There you go again. Changing the topic because you have no excuse. According to the report there was no hoax. The special counsel was appointed by a Trump administration appointee in the DOJ.  We don't have a king.

I thought you were the one concerned wih

HYPOCRISY!! 


Russian collusion theory now seems to be ‘the hoax of the century’

In 2016, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele produced a dossier outlining sensational allegations
against Donald Trump, alleging, among a number of things, criminal links with Russia.

Mr Bolt said American media was “obsessed” with the “hoax” for three years.

“But then a year-long investigation by a former FBI boss concluded there was no collusion, and
now a special counsel, John Durham, is investigating how the material behind these collusion
claims was put together,” he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/russian-collusion-theory-now-seems-to-be-the-hoax-of-the-century/ar-AAQulOf

SWOOOOSSSHHHH also.

Why?

Why?

Swoooosh x3

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Are you going to pay me to watch this stuff? People usually get paid to participate in dangerous mind altering experiments

.

Follow the money:

Val Broeksmit, a wayward whistle-blower who wielded his dead stepfather’s passwords to reveal Deutsche Bank’s role in money laundering and other dealings with Russia and the Trump Organization, died mysteriously last month in Los Angeles. He was 46.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/13/us/val-broeksmit-dead.html

Swoooosh

Doesnt understand "mysteryous timing"

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Trump tried (and failed) to prove FBI's Russia probe was a 'hoax'



In April 2019, Trump Atty. Gen. Bill Barr launched the Durham investigation into the FBI’s probe of possible links between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russians. Since then, Special Counsel John Durham has failed to find anything to back up Trump’s claim the FBI probe was all “hoax.” And Special Counsel Durham's latest courtroom defeat, the jury forewoman of that trial said it was a huge waste of time. David Corn of Mother Jones and Bloomberg’s Tim O’Brien join MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/trump-tried-and-failed-to-prove-fbi-s-russia-probe-was-a-hoax-141360709572

They did not even investigate the Trump/Russia financial connections yet.

Swooooossshhhhh

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Swoooosh x3

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Sounds like you can't form an argument here.

Sounds like you can't form an argument here.

Swoooosssh X4. I'm not even gonna explain why, I'll let u figure it out and post here why you think that is.

Swoooosssh X4. I'm not even gonna explain why, I'll let u figure it out and post here why you think that is.

Typical troll tactic.  "Explain to me why blah blah."  Doesn't even pretend to try and do the same in support of his own posts.

Makes you do a bunch of work, and still dismisses it without offering more than his opinion.

He loves to deflect.

Typical troll tactic.  "Explain to me why blah blah."  Doesn't even pretend to try and do the same in support of his own posts.

Makes you do a bunch of work, and still dismisses it without offering more than his opinion.

He loves to deflect.

Which is why I didn't explain. He knows why, we all here know why, well probably except  1 other person. Then it goes to the cancelling out of info.  Like I support X, but Y says this that I agree with it too. So they cancel each other out and I have no opinion. I just wasted time typing when no reply was all that is needed.

You sir get a - swoooossshhh (that's a negative swooooosh)

Swoooosssh X4. I'm not even gonna explain why, I'll let u figure it out and post here why you think that is.

Swooosh x infinity.

Let me know when you are ready to have a real conversation about this.

Swooosh x infinity.

Let me know when you are ready to have a real conversation about this.

Not with u. Circular convos are a waste of time. Refer to flapps post abt taking both sides. Even FB/IG hifico postings can see it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Not with u. Circular convos are a waste of time. Refer to flapps post abt taking both sides. Even FB/IG hifico postings can see it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Sometimes both sides make good points, am I supposed to disregard one side? You prefer I take one side or the other clearly? It sounds like you value loyalty over objectivity.

Sometimes both sides make good points, am I supposed to disregard one side? You prefer I take one side or the other clearly? It sounds like you value loyalty over objectivity.

I value logic based decisions,  not emotion based decisions. Once u do this too, 1 side clearly is easy to disregard. Generally.

I prefer u make a choice with the available info. Then if that choice is wrong later if more info is presented, state so.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I value logic based decisions,  not emotion based decisions. Once u do this too, 1 side clearly is easy to disregard. Generally.

I prefer u make a choice with the available info. Then if that choice is wrong later if more info is presented, state so.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Sorry but evidence suggests otherwise. We like to think we are rational logical beings but most of the time we aren't.
I would suggest reading some of Johnathan Heid'ts books on the subject. He uses an analogy of an elephant and a rider, the elephant usually goes where it wants and the rider convinces himself it was his rational choice to direct the elephant that was. The rider can sway the elephant sometimes but most of the time the rider just tricks himself into thinking he is in control.  In these hearings I see to major elephants. Democrats who want to find dirt on Trump and Trump supporters who want to defend Trump. Each side can convince themselves of some sort of logic of their conclusion.

Nothing says I have to pick a side, nothing says I need to make a judgement soon about whether her testimony is credible or accurate. It is perfectly reasonable, and preferable in my opinion, to stop and consider the strengths and weaknesses of her testimony and say I want to know more before coming to a conclusion.