegal aren't always the same thing.

So if you want to play this out with "is it illegal?!" it makes no sense.

IOW: If LEGALITY is what matters, neither did anything wrong.

Well then, I'm sure Mueller's thrown out the Junior/Kushner/Manafort meeting in Trump tower while Trump was there himself and you can stop shitting the bed over it finally thumb up

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Well then, I'm sure Mueller's thrown out the Junior/Kushner/Manafort meeting in Trump tower while Trump was there himself and you can stop shitting the bed over it finally thumb up

I don't think Mueller ever was interested because of illegality, I think he just thought it would be part of a much larger puzzle.

Nobody has explained why it'd be illegal to be told "hey, your opponent is colluding" and then meet to get the information. I don't even think Jr. wanted it because he thought it would land Hilary in jail, but because he thought it would hurt the campaign.

If it's okay to dig for dirt then hey...it's okay to dig for dirt.

Robtard
I'm glad you have such insights into Mueller's brain. Me personally, I take the word of the legal experts and Judge Napolitano has said that the Junior/Kushner/Manafort meeting is not good from a legal standpoint. Not good at all.

But it's refreshing that you seem to have finally moved onto the next expected phase, the "who cares if team Trump colluded". Earlier than expected, I must say.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm glad you have such insights into Mueller's brain. Me personally, I take the word of the legal experts and Judge Napolitano has said that the Junior/Kushner/Manafort meeting is not good from a legal standpoint. Not good at all.

But it's refreshing that you seem to have finally moved onto the next expected phase, the "who cares if team Trump colluded". Earlier than expected, I must say.

Other legal experts(like liberal Alan Dershowitz) have said nothing done was illegal.

So you take the words of legal experts that support your own narrative, would be a more correct thing to say.

I also never said "who cares if they colluded". What I said was if it's just about legalities...nothing wrong was done.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Other legal experts(like liberal Alan Dershowitz) have said nothing done was illegal.

So you take the words of legal experts that support your own narrative, would be a more correct thing to say.

I also never said "who cares if they colluded". What I said was if it's just about legalities...nothing wrong was done.

Who is that?

Oh the irony and you won't even see it.

Okay, many I jumped the gun. It's coming though.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Who is that?

Oh the irony and you won't even see it.

Okay, many I jumped the gun. It's coming though.

He is a lawyer and scholar of constitutional law. Also a liberal. Here is what he says about Trump Jr.

b6ncaKNnMWI

IOW, if they encouraged the Russians to go get this information it would be different. Merely accepting something the Russians got on their own is not, which makes sense doesn't it?

Robtard
So you'll take the words of legal experts, even liberals, only if they support your narrative?

Surtur
Rob, it's not about taking his word, his reasoning does make sense to me, I'm not suggesting he is automatically correct.

So why not post the legal reasons the experts you saw said this was illegal? I would avoid anyone who said this was treason, but feel free to use them too.

I am waiting to be told what law was broken. Mueller isn't finished, I am asking what law was broken based on what we know.

BackFire
I must launch my own investigation into who, oh who, 2142 could be.

Surtur
Originally posted by BackFire
I must launch my own investigation into who, oh who, 2142 could be.

After you finish investigating who Steve Zodiac is, no doubt.

BackFire
I have concluded both of my investigations.

My conclusion is that I don't care.

Surtur
Originally posted by BackFire
I have concluded both of my investigations.

My conclusion is that I don't care.

^^Reasonable.

Bashar Teg
and what if it wasn't reasonable? what would you do about it?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
and what if it wasn't reasonable? what would you do about it?

Call it out.

Bashar Teg
yes i know



over and over, but then what?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes i know



over and over, but then what?

The fact this person had socks banned but one who trolled often and had them banned and then came back and was allowed to post would indeed be an example of "rules for thee but not for me", you are correct.

Bashar Teg
uh huh but then what? what if they said "yes. rules for you and not for me. you are correct."
you gonna report them to the BBB? what would be your course of action besides uninterrupted whining?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
uh huh but then what? what if they said "yes. rules for you and not for me.
you are correct." you gonna report them to the BBB? what would be your course of action besides uninterrupted whining?

There is no "then what". After that the rules are either applied or they are not.

socool8520
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
uh huh but then what? what if they said "yes. rules for you and not for me. you are correct."
you gonna report them to the BBB? what would be your course of action besides uninterrupted whining?

Well if this were the case, it would at least be nice to know the bias beforehand.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.