Law ***PAYBACK: Barr Assigns Top Prosecutor to Russia BS / UPDATE REPORT LEAKS START***

[SBJJ]

Again, I don't see how having not even voted for democrats in the only 3 presidential elections I have been old enough to vote in while not supporting any democratic candidate with funds or my time makes me a shill for the party.

Yet again, you made a claim, now you have to back it up. It's up to you and nobody else to do so.

See, you SAYING you voted one way or the other just doesn't cut it. We are all able to read your post History. A History that is that of a DNC parrot.

You can proclaim in the moment whatever your heart desires. But you have a posting history bro. A history that shows you unable to think for yourself.

Honestly. I would not expect different from a thirtysomething virgin(not by choice) still in College. When, or if you get a job and a significant other you might start questioning the media and the politicians you look to as your savior.

 

[Darkballs]

I haven't followed this conversation very well, but your claims here seem odd. Scores of people? For the express reasons for which the investigation was launched? The Mueller investigation was started to examine the Russian government's attempts to interfere with the US election of 2016. Not only were no convictions made related to that express reason, but Mueller unequivocally claims that the evidence his investigation uncovered does not support the claim that any Americans coordinated with Russia in their attempts to interfere with the US election.

Am I missing sarcasm? That can happen in written conversations sometimes.

No, you just weren't paying attention. I was arguing terms that this investigation wouldn't amount to anything resembling what the Mueller report uncovered. And yes, all those indicted were caught within the scope of the investigation. And I find it hard to believe you would argue that charging people for lying about contacts with russians who were involved in hacking our election would somehow fall outside of the purpose of that investigation (not to mention the russians that were charged expressly for interfering in our election, but they don't count because they're overseas right?).

But then again, you've never been one to summarize the findings in the Mueller report accurately.

Not sure if being serious. There were 0 convictions in the Mueller investigation for collusion/conspiracy with Russia

All related to attempts to defraud our elections, or lying about contacts with those who did. It's a hell of a lot more specific than your "any conviction for anyone for anything," standard.

Look, lets just accept that you aren't willing to make a bet that isn't hilariously stacked in your favor and call it a day.

 

[SBJJ]

No, you just weren't paying attention. I was arguing terms that this investigation wouldn't amount to anything resembling what the Mueller report uncovered. And yes, all those indicted were caught within the scope of the investigation. And I find it hard to believe you would argue that charging people for lying about contacts with russians who were involved in hacking our election would somehow fall outside of the purpose of that investigation (not to mention the russians that were charged expressly for interfering in our election, but they don't count because they're overseas right?).

But then again, you've never been one to summarize the findings in the Mueller report accurately.



All related to attempts to defraud our elections, or lying about contacts with those who did. It's a hell of a lot more specific than your "any conviction for anyone for anything," standard.

Look, lets just accept that you aren't willing to make a bet that isn't hilariously stacked in your favor and call it a day.

I just asked the same rules applied. Lying to agents would fall under the same rules

Anyway, the bet is there. I was rather positive you'd duck and run. So it really is no big deal to me.

I am tempted to just constantly quote your original claim there would be NO convictions. But I'm pretty sure most can just see you are full of shit. So it's not really worth the minimal effort

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

And yes, all those indicted were caught within the scope of the investigation.

Who in particular are you referring to? Flynn was nailed for a process charge unrelated to the central mandate of Mueller's investigation. Manafort too. Mueller himself said that no American coordinated with Russians to interfere with the election. He himself essentially admitted that the central thrust of his investigation was a nothingburger. That's why everyone has moved on to obstruction.

Now, don't get me wrong. Obstruction is a serious charge, but it cannot be argued that it pertains to the raison d'etre of Mueller's investigation.

 

[Darkballs]

Mueller himself said that no American coordinated with Russians to interfere with the election.

When did I say I was limiting my claim to just the American's that were indicted? And both Flynn and Manafort were indicted for lying about contacts with the nation that did interfere in our election. So I fail to see how you want to place that outside of the original scope of the investigation, or claim that it was truly unrelated.

Nice try though.

 

[hillelslovak87]

dat backpedaling. (hint: this is a link proving that it is your claim. there are many other posts of yours making this claim, as well.)




it's weird how i can't read things that don't exist, i guess.

weird how i posted the ToC, but there just wasn't anything there to support your claim. at all. let alone "dozens."

perhaps you should... you know, prove your claim and cite them? should be easy, no?

Again, the subsections of the table of contents are not a claim by me. If you refuse to read any of what you simply gloss over and pretend doesn't exist, I don't see the cause for this petulance on your part. You asked for the report, I gave it to you.

 

[Darkballs]

I just asked the same rules applied. Lying to agents would fall under the same rules

Anyway, the bet is there.

Well I'll take that if you finally want to lay down something concrete. If any of the agents involved in the Mueller investigation are found criminally liable for anything resembling "lying to agents," you win your bet.

Now was that so hard?

 

[hillelslovak87]

See, you SAYING you voted one way or the other just doesn't cut it. We are all able to read your post History. A History that is that of a DNC parrot.

You can proclaim in the moment whatever your heart desires. But you have a posting history bro. A history that shows you unable to think for yourself.

Honestly. I would not expect different from a thirtysomething virgin(not by choice) still in College. When, or if you get a job and a significant other you might start questioning the media and the politicians you look to as your savior.

Then show me being a parrot. If I'm such a shill for the DNC, surely you can search for posts of mine labeled dnc, and find me parroting their bs so much then.

Your last sentence is yet another case of you simply showing a pathetic lack of confidence. But hey, at least you didn't make fun of me aging when you're in your forties.

"the politicians you look to as your savior." The irony is decadent.

 

[SBJJ]

Well I'll take that if you finally want to lay down something concrete. If any of the agents involved in the Mueller investigation are found criminally liable for anything resembling "lying to agents," you win your bet.

Now was that so hard?

Reread what you just posted really slow.

If it makes sense to you still, then hold your breath as long as u can until you pass out. Then rinse and repeat

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

When did I say I was limiting my claim to just the American's that were indicted? And both Flynn and Manafort were indicted for lying about contacts with the nation that did interfere in our election. So I fail to see how you want to place that outside of the original scope of the investigation, or claim that it was truly unrelated.

Nice try though.

You specifically mentioned convictions. Who were these scores of people who were convicted for cooperating with Russia's interference?

Here's your claim:

Well no. That would mean dozen of criminal convictions for scores of people for the express reasons that the investigation was launched.

 

[rob mafia]

Again, the subsections of the table of contents are not a claim by me. If you refuse to read any of what you simply gloss over and pretend doesn't exist, I don't see the cause for this petulance on your part. You asked for the report, I gave it to you.

...no, you "gave" a link to cnn.

STILL waiting.

 

[SBJJ]

Then show me being a parrot. If I'm such a shill for the DNC, surely you can search for posts of mine labeled dnc, and find me parroting their bs so much then.

Your last sentence is yet another case of you simply showing a pathetic lack of confidence. But hey, at least you didn't make fun of me aging when you're in your forties.

"the politicians you look to as your savior." The irony is decadent.

Every one of your posts shows me to be right. You literally never differ from the Corporate media narrative. The fact you cant find a couple of instances where u show independent thought shows it.

As for the savior comment. I disagree with all politicians to certain degrees. Hell, I'm on record attacking Trump and even calling for his removal if he attacks Iran

 

[Darkballs]

Here's your claim:

You specifically mentioned convictions. Who were these scores of people who were convicted for cooperating with Russia's interference?

You've got to come up with a different method of debate than these stupid gotcha attempts, when you keep misstating damn near everyone's words.

The purpose of the Mueller investigation was to uncover whether or not russia interfered in our election. I'd say convictions for lying about contacts you had with those russians, is within the original scope of that investigation. No need to try and twist any of my words.

Now it's clear that @SBJJ has no desire to actually construct any bet that isn't horribly vague. So I don't think he needs you to back him up anymore.

 

[Darkballs]

Reread what you just posted really slow.

If it makes sense to you still, then hold your breath as long as u can until you pass out. Then rinse and repeat

I'll admit, I'm having a hell of a time getting you to lay out any concrete terms.

Are you going to or should we just stop? Christ boy, either lay down terms or fuck off.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Every one of your posts shows me to be right. You literally never differ from the Corporate media narrative. The fact you cant find a couple of instances where u show independent thought shows it.

As for the savior comment. I disagree with all politicians to certain degrees. Hell, I'm on record attacking Trump and even calling for his removal if he attacks Iran

You seem to be lost on the concept of the burden of proof. You made quite the confident claim about me parroting dnc talking points, a specific claim as well. I have asked you, over and over, to actually provide instances of me doing so after previously chastising me over the fact that people can search through my post history. The burden of proof lies upon you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove it.

You're the one making a terrible amount of presumptions about me as well. I await another bleating screed.

 

[hillelslovak87]

...no, you "gave" a link to cnn.

STILL waiting.

Oh God. I linked you to the Mueller report in searchable form on CNN's website. Man......man......

 

[SBJJ]

I'll admit, I'm having a hell of a time getting you to lay out any concrete terms.

Are you going to or should we just stop? Christ boy, either lay down terms or fuck off.

Stop posting while drunk please

I laid down the bet. A bet that ended up being more narrow in scope than your original "There will be NO convictions" dribble

 

[glenwo2]

Welp....since this thread went of the rails....weeks ago, I'll put this unrelated thing up :

This certainly aged well.

 

[SBJJ]

You seem to be lost on the concept of the burden of proof. You made quite the confident claim about me parroting dnc talking points, a specific claim as well. I have asked you, over and over, to actually provide instances of me doing so after previously chastising me over the fact that people can search through my post history. The burden of proof lies upon you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove it.

You're the one making a terrible amount of presumptions about me as well. I await another bleating screed.

And again I will say look at ANY of your posts. There is literally no independent thought .

Take this thread for instance. You bending over for the intelligence agencies is exactly what the corporate media tells you to do

You claim to be a non partisan yet can not point to one instance where you showed it in the last year

Anyway, when you get out in the real world you will likely start to question things a bit more

 

[Darkballs]

I laid down the bet. A bet that ended up being more narrow in scope than your original "There will be NO convictions" dribble

I didn't think that anyone would be dumb enough to construe that literally. But I should have known you'd need every advantage.

So the bet you want to make is: "ANYONE convicted for ANYTHING over an indefinite period of time"? And you're going to pretend that this was my initial offer?

Why do I waste my time with you?