Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!

Southern Chicken said:
The Office could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period[/B].
Click to expand...

Now don't you think in impeachment proceedings, this quesiton is going to come up?

So they'll ask Mueller why Manafort did this, Mueller will say he's not sure, so then someone else is going to have to answer the "why" because that question isn't going to go away.

Also, there's the other question as to why Trump's lawyer reached out to Flynn's lawyer when Trump learned Flynn was cooperating with Mueller?

Again, that's another question that will need to be answered; though we can pretty much surmise the answer since Trump is forbidding McGahn to testify.
 
LV426 said:
Well, that's not a sufficient answer for why Manafort shared the polling data with him.

So why did he do it?

Why did Manafort share polling data for WI, MI, PA and MN with Russia?

You're going to have to answer that question at some point.
Click to expand...

Again- The Office could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data
with Kilimnik during the campaign period.


However, I will let you know if they give me access to the unredacted information and give me two years to investigate.

But until then, There is the HOPE train for you.
 
Last edited:
Southern Chicken said:
HOPE in his eyes. You should keep inspiring the 58 of the 435 members of the house.
Click to expand...

I expect that number rises once y'all answer the question as to why Trump's White House Counsel reached out to Flynn and dangled a pardon upon learning Flynn's cooperation with Mueller?

Why did the White House do that? Better come up with an answer because that is a question that will be asked.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Again- The Office could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data
Click to expand...

I'm asking why you think they did it.

You keep avoiding answering that question for yourself by deflecting to something that isn't what I asked. And this tactic of yours is a tacit admission that you didn't read Mueller's report, so you can't really speak to it.

I asked why did Manafort share polling data with Russia.

If Mueller doesn't have an answer, someone will.

Someone is going to have to answer that question.

Same with the WH Counsel reaching out to Flynn upon learning of his cooperation with Mueller; why did the WH do that?

What's the explanation for these actions?

"I don't know" isn't a good answer.
 
LV426 said:
Now don't you think in impeachment proceedings, this quesiton is going to come up?

So they'll ask Mueller why Manafort did this, Mueller will say he's not sure, so then someone else is going to have to answer the "why" because that question isn't going to go away.

Also, there's the other question as to why Trump's lawyer reached out to Flynn's lawyer when Trump learned Flynn was cooperating with Mueller?

Again, that's another question that will need to be answered; though we can pretty much surmise the answer since Trump is forbidding McGahn to testify.
Click to expand...

sur·mise
verb
/sərˈmīz/
1.
suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.

Good word LV426! HOPE in your eyes!
 
LV426 said:
I'm asking why you think they did it.

You keep avoiding answering that question by deflecting to something that isn't what I asked.

I asked why did Manafort share polling data with Russia.

If Mueller doesn't have an answer, someone will.

Someone is going to have to answer that question.

Same with the WH Counsel reaching out to Flynn upon learning of his cooperation with Mueller; why did the WH do that?

What's the explanation for these actions?

"I don't know" isn't a good answer.
Click to expand...

I can guess that maybe Manafort was going rogue for his own profit. But that may not be the truth.
 
LV426 said:
I'm asking why you think they did it.

You keep avoiding answering that question for yourself by deflecting to something that isn't what I asked. And this tactic of yours is a tacit admission that you didn't read Mueller's report, so you can't really speak to it.

I asked why did Manafort share polling data with Russia.

If Mueller doesn't have an answer, someone will.

Someone is going to have to answer that question.

Same with the WH Counsel reaching out to Flynn upon learning of his cooperation with Mueller; why did the WH do that?

What's the explanation for these actions?

"I don't know" isn't a good answer.
Click to expand...

how about "who cares"?
is that a good answer.

you're beating dead dog, it's over cupcake

Democrats have a decision to make

lose because they push this impeachment crap instead of telling the American people some good policy ideas they have to present
or
lose because the economy is humming along and they don't want to do anything to help keep it going

I tell you what, we'll let you choose which :rofl2: you're a goof kid
 
Southern Chicken said:
Again- The Office could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data
with Kilimnik during the campaign period.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking what the Office thinks, I'm asking what you think based on what you claim to have read in Mueller's report.

I ask you "why?" And you say, "well, the SC says..." and I say, "not asking the SC why, I'm asking you why."

You're here defending Trump's criminality; part of that entails answering for why these criminal actions were taken by Trump and the GOP/Conservatives?
 
LV426 said:
I'm not asking what the Office thinks, I'm asking what you think based on what you claim to have read in Mueller's report.

I ask you "why?" And you say, "well, the SC says..." and I say, "not asking the SC why, I'm asking you why."

You're here defending Trump's criminality; part of that entails answering for why these criminal actions were taken by Trump and the GOP/Conservatives?
Click to expand...

who cares? what are they going to do start another investigation:

god I sure hope so
 
Southern Chicken said:
sur·mise
verb
/sərˈmīz/
1.
suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.

Good word LV426! HOPE in your eyes!
Click to expand...

It's hilarious watching you avoid answering the questions that are going to come up because you know the answer to them will end this shit and force you to admit you got conned this whole time by a bunch of losers and morons.

I think for you, that revelation is just too much for your ego to bear.

That's why you are avoiding answering these questions about why Trump and his people did what they did, as detailed in Mueller's report.

All Mueller's report shows is what they did, you're going to have to answer for why.
 
LV426 said:
I'm not asking what the Office thinks, I'm asking what you think based on what you claim to have read in Mueller's report.

I ask you "why?" And you say, "well, the SC says..." and I say, "not asking the SC why, I'm asking you why."

You're here defending Trump's criminality; part of that entails answering for why these criminal actions were taken by Trump and the GOP/Conservatives?
Click to expand...

Was I there with Manafort? The fact is the report says "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him."
 
LV426 said:
It's hilarious watching you avoid answering the questions that are going to come up because you know the answer to them will end this shit and force you to admit you got conned this whole time by a bunch of losers and morons.

I think for you, that revelation is just too much for your ego to bear.

That's why you are avoiding answering these questions about why Trump and his people did what they did, as detailed in Mueller's report.

All Mueller's report shows is what they did, you're going to have to answer for why.
Click to expand...

I done the same thing youre doing based on the redacted version...GUESS. See number #348
 
Southern Chicken said:
I can guess that maybe Manafort was going rogue for his own profit.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that? You're saying Paul Manafort was on the payroll of Russian spies as he was working on Trump's campaign?

So then "no one had any contact with Russia" is a big, fat lie, isn't it?

And since that is a lie, what else has Trump said that isn't true? What else have you Conservatives been saying that isn't true? You see how the sweater starts to unravel the minute we pull a thread when we get into the details?

This is just a G-rated, child-friendly preview of the obstacles facing you clowns in an impeachment.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Was I there with Manafort? The fact is the report says "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Click to expand...

That sentence sure reads differently in its full context.
 
Southern Chicken said:
I can guess that maybe Manafort was going rogue for his own profit. But that may not be the truth.
Click to expand...

Well, you guys have a pretty huge fucking problem then, because you can't go around saying "no collusion" if you can't explain why Manafort was sharing GOP polling data from PA, MI, WI, and MN with Russian spies tied to the FSB and IRA.
 
LV426 said:
What makes you think that? You're saying Paul Manafort was on the payroll of Russian spies as he was working on Trump's campaign?

So then "no one had any contact with Russia" is a big, fat lie, isn't it?

And since that is a lie, what else has Trump said that isn't true? What else have you Conservatives been saying that isn't true? You see how the sweater starts to unravel the minute we pull a thread when we get into the details?

This is just a G-rated, child-friendly preview of the obstacles facing you clowns in an impeachment.
Click to expand...

Well, what are they waiting on lol?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top