You did quote me directly however what you claim I said isn't in the quote.
Flake Threatens To Block Judicial Nominees Until Senate Votes On Mueller Bill
After
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) declined to bring a bill
aimed at protecting special counsel Robert Mueller to the Senate floor for a vote,
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) threatened to oppose all judicial nominees.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/fla...0%28TPMNews%29
Moving the goalposts now
Where did I say Hillary was bribed?
I always wipe the floor with you, thus your stream of emojis and name calling.
You said bribery happened and then laughed at “salty Hillary fans”
Oh, who are you saying was bribed?
Who did the bribing?
What was the bribe for?
Let's clear this up once and for all.
Be very specific so I can quote you directly from here on out.
Oh, who are you saying was bribed?
Who did the bribing?
What was the bribe for?
Let's clear this up once and for all.
Be very specific so I can quote you directly from here on out.
Yes. The lot of you are Hillary supporters. You're salty over the loss. Bribery did happen. I didn't say from whom and to whom.
Your confirmation bias attempted to fill in the gaps, to the point where you actually changed my words. Typical left tactics.
Thanks for playing.
Oh, who are you saying was bribed?
Who did the bribing?
What was the bribe for?
Let's clear this up once and for all.
Be very specific so I can quote you directly from here on out.
More complex question fallacy
You needing me to "be specific" when you're generalizing for pages.. and failed to even accurately report what's in the post you're quoting = dishonest
You're dishonest
This we know
So no one was bribed?
How could there be bribery if no one was bribed?
I can only conclude you are saying there was no bribery after all.
Note: I never said you said who was bribed. You faked that.
You're dishonest
This we know
More fallacies
You're not interested in the facts. You never are.
Fox News legal analyst destroys DOJ’s justification for Whitaker appointment:
‘That kind of power can’t go to a political hack’
Fox News top legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, blew up the arguments made to defend Whitaker’s appointment.
Specifically, Whitaker’s team cited a case from just after the Civil War to make the case that the appointment was lawful.
“I don’t care what happened in 1866, because the Congress changed the law in the 1960s and said whoever runs the Justice Department has to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate,” he said.
“Because there’s too much power in their hands… That kind of power cannot go to a political hack.”
Napolitano said that the statute is very clear, and that the “Justice Department conveniently overlooks” the legality of Trump’s actions.
“Congress could not have been more clear,” Napolitano said.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/fox...e+Raw+Story%29
so you're really going to die on the "bribed =/= bribery" hill?ok
i never said she was bribed, i just said that bribery happened
![]()
What are the facts concerning the bribery you claim, DerpMC?
Post them clearly so everyone can quote you directly.
He's put up multiple straw men to protect him.
guys i never said hillary was bribed by russians. i just said bribery happened between hillary and russians
stop paraphrasing me, its such a common tactic with the left
![]()
I SAID BRIBERY HAPPENED AND MENTIONED THREE PARTIES SO AS FAR AS YOU KNOW HILLARY BRIBED BILL INTO ACCEPTING BRIBE MONEY FROM THE RUSSIANS YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT FACTS AND JUST CALL PEOPLE NAMES PHILO SKEETER
There are two Clintons. An attorney should know this.
No one said which Clinton you claimed was bribed.
Det's a straw man.
Now I will ask you: Which Clinton are you claiming was bribed by the Russians?
you said hillary (hillary is not bill) sold uranium to putin
Misrepresenting my position is your calling card. Don't get offended because I pointed it out.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)