Sara Carter

(01-03-2018 09:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Breaking - Rosenstein caves. Will turn over documents by midnight.

Yea, the libturds thought that the speaker, Wray, and Rosenstein meeting had to do with "impeachable evidence" being brought by Muehller. Instead, it was Wray and Rosenstein getting bent over by the speaker telling them he was going to allow contempt of congress charges to be brought up against them if they failed to turn the documents over. Rosenstein confirms tonite he will comply by midnight.

Bwahahahaha. I hate to say I told you so....wait, no I dont. Not to you but i told y'all he was getting scolded.

(01-03-2018 09:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Link?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-03-2018 06:32 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  CNN: Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein just departed his meeting with Speaker Ryan and ignored all Qs from reporters .......


Speculation is he gave impeachable offenses by Trump...........

Got that tax cut through though and the Supreme Court Justice....

Speculation is he cried like a little girl and said he had nothing to do with crooked hillary.

Call me Kreskin

Again Link............

We have posters who demand that people support what they say. Greybeard you with me?

(01-03-2018 10:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again Link............

We have posters who demand that people support what they say. Greybeard you with me?

She hasnt created a link yet because she just reported it live on Hannity. But if I post that it is Sara Carter, thats all that needs to be said.

That’s good enough for me, hannity is shady though. So it’s 50/50 in believability. I haven’t seen anything of the sort though. Probably not good enough for Greybeard but I appreciate the try. Thanks for the effort.

(01-03-2018 09:35 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I really hate the game and how well the right plays it.
Literally had to just type what loopholes were kept into the tax bill in google. Here’s one from the New York Times.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/bu...oogle.com/


Why so stupid and lazy Greybeard? Put your phalanges on that mystical machine in front of your face and type in google. Then a window will appear. Type into that loopholes that were kept. They actually pay people we call “reporters” to write things called articles where you can find the information that you seek.

Post 107. In the thread Greybeard has multiple times said I don’t answer questions that he has asked.

Irrefutable proof that I have and yet he continues because he’s a whiny troll. Badge of honor for him really.

Your infamous link that you posted was about a loophole that was closed by the new tax law. So, no, you failed....

Oh, and Hannity sucks.

(01-03-2018 06:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If you've been paying attention, today was the drop dead date that the DOJ had in order to turn over documents and make witnesses available.

True.

Quote:If Rosenstein doesn't do this, Nunes will start contempt of congress proceedings while also pushing to declassify the dossier in order to make the deep state folks testify in open view of the public.

Trump could do that on his own

(01-03-2018 08:57 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Read on Buffalo

Many legal scholars still disagree with that interpretation, arguing that the president’s role as a law-enforcement officer does not give him the right to shield himself and his associates from any legal accountability. In a 108-page analysis of the potential obstruction case against Trump, the Brookings Institution summarized the types of actions that could amount to presidential obstruction of justice:

I don't need to read on. You are crazy man. Alan Dershowitz is one of the most renowned constitutional lawyers in this country. He's a Harvard liberal as well. I think I will stick to his opinion here.

This is just one more chapter in your deranged mind that will prove to be fiction. They are going to publish your memoirs next to Judy Bloom one day.

I don’t need to read on?

That speaks far more to your character than mine.

(01-04-2018 08:11 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don’t need to read on?

That speaks far more to your character than mine.

Here is your character.

Mach, did you see my response?

Liberal hysteria is a thing of beauty

Hey where are those documnet dumps that was on the Hannity show Uof M.

Greybeard I find you very disingenuous. When one person attempts to provide links to his claims you can’t turn a blind eye to 95% of this room. I am one person. I do try to link and back up what I say. I know I make a greater attempt at that than 99% of the board. I believe your attempting to troll me or you would raise the considerations with others.

Take UofM for instance. He makes a bombshell bombastic post. I ask for a link. He cites Hannity and they will be dumped at midnight. Why am I the only one posting about this?

(01-04-2018 08:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey where are those documnet dumps that was on the Hannity show Uof M.

Greybeard I find you very disingenuous. When one person attempts to provide links to his claims you can’t turn a blind eye to 95% of this room. I am one person. I do try to link and back up what I say. I know I make a greater attempt at that than 99% of the board. I believe your attempting to troll me or you would raise the considerations with others.

Take UofM for instance. He makes a bombshell bombastic post. I ask for a link. He cites Hannity and they will be dumped at midnight. Why am I the only one posting about this?

Sorry I am able to deliver to you breaking news in real time. Also, sorry to bust your libturd bubble thinking this "meeting" had anything to do with Muehllers findings on Trump. But anyone who had actually been following this knew what was going down. Glad we were able to help pull your head out of your ass just a little bit.

Also, the link was able to be found in about 2 seconds. Granted, the search terms "Trump Impeachment" did not get me there.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/...-says.html

Buckle up

"Speculation" "Speculation" "Speculation"

(01-04-2018 08:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Greybeard I find you very disingenuous. When one person attempts to provide links to his claims you can’t turn a blind eye to 95% of this room. I am one person. I do try to link and back up what I say. I know I make a greater attempt at that than 99% of the board. I believe your attempting to troll me or you would raise the considerations with others.

I'm disingenuous? You made an emotional claim with no facts to back it up. I asked you to provide back up for 2 reasons. (1) I'm genuinely interested in knowing more, and (2) I think you are full of emotions with little substance. Item #2 has been proven right thus far through lack of your ability to follow the AUP and truly defend your position. At least admit that you have no intent to defend your position with facts, and I will let it go.

And yes, I have asked others over and over again to defend their claims....See the California thread and LazyTom's optimism.

Ohhhh. LazyTom. So you are selective in your demands of backing up claims and have zero problem with it.

I pffft your claim that I didn’t back it up either. I searched in google and literally 10 articles came up about loopholes and deductions were kept in the tax bill. Arguing about this is a sideshow. It’s not worth my time or effort. I also linked the Wharton school study that showed it to be 9%. That you are claiming I did to do this is further proof that you have a hard time telling the truth. You as you say are a whiny troll. You really post nothing of substance and the day you are curious about something will be your first. Again, You can find these loopholes yourself if you are truly curious. I back up my claims 100x’s the majority on here. Disagree with me fine. Saying I don’t attempt to back up my claims with citations is just an outright lie. It truly is. I have two in this very instance.

UofM posted a claim. Said he couldn’t find it and then we find out it wasn’t true. At least the midnight at least. Where’s the outrage there? You don’t care about the truth. You just care about a partisan angle. Proof is in who you demand citations.... curious