Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[TSA]

So we don't know.

Now what?

That was sarcasm my dude. I already know and have known from the start. I’ve never waivered.

[TSA]

you've been trying to deflect from your failure for months.

Any Undercover Huber news?

Grocers?

Coaches?

4chan?

8chan?

32chan?

voat?

ar15?

Q?

Triggered?

[Pavlov]

That was sarcasm my dude. I already know and have known from the start. I’ve never waivered.

So now what?

[Pavlov]

Triggered?

You have nothing to say about all your conspiracy theories from these sources?

[koriwhat]

You have nothing to say about all your conspiracy theories from these sources?

and you have no way to dispute his theories... game on!

[Pavlov]

and you have no way to dispute his theories...

Uh, sure I do.

[koriwhat]

Uh, sure I do.

lay it on the line then...

[Pavlov]

lay it on the line then...

I already have. That's why TSA will never talk about them again.

[spurraider21]

I just want to know if anyone can point me to the case where we finally see Mueller charge an American with colluding with Russia during the election. It’s okay if you don’t know, I don’t know either. I thought for sure a 1500+ page thread would have at least one conviction concerning Russian collusion.

I've said no twice already.

You've gotten the answer you wanted.

Now, question pending. Why do you continue to be amused that these cases (which we already knew were not about collusion) are not addressing collusion?

[koriwhat]

I've said no twice already.

You've gotten the answer you wanted.

Now, question pending. Why do you continue to be amused that these cases (which we already knew were not about collusion) are not addressing collusion?

probably because this isn't how the justice system is supposed to work but fascists like yourself want that change to be permanent where you look towards a person's past for a crime instead of investigating a crime to pin on a person.

[TSA]

So now what?

Now I sit back and enjoy watching you eat truck loads of .

[TSA]

I've said no twice already.

You've gotten the answer you wanted.

Now, question pending. Why do you continue to be amused that these cases (which we already knew were not about collusion) are not addressing collusion?

You literally quoted my answer to your question. Should I answer twice like you are already complaining about doing yourself?

[TSA]

You have nothing to say about all your conspiracy theories from these sources?

Sure. My conspiracy theories concerning Russian collusion are all pointing closer to reality than any conspiracy theory presented by Russiagate believers.

Here’s where you say you never believed Russian collusion existed in the first place even though you devoted three years of your life to it.

[spurraider21]

You literally quoted my answer to your question. Should I answer twice like you are already complaining about doing yourself?

that didnt answer my question at all.

[TSA]

that didnt answer my question at all.

Straight forward answer. I’m amused certain people here think there will still be a case of Russian collusion coming.

Are you one of them?

[spurraider21]

Straight forward answer. I’m amused certain people here think there will still be a case of Russian collusion coming.

Are you one of them?

that doesn't answer my question. you're dodging.

why are you amused that these cases that were not meant to address collusion proceed to... not address collusion.

not asking about other posters. but when the judge makes comments about how the case is not about russia (even though you already know it wasn't), why is that a big deal for you?

[Pavlov]

Sure. My conspiracy theories concerning Russian collusion are all pointing closer to reality than any conspiracy theory presented by Russiagate believers.

No, I'm talking about all the other conspiracies you're still eating over.

Here’s where you say you never believed Russian collusion existed in the first place even though you devoted three years of your life to it.

I actually explicitly told you my conspiracy theory four times.

Here's where you pretend to not have read it.

[TSA]

that doesn't answer my question. you're dodging.

why are you amused that these cases that were not meant to address collusion proceed to... not address collusion.

not asking about other posters. but when the judge makes comments about how the case is not about russia (even though you already know it wasn't), why is that a big deal for you?

Because not a single case brought before any judge has had a case concerning Russian collusion.

Speaking of dodging...I’m amused certain people here think there will still be a case of Russian collusion coming.

Are you one of them?

[TSA]

No, I'm talking about all the other conspiracies you're still eating over.

thanks for admitting you’re deflecting from anything having to do with this thread.

I actually explicitly told you my conspiracy theory four times.

Here's where you pretend to not have read it.

That’s an exact number for three years of participation in this thread. Can you state your conspiracy theory one more time, for s and giggles.

[Winehole23]

Al Capone was taken down for tax evasion.

Was that a witch hunt or was it somehow illegitimate for the Feds to investigate something unrelated to the initial cause of the investigation?

If so, why so?

If not, what's the big deal here? In the course of a CI investigation into one thing, other crimes come to light.

Are prosecutors supposed to ignore crimes they discover?

[spurraider21]

Because not a single case brought before any judge has had a case concerning Russian collusion.

but you already knew that. so why are comments that just affirm that yet again so amusing to you?

Speaking of dodging...I’m amused certain people here think there will still be a case of Russian collusion coming.

Are you one of them?

nah.

[Spurs Homer]

Al Capone was taken down for tax evasion.

Was that a witch hunt or was it somehow illegitimate for the Feds to investigate something unrelated to the initial cause of the investigation?

If so, why so?

If not, what's the big deal here? In the course of a CI investigation into one thing, other crimes come to light.

Are prosecutors supposed to ignore crimes they discover?

well- duh!

of course dear leader cannot be properly and legally investigated!

because he is a victim of that deep state!

[TSA]

Al Capone was taken down for tax evasion.

Was that a witch hunt or was it somehow illegitimate for the Feds to investigate something unrelated to the initial cause of the investigation?

If so, why so?

If not, what's the big deal here? In the course of a CI investigation into one thing, other crimes come to light.

Are prosecutors supposed to ignore crimes they discover?

Capone had an actual crime that kickstarted the investigation.

[TSA]

but you already knew that. so why are comments that just affirm that yet again so amusing to you?


nah.

Good talk.

[TSA]

well- duh!

of course dear leader cannot be properly and legally investigated!

because he is a victim of that deep state!

I will truly miss this alt.