Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI in Durham investigation - CNNPolitics

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  4 weeks ago  •  45 comments

By:   Marshall Cohen (CNN)

Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI in Durham investigation - CNNPolitics
Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



(CNN)Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.

The verdict is a major defeat for Durham and his Justice Department prosecutors, who have spent three years looking for wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia probe. He claimed Sussmann lied during a 2016 meeting in which he passed a tip to the FBI about Donald Trump and Russia. The Washington, DC, federal jury deliberated for six hours over two days before reaching its verdict. Marc Elias, Hillary Clinton campaign's top lawyer, turns tables on Durham to air Democratic grievances about 2016 election The Sussmann case revolved around his September 2016 meeting with James Baker, a friend who was the FBI's general counsel. Sussmann passed along a tip that led to a four-month FBI inquiry into a possible internet backchannel between the Trump Organization and Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank. Both companies denied the claim, and the FBI didn't find any improper cyber links. Prosecutors argued that Sussmann intentionally lied to Baker by saying he came only as a concerned citizen, and not on behalf of any clients, saying Sussmann hid his ties to Democrats to "manipulate the FBI" and gin up an "October surprise" to help Clinton win. Read More In Sussmann's telling, at the peak of Russia's attack on the 2016 election, he went to the FBI with a good-faith tip, which originated from reputable cyber experts that he represented. He separately worked on Clinton's behalf to peddle that unverified tip to the press, generating some coverage. He didn't try to dupe Baker or hide his political ties, which were well-known at the FBI. Durham said in a statement that he was "disappointed" with the verdict. "While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury's decision and thank them for their service," Durham said in a statement. "I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case."

Durham investigation takes a hit


So far, Durham's work has only led to one conviction: the guilty plea of a junior FBI lawyer who was involved in a wiretapping warrant for a former Trump 2016 campaign adviser. Durham also charged a Russian expat tied to the infamous Steele dossier, whose trial is slated for October. The Sussmann case was the first major courtroom test for Durham, and the acquittal may bolster Durham's critics, who believe he's running a politicized probe into flimsy theories. Trump has treated Durham's probe as a political weapon, stoking excitement in the right-wing ecosystem that Durham will deliver Watergate-caliber indictments against Clinton loyalists and the "deep state" government agents who supposedly conspired against him. He has even suggested that Sussmann's and other Democrats' conduct should be "punishable by death." Durham's efforts to "investigate the investigators" are ongoing, and have outlasted the Russia probe itself, which was taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller and convicted six Trump associates, including his lawyer, his 2016 campaign chair, and a senior White House official. This story is breaking and will be updated.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    4 weeks ago

I Told You So! The FBI and CIA investigations into Trump's Russian dealings were legally predicated based on Trump and Co seeking out, meeting with and establishing relationships with known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services. Beginning by at least 2014 Trump was in secret negotiations with clandestine agents of Vlad Putin's Russian State Intelligence Services to build Trump Tower Moscow!

Hillary Clinton could not have been responsible for the FBI and CIA investigating Trump's Russian involvements in 2014, 2015 and 2016. She had retired from public service in January of 2013. Trump got himself investigated all by himself. Now it is official. Durham's witch hunt was more a snipe hunt!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1    4 weeks ago
I Told You So! The FBI and CIA investigations into Trump's Russian dealings were legally predicated based on Trump and Co seeking out, meeting with and establishing relationships with known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services. Beginning by at least 2014 Trump was in secret negotiations with clandestine agents of Vlad Putin's Russian State Intelligence Services to build Trump Tower Moscow!

Lol... None of that has anything to do with the trial. [deleted]

We are now up to three seeds on a topic that's supposedly a nothing Berger. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    4 weeks ago

For months we were told Sussman was guilty.

How many Dems has Durham bagged? ZERO!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

He was adjudged not guilty by a biased leftist DC jury.

That doesn't equate to being innocent

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.2    4 weeks ago
He was adjudged not guilty by a biased leftist DC jury.

Trump was acquitted by a biased RW Senate jury. You and yours cheered. 

That doesn't equate to being innocent

Goose, gander. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.2    4 weeks ago
He was adjudged not guilty by a biased leftist DC jury.

So you are pulling the Trump maneuver.  If you lose, claim it was stolen and you would have won if they'd counted only the legal juror's votes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.3    4 weeks ago
Trump was acquitted by a biased RW Senate jury. You and yours cheered. 

And you and yours whined about it, and still are.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.6  gooseisback  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
For months we were told Sussman was guilty.

That was said about another case???????? Yeah OJ.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    4 weeks ago

And you and yours whined about it, and still are.

DC judge and jury looked at the evidence and made their decision. 

Republican Senate refused to allow any of the evidence the House submitted, and made their decision without viewing it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    4 weeks ago
Republican Senate refused to allow any of the evidence the House submitted, and made their decision without viewing it.

My God, man, where have you been that you think you can pass that crap off as fact?

Your statement is a complete fabrication, and I can prove it.

  1. ...

    Feb 11, 2021  · House managers have rightly seized on Trump's January 6 tweet as   telltale evidence of his intent.   They featured the tweet as a capstone on the compelling, 13-minute video they played to kick off...

  2. bing.com/videos
    th?id=OVP.iHYnY1JitaEp0cpDADOxZgHgFo&w=197&h=110&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7
    Watch video
    4:48
    House managers present 'damning' new video evidence in Donald Trum…
    153K views Feb 10, 2021
    YouTube CNBC Television
    th?id=OVP.xm9ci18TqtYMu34XC8Jl-gEsCo&w=197&h=110&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7
    2:25
    Democrats Show New Footage Of Capitol Attack At Trump Impeachment …
    1.6K views Feb 10, 2021
    YouTube CBS New York
    th?id=OVP.OsHdDsC0haZSgob7qmqKuQEsDh&w=197&h=110&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7
    6:22
    Trump Impeachment Trial Highlights: House Managers Rest Their Ca…
    131K views Feb 11, 2021
    YouTube NBC News
    th?id=OVP.FUJc2tmxhSxiXfkiEoIGqAEsCo:OVP.kWt2vn7kwfBzhzBvpxFfTAEsDh&w=197&h=110&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7&bw=3&bc=ffffff
    0:49
    Trump lawyer accuses Houses managers of manipulating evidence a…
    6.7K views Feb 12, 2021
    YouTube The Hill
    th?id=OVP.FUJc2tmxhSxiXfkiEoIGqAEsCo:OVP.kWt2vn7kwfBzhzBvpxFfTAEsDh&w=197&h=110&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7&bw=3&bc=ffffff
    4:08
    Cicilline: House Managers ‘Presented Overwhelming Evidence’ Of Trump’s Gui…
    25K views Feb 16, 2021
    YouTube MSNBC
    See more videos of What Evidence Did House Managers Show At Impeachment Trils Of Trump?
  3. See all the evidence presented in Trump’s impeachment trial

    ...

    Feb 10, 2021  · “The House managers have played   manipulated, selectively edited parts   of Mr.   Trump’s speech,”   he argued. “They focus on the word ‘fight.’” And …

    • Is Accessible For Free:   False
    Who called for Trump's impeachment?
    See this and other topics on this result
  4. Feb 12, 2021  · Defense attorney David Schoen dropped a bombshell at the start of his presentation in President Donald   Trump ’s   impeachment trial , accusing the   House   Democrats of intentionally altering   evidence   to distort the reality of the …

  5. People also ask
    Did House managers manipulate evidence in Trump impeachment trial?
    Was Trump’s impeachment a betrayal of Historic departure?
    What lessons did the managers learn from the impeachment trial?
    What was in the first hour of Trump’s impeachment defense?
  6. House Managers To Present New Evidence At Trump …

    ...

    Feb 09, 2021  · In a briefing for reporters ahead of the trial, senior aides on   the House impeachment managers   team   said   they plan to use "all the   evidence   available in all the forms, including evidence that nobody has seen before." "It's not about politics," one aide said. "This   is   about the very serious issue of holding President   Trump   accountable."

  7. ...

    Feb 11, 2021  · 🎤 Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., opened Democrats' arguments Wednesday in the Senate   impeachment trial   by saying   Trump   was “no …

    • Is Accessible For Free:   True
  8. Did House Impeachment Managers Falsify Evidence? (Sekulow …

    ...

    Today on Sekulow, we discussed this week in the Senate   impeachment trial . Today, President   Trump ’s attorneys began their presentations. We’re on day four of the Senate   impeachment trial , but it is day one of President   Trump ’s legal team’s opportunity to put forward their case.

  9. Dec 04, 2019  · Evidence for impeaching US President Donald Trump for   misconduct in office is "overwhelming",   according to the panel leading the impeachment inquiry. The president placed personal political...

  10. Feb 16, 2021  · Claims about the House impeachment managers   manipulating   evidence first came up during Trump attorney David Schoen’s presentation during Friday’s portion of the impeachment trial, when he said, “We...

  11. ...

    Feb 12, 2021  ·   Trump   lawyer accuses   House managers of   manipulating   evidence   by pointing to doctored tweets that weren't used in the   impeachment trial . Oma Seddiq and Sonam Sheth. Feb 12, 2021, 10:55 AM. Save ...

  12. Under the U.S. Constitution, the   House   has the sole power of   impeachment   (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), and after that action has been taken, the Senate has "the sole Power to try all Impeachments" (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Trump   was the third U.S. president to face a Senate   impeachment trial , after Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.   Trump   is the only federal official to …

original
See more

This iframe is not allowed

th?id=OVP.OsHdDsC0haZSgob7qmqKuQEsDh&w=330&h=185&c=7&rs=1&p=0&o=6&pid=1.7
Preview
th?id=OVP.iHYnY1JitaEp0cpDADOxZgHgFo&w=330&h=185&c=7&rs=1&p=0&o=6&pid=1.7
Preview
You really should come up with a better fantasy tale than what you tried to pass off as fact.
 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.8    4 weeks ago

Yes, Trump was impeached and a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to remove him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.9    4 weeks ago
Yes, Trump was impeached and a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to remove him.

Well, some of us learned in school what impeachment is and what it takes to remove someone in office through it.

BTW, WHAT does that have to do with my post or the absurd claim that no evidence was presented?

And since you voted up that inane comment, are you admitting that Democrats voted to convict on absolutely NO EVIDENCE?????????????????

LMMFAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    4 weeks ago
Republican Senate refused to allow any of the evidence the House submitted, and made their decision without viewing it.

Did you find it a little weird to admit that Democrats voted to convict Trump with absolutely NO evidence--according to YOU?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
My God, man, where have you been that you think you can pass that crap off as fact?

I say the Senate and you pull up loads of other shit.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    4 weeks ago

Did you find it a little weird to admit that Democrats voted to convict Trump with absolutely NO evidence--according to YOU?

Democrats were aware of the evidence from the House proceeding, republicans refused to acknowledge that evidence.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    4 weeks ago
some of us learned in school what impeachment is and what it takes to remove someone in office through it

" Impeachment in the United States  is the process by which a legislature's  lower house  brings charges against a  civil   federal officer , the  vice president , or the  president  for misconduct alleged to have been committed."

" Federally, a two-thirds majority of the senators present at the trial is required for conviction under  Article One, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution ."

" Donald Trump , the 45th  president of the United States , was  impeached  for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before  his term  expired."

" Ten  Republican  representatives voted for the second impeachment, the most pro-impeachment votes ever from a president's party."

" This was also the first presidential impeachment in which all majority  caucus  members voted unanimously for impeachment."

"At the trial, 57 senators voted "guilty" , which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges on February 13, 2021"

So yes, some of us learned in school that it's the congress that can impeach a President and learned that the word "impeachment" does not mean removal from office which only happens when they are "convicted" by a two thirds majority in the Senate.

Donald Trump was impeached twice, that's a fact. And the second time he was impeached there was a majority of Senators including Republicans who voted for conviction. The constitution sets a very high bar for actual removal, but that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of the crimes he was accused, it simply meant that 43 Republicans Senators chose to play politics and pander to Trumps base by refusing to convict him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.13    4 weeks ago
Democrats were aware of the evidence from the House proceeding, republicans refused to acknowledge that evidence.

Oooh, nice walk back!!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.14    4 weeks ago
" Impeachment in the United States  is the process by which a legislature's  lower house  brings charges against a  civil   federal officer , the  vice president , or the  president  for misconduct alleged to have been committed." " Federally, a two-thirds majority of the senators present at the trial is required for conviction under  Article One, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution .

Appears as though you have learned what I learned some 50 years ago or so. Good job.

"Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States,was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired."

That isn't news to me.

Donald Trump was impeached twice, that's a fact.

Yes, a fact no one has disputed, You might as well say "Water is wet".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.12    4 weeks ago
I say the Senate and you pull up loads of other shit.

Your silly claim was that no evidence was presented at Trump's impeachment trial.

Of course, I gave you links to prove you wrong again.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    4 weeks ago
Your silly claim was that no evidence was presented at Trump's impeachment trial.

Now that is a straight up lie on your part.   You even quoted me in your 5 page long response .  

Of course, I gave you links to prove you wrong again.

Your links were not Senate related, which you know, which is why you are suddenly trying to deny I said Senate.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.19  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.18    4 weeks ago

Yes, the Impeachment Managers did present evidence both old from the House Impeachment and new video evidence in the Senate Trial.

Washington —  Senators from both parties said it was difficult to relive the experience of the  January 6 attack  on the U.S. Capitol in the new evidence presented by impeachment managers that detailed the movements of rioters. On the  second day of former President Trump's impeachment trial , the House impeachment managers presented evidence that included security footage not previously seen as a part of their argument that Mr. Trump incited the mob. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.18    4 weeks ago

gee i guess everyone can pretend you didn't write post 1.1.7 where you specifically stated the GOP didn't allow any evidence, after all, you are pretending you didn't say what you said!

be honest, and where do you think the trial took place??????

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.18    4 weeks ago
Now that is a straight up lie on your part.   You even quoted me in your 5 page long response .  

Wrong-o.

Here is your post-accurately quoted:

DC judge and jury looked at the evidence and made their decision.  Republican Senate refused to allow any of the evidence the House submitted, and made their decision without viewing it.

Now, explain who exactly is lying here.

I quoted YOUR WORDS, and then I proved you WRONG.

If my posts are too long to hold your attention for 2 minutes, skip on by!

But be honest before you accuse ME of lying again when ANYONE can clearly see you said exactly what I claimed you did and then refuted your fact-free post.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

9823f51cfbe69545.jpg

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    4 weeks ago

I don't think Hillary will go to prison, just because, well, she's Hillary....no matter if she is ever found guilty in a court of law for something.

However, this trial did open a whole new can of worms when it was brought out that Hillary herself gave the OK to release what was known as false information to the press and FBI.

This information will be used in later trials, in front of far less biased juries.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1    4 weeks ago
However, this trial did open a whole new can of worms when it was brought out that Hillary herself gave the OK to release what was known as false information to the press and FBI.

Link to that FBI thingy please. 

BTW, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that candidates release false information to the media about opponents. /s

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Look, Dulay..even the most uneducated of the liberal masses know, so yes....you know that Robby Mook told Durham that Hillary approved of false information being released to the press and then was funneled to the FBI.

Don't be obtuse with your comments. They are being...well...overly obtuse.

BTFW, tell our dear readers, Dulay, when was the last time false opposition research was released to the press, funneled to the FBI, causing a massive 3 year investigation into a president that the FBI KNEW a short time after the release of the information (dossier and alpha bank info) was false, but was told to proceed with the investigation anyway. This investigation led to an impeachment that should have never happened, but the rabid loons on the left demanded it. so the dumbfucks in the democratic congress obliged.

Thankfully, those dumbfucks will be paying a political price this November.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
BTW, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that candidates release false information to the media about opponents. /s

Are you equally shocked, SHOCKED that a campaign "set  up" another candidate and tried to get the FBI to investigate what they invented?

Or was that what you expected from your Demcoratic Goddess' campaign all along?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

See how they just make shit up as they go along?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    4 weeks ago
Or was that what you expected from your Demcoratic Goddess' campaign all along?

This

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

So what part of our posts are made up? Be specific and show your work when you try and debunk that which can't be debunked.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bugsy @2.1.6    4 weeks ago
Be specific and show your work when you try and debunk that which can't be debunked.

That requires work and honesty.  You know that's not what they do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

Just ask some serious questions and watch them disappear:

Did Sussman tell the FBI he was not working for a client?

Did Sussman bill Hillary's campaign for his time spent at the FBI trying to convince them of some bullshit?

Did Sussman charge Hillary's campaign for a flash drive to transmit the info to the FBI?

I couldn't get anyone to answer on another article.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
Look, Dulay..even the most uneducated of the liberal masses know, so yes....you know that Robby Mook told Durham that Hillary approved of false information being released to the press and then was funneled to the FBI.

Well, that was on hell of a movement of the goal post bugsy. You ORIGINALLY claimed:

Hillary herself gave the OK to release what was known as false information to the press and FBI.

Now it's:

opposition research was released to the press, funneled to the FBI

What a load of utter bullshit bugsy. 

The whole fucking point of opposition research is to release the results to the press. It isn't 'funneled to the FBI'. Even the fucking FBI interacts with and reads the media. It's not a fucking 'conspiracy' it's something that's practiced EVERY election. 

causing a massive 3 year investigation into a president

More bullshit. Mueller's investigation lasted less than 2 years. Try citing a fact bugsy. 

the FBI KNEW a short time after the release of the information (dossier and alpha bank info) was false, 

Prove it bugsy. 

but was told to proceed with the investigation anyway.

Prove that too. 

This investigation led to an impeachment that should have never happened, but the rabid loons on the left demanded it. so the dumbfucks in the democratic congress obliged.

That's a fucking delusional comment bugsy. Do you seriously not know that the Mueller investigation had NOTHING to do with Trump's impeachment? Are you really THAT uninformed? 

Thankfully, those dumbfucks will be paying a political price this November.

You may want to review the concept of correlation vs. causation. 

Oh and BTFW bugsy, I note that you FAILED to post a link to your claim about the FBI. Instead you post a lot of unsubstantiated and/or false blather. Typical. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

Maybe you can help bugsy refute my reply to his post. He's gonna need it. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    4 weeks ago

I have no doubt they won't answer those questions.  If they are actually honest the answers will destroy everything the have been told.

I just saw this morning here on NT that they now believe John Durham's Flop Is Only The Latest Of Many Trump Russia Coverup Failures  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

Looks like he's telling YOU to provide your proof.  Is that what you are having problems doing?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

569e92e1607b9d12.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.12    4 weeks ago
Looks like he's telling YOU to provide your proof. 

What he did was post a false scenario which neither he nor you can support. 

Is that what you are having problems doing?

I had no problem refuting [debunking] his comment and I note that YOU failed to help him out with a link to his support his claim about the FBI. 

I used simple math, facts and logic. Y'all should give them a try. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.15  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

Sorry, Dulay, but my post stands as posted. Just because YOU don't like it is not my problem. Maybe you should read the link to Time, in which I provided, but obviously you did not read, answers all of your spin you are trying to put in to defend your goddess Hillary.

Bit of friendly advice. Stop parsing words you cannot backup yourself. Mook provided what he knew was false information, and leaked it to the FBI. There is no other logical scenario. Your imagination does not count.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.1.14    4 weeks ago
I used simple math, facts and logic. Y'all should give them a try. 

No.  You actually dodged is question.  He ask:

So what part of our posts are made up? Be specific and show your work when you try and debunk that which can't be debunked.

And you did everything but answer his question.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.11    4 weeks ago
I have no doubt they won't answer those questions.  If they are actually honest the answers will destroy everything the have been told.

Must be why, after 3 times of me asking, not a SINGLE one of them have even ATTEMPTED to answer. They can't face the truth.

Their arguments are hollow.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.17    4 weeks ago

They usually cut and run.  I guess the Big Giant Head hasn't transmitted their responses.

There is at least one that will troll you for a few days.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.12    4 weeks ago
Looks like he's telling YOU to provide your proof.  Is that what you are having problems doing?

Really Jeremy? Let's review, here's my comment:

Link to that FBI thingy please.  BTW, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that candidates release false information to the media about opponents. /s

So WHAT are you claiming bugsy is telling me to provide proof of? Please be specific Jeremy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.16    4 weeks ago
No.  You actually dodged is question.  He ask:
So what part of our posts are made up? Be specific and show your work when you try and debunk that which can't be debunked.
And you did everything but answer his question.

He didn't ask ME that question, DID he Jeremy? 

Your comment is just MORE kneejerk bullshit. 

 
 

Who is online












47 visitors