Urine Trouble (Mueller Thread v. 16)

Status
Not open for further replies.
bobgeese said:
However, the emerging evidence of wrongdoing by members of the obama administration is about the biggest scandal in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

My goodness.

How many suns are there in the universe in which you live?
 
Fawlty said:
If you took the bet offered by Darkballs above this post, would expect to have a better than 5% chance of winning it?

How about I make an assertion that I clearly don't understand, and then demand that you refute it because on its surface, it conforms to my bias. Does that sound fun? We could even ask an expert, who I would ignore. Good times.
Click to expand...


Again, please present the evidence. I’m more than willing to listen. All I have now is the court transcript.
 
Trotsky said:
My goodness.

How many suns are there in the universe in which you live?
Click to expand...


Who changed/ordered the change the 302’s?


You say you’re a lawyer, do you really think Grassley is asking for these if he doesn’t already know the answer?


How about the wsj reporting about an fbi plant in a presidential campaign?



This is all just standard procedure? Come on son...
 
bobgeese said:
Again, please present the evidence. I’m more than willing to listen. All I have now is the court transcript.
Click to expand...
No, you have the court transcript, your bias, and the perspective of an experienced expert. And me needling you for being a douchebag about it. You have way more than a transcript.
 
bobgeese said:
I’m very willing to believe you if you can present this evidence.
Click to expand...

Well sorry Bob, I don't personally have the evidence that was disclosed in a preliminary motion to dismiss (where evidence isn't even presented), at a closed fucking court session.

Christ bob, it couldn't be more clear that you don't understand what your own source meant. That source being, a fucking twitter post.
 
Fawlty said:
No, you have the court transcript, your bias, and the perspective of an experienced expert. And me needling you for being a douchebag about it. You have way more than a transcript.
Click to expand...


So, you don’t have any evidence. That’s fine and what I expected.

Mr darkballs appears to at least be informed, so I’m waiting for him to present the evidence. Until then, the court transcript is all I have to go by.
 
Darkballs said:
Well sorry Bob, I don't personally have the evidence that was disclosed in a preliminary motion to dismiss (where evidence isn't even presented), at a closed fucking court session.

Christ bob, it couldn't be more clear that you don't even understand what your own source meant. That source being, a fucking twitter post.
Click to expand...



The Twitter post isn’t the important part, it’s what was stated in the transcript.


So again, I’ll ask do you have evidence that

“The prosecution contests this and has offered evidence of Concord Catering having been established since at least 1996 (which would refute the defense'sclaim)”

I’m not asking for the actual evidence that was submitted, I’m asking you to prove, or at least provide a source for what you stated, that the prosecution has offered evidence.


Again, I stated I’m more than willing to listen to you, but you need to provide a source for your claim, or the only thing I have to go on is the court transcript.
 
HereticBD said:
@bobgeese just tearing it up in here.

So many tears. So little time...
Click to expand...



I mean, it’s not like I’m not willing to listen. I’m just asking to provide a source for what he’s claiming. Otherwise, literally all we have to go on is the court transcript.


It’s not like I give a single fuck about some shitty Russian business. Wtf is a Russian catering service anyway? Do they serve hunger and malnutrition?
 
Again, Bob, it's pretty clear that you don't understand how our courts work. What the fuck do you the think the prosecution did? Sit there with a blank look? If they don't challenge the motion, the motion is granted automatically. The motion was to dismiss, and the case hasn't been dismissed. So it reasons that........

But forgiving your lack of deductive reasoning, here's two sources discussing the multiple Concord entities, with at least one mentioning the recent hearing that was in your source. I think they even state directly that the prosecution challenged the dismissal, sense you couldn't do that yourself and need an article to state it for you.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ns-cook-pleads-not-guilty-in-us-idUSKBN1IA1I7

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/10/mueller-indicted-a-ham-sandwich

Now don't ask me for more sources bob. I'm not trying to convince you here. You're hear to troll. I'm just here to call out your bullshit.
 
Last edited:
bobgeese said:
I mean, it’s not like I’m not willing to listen. I’m just asking to provide a source for what he’s claiming. Otherwise, literally all we have to go on is the court transcript.


It’s not like I give a single fuck about some shitty Russian business. Wtf is a Russian catering service anyway? Do they serve hunger and malnutrition?
Click to expand...
You've already made the excuse- even if it's true, you don't care, yet you're really really holding onto it not being true until you have to fall back, which you are doing step by step. It's the anatomy of a dicktuck.

Just an opinion from the peanut gallery.


btw what exactly does your argument require to be falsified? Like, which LLC and which exact time period? Do you even know? It seems like you would have to know this information.
 
bobgeese said:
So, you don’t have any evidence. That’s fine and what I expected.

Mr darkballs appears to at least be informed, so I’m waiting for him to present the evidence. Until then, the court transcript is all I have to go by.
Click to expand...

Bob:

What kind of evidence do you think gets presented at a CLOSED, PRELIMINARY HEARING?

Jesus titty fucking christ bob. You are trying to make a big deal over a motion to dismiss on the grounds of "failing to include the proper party." This happens in VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS A CORPORATION. And the prosecution objecting ALSO HAPPENS IN RESPONSE EVERY TIME.

It is so clear that you don't even understand your own source if you are asking me to "prove" that the prosecution would object, and need to know what "evidence" they used to object. None of your requests make any fucking sense. Can I speak that any more plainly to you?
 
Fawlty said:
You've already made the excuse- even if it's true, you don't care, .
Click to expand...



Wtf are you talking about?

I posted something relative to the story that Meuller asked for and was denied an extension. The court transcript has been released and has a rather interesting assertion by the defense, that one of the groups being charged, didn’t even exist at the time the government is charging.

Darkballs states the prosecution submitted evidence that they did in fact exist.



Is it wrong for me to ask for a source of his claim?
 
Darkballs said:
Again, Bob, it's pretty clear that you don't understand how our courts work. What the fuck do you the think the prosecution did? Sit there with a blank look? If they don't challenge the motion, the motion is granted automatically. The motion was to dismiss, and the case hasn't been dismissed. So it reasons that........

But forgiving your lack of deductive reasoning, here's two sources discussing the multiple Concord entities, with at least one mentioning the recent hearing that was in your source. I think they even state directly that the prosecution challenged the dismissal, sense you couldn't do that yourself and need an article to state it for you.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ns-cook-pleads-not-guilty-in-us-idUSKBN1IA1I7

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/10/mueller-indicted-a-ham-sandwich

Now don't ask me for more sources bob. I'm not trying to convince you here. You're hear to troll. I'm just here to call out your bullshit.
Click to expand...



That’s all I asked for. You could have posted it the first time. I’ll take a look now, thanks.
 
bobgeese said:
Wtf are you talking about?

I posted something relative to the story that Meuller asked for and was denied an extension. The court transcript has been released and has a rather interesting assertion by the defense, that one of the groups being charged, didn’t even exist at the time the government is charging.

Darkballs states the prosecution submitted evidence that they did in fact exist.



Is it wrong for me to ask for a source of his claim?
Click to expand...
You had to be given the same information several times, and each time you've softened your stance. Pretty soon you'll fully accept that you were tricked into pushing a nothingburger. You're almost there.
 
Seems like some Liberals are triggered, Bob.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,844
Messages
58,321,445
Members
175,999
Latest member
xande.fight

Share this page

Back
Top