Reply With Quote
"Does Chris chickens?"
Its just a simple question.
Please prove you don't chickens.
lol tangent. I'm just calling your conspiracies like I see them.
"Does Chris chickens?"
Its just a simple question.
Please prove you don't chickens.
Strawman. Never claimed Steele provided the FBI the Shearer memo as his own research. You have been unable to dispute anything so far.
Blumenthal was feeding State Department the Shearer memo yes or no?
State Department was feeding Steele the Shearer memo yes or no?
Steele was feeding FBI the Shearer memo yes or no?
Steele was feeding State Department the Steele memo yes or no?
State Department was feeding FBI the Steele memo yes or no?
Blumenthal was feeding State Department the Shearer memo yes or no?
State Department was feeding Steele the Shearer memo yes or no?
Steele was feeding FBI the Shearer memo yes or no?
Steele was feeding State Department the Steele memo yes or no?
State Department was feeding FBI the Steele memo yes or no?
He claimed to have a dispute but can't name a single one or why. Your false equaivalency/hyperbole is standard fare.
He knows. He just likes saying stupid to get a response. The hater account does the same thing.
"feeding"
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific and state your actual conspiracy theory if that's your characterization. So far you have refused and just repeat the same innuendo.
My prediction: You will never be more specific. You will never state your actual conspiracy theory. You will stick with "Clinton may eat babies."
Clinton Pollsters good now.
Pretty much. I think this forum's days of meaningful discussion are long behind it. :/
!!!
Will be leaked within the hour because leaks good.
My prediction: You won't dispute anything. You won't even try. You'll just continue to dodge the original question and try and drag this in the weeds until I get bored and give up and then you'll try to declare victory.
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific and state your actual conspiracy theory if that's your characterization. So far you have refused and just repeat the same innuendo.
My prediction: You will never be more specific. You will never state your actual conspiracy theory. You will stick with "Clinton may eat babies."
You're a broken ing record.
I did dispute the characterization.
I declare no victory. You just out some more innuendo and don't want to go any further than that.
You're afraid to go any further than your innuendo.
Period.
It's your conspiracy theory. These are your accusations to prove. If you are afraid to do so, just say so.
They weren't accusations they were statements of fact. That is why you did not dispute a single one and instead pulled a strawman out of your ass.
Mueller’s investigation of Trump ‘needs to conclude,’ Sessions says
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...onclude/?cache
What is your conspiracy theory here, TSA?
Why are you so afraid to say what you think really happened?
Too bad he doesn't have a say in it.
Well I agree with that.
If you fire Mueller, the investigation doesn't conclude properly.
In fact, the investigation would get restarted if that were to happen.
You were already told what I think happened. You were then asked again to dispute the statements and waived the white flag.
The only false hope here is you thinking Mueller is getting fired.Well I agree with that.
If you fire Mueller, the investigation doesn't conclude properly.
In fact, the investigation would get restarted if that were to happen.
Gulianni is already negotiating the closure with Mueller and Sessions is speaking publicly about it ending. This investigation is just about wrapped up.
Nope, I laughed at your characterizations.
Walk me through your conspiracy theory, TSA. Something more than your "feeding" characterization.
You won't do it.
How does one negotiate the closure, TSA?
Walk me through that too.
Will you be here in a month or 2 to back up your claim?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions