Reply With Quote
Tweet references this craptastic report
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...208870264.html
Neither the article nor the tweet make a factual claim that Cohen was in Prague. You just felt like calling something fake news because muh msm
Tweet references this craptastic report
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...208870264.html
great. that report doesn't make the factual claim that cohen was in prague. they call it unconfirmed a couple of times, cite no official comment, and say "confirmation of the trip WOULD lend credence"... or "it WOULD also be one of the most significant developments"
you just felt like calling something fake news because muh msm
Det dossier just gets more and more verified.
Nervous laughter from TSA; still shook about Prague.
Why did Cohen drop the lawsuit, TSA?
Then why isn't there a reported alibi, dim? We both know Fox News would spam it to the hilt if there was any such thing and you would be here crowing about it.
well yeah. i mean if we find out what this mystery evidence is, that would probably go a long way in confirming it.
all we have right now is a report that mueller has certain evidence
There is a reported alibi dim, it was reported on almost a year ago.
And that unconfirmed report was enough for Pavlov to claim it's verified that Cohen went to Prague.
"The decision to voluntarily discontinue these cases was a difficult one," Cohen's attorney David Schwartz told*Politico. "We believe the defendants defamed my client, and vindicating Mr. Cohen’s rights was—and still remains—important. But given the events that have unfolded, and the time, attention*and resources needed to prosecute these matters, we have dismissed the matters, despite their merits."
http://www.newsweek.com/michael-cohe...r-legal-893111
Very lawyery response. "We just don't have the time"
It's grocer-level verification. Usually more than good enough for you.
Nope that is just laughter directed at you and your claim.
I assume Cohen can't afford to fight two battles and chose to put his money towards the one directed at him.
Your assumptions are often completely wrong though.
It's no-level verification, and it's good enough for you.
should we go over the reports that were enough for you to claim it was verified that clinton was eating babies?
You were completely fine pushing the Clinton baby eating story.It's no-level verification, and it's good enough for you.
You will never find me claiming there were reports verifying Clinton was eating babies.
Why do you lie so much?You were completely fine pushing the Clinton baby eating story.
You pushed the Clinton baby-eating story.
Period.
Full stop.
Are you denying you pushed the Clinton baby eating story, TSA?
Yes. Feel free to find the thread you are talking about and bump it with a quote from me claiming there were reports verifying Clinton was eating babies. Don't derail this thread because you are embarrassed about your no-level verification.
Why are you so dishonest, TSA?Yes. Feel free to find the thread you are talking about and bump it with a quote from me claiming there were reports verifying Clinton was eating babies.
I said you pushed the story.
Which you did.
Don't try to squirm out of it by lying about what I just said. It's pathetic.
Another Trump attorney under investigation
Don't derail this thread because you are embarrassed about your no-level verification. It's pathetic.
Not embarrassed at all. You've gleefully used this level of verification in all your various conspiracy theories. Don't get pissy when someone else does it.
You pushed the Clinton baby eating story and you can't change that.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
