Paul Manafort's trial starts Tuesday, July 31

Never gets old as an excuse to not show evidence...

Literally no one on the forum has access to it so it's incredible stupid to demand it like it's a thing that could happen on a karate forum.
 
See, I find this whole thing contradictory on your behalf. You spent a decent amount of time telling us that everyone is a liar with an agenda. Per you, "no one" can be trusted and you're assigning nefarious purposes to everyone. But when I ask about Trump and the Trump administration, you back off of that and assign him a non-nefarious goal.

There's no consistency. You don't believe anyone because they're all liars with agendas...except when you randomly decide that someone is just the victim of the other liars. You think he truly believes something that he said and so he's not a liar. It's not remotely close to consistent. Just call it what it is - it's selective suspension of belief.

The alphabet guys can't be believed and the media can't be believed...but all of the stuff the alphabet guys and the media says that is negative towards Hilary or positive towards Trump is believable.
This is a perfect description of what Trump derangement syndrome actually is.
 
Literally no one on the forum has access to it so it's incredible stupid to demand it like it's a thing that could happen on a karate forum.
JrEUZ9.gif
 
You have to be naive as fuck to not think Trump's inner circle aren't involved with Manafort.
Special Counsel just hoping even to this day Manafort would flipped on Trump.
That Trump Tower Meeting with the Russians, Manafort was present and Special Counsel doesn't plan on going after Trump's family (Jared, Trump jr) just yet. So to go after Jared and Trump jr, you need Manafort to testify.
So basically Special Counsel is throwing everything but the kitchen's sink at this guy. And yes, collusion is a crime, they just referred to it as conspiracy. Conspiracy to receive help from a foreign government to win an election.

Trump dumbass even tweet that there was nothing wrong with that.
They're leaking the truth by trickles in the hope that when everything is laid bare, people will yawn and say, "We already knew that."
 
Who's' we?

With the track record of your overlords, you should want to see the documents and verify the authenticity too.

So you own a Document Authenticity Verifier 2000 do you?

How would you sighting a document in person possibly verify it's authenticity?

You are making no sense. Quite intentionally I might add.
 
So you own a Document Authenticity Verifier 2000 do you?

How would you sighting a document in person possibly verify it's authenticity?

You are making no sense. Quite intentionally I might add.
You don't trust FOIA documents, or emails/texts when the source admits it's theirs?
 
They're leaking the truth by trickles in the hope that when everything is laid bare, people will yawn and say, "We already knew that."
The public opinion war is just as important. Trump basically got the whole GOP to go after some agent because of his text message. Disregarding the IG report that states that no specific act was motivated by bias
 
See, I find this whole thing contradictory on your behalf. You spent a decent amount of time telling us that everyone is a liar with an agenda. Per you, "no one" can be trusted and you're assigning nefarious purposes to everyone. But when I ask about Trump and the Trump administration, you back off of that and assign him a non-nefarious goal.

There's no consistency. You don't believe anyone because they're all liars with agendas...except when you randomly decide that someone is just the victim of the other liars. You think he truly believes something that he said and so he's not a liar. It's not remotely close to consistent. Just call it what it is - it's selective suspension of belief.

The alphabet guys can't be believed and the media can't be believed...but all of the stuff the alphabet guys and the media says that is negative towards Hilary or positive towards Trump is believable.
giphy.gif
 
jury is deliberating .. sent the judge a note today with 4 questions ..

one of them .. 'please define reasonable doubt again' uhoh
 
Back
Top