(12-04-2017 11:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:03 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:59 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Here's UCF's original assertion that I've challenged:

(12-01-2017 06:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

Yeah... that's easily proven to be factually incorrect. They leaked it out last Friday.

UCF has a history of making up his own facts. Keep that in mind when reading his posts.

Wow, you guys really get excited when you think I've made some incorrect statement, wish you held yourselves to that standard. I didn't mean to imply that there had never been any leaks on his investigation full stop, more that they've not had the history and preponderance of leaks we've seen elsewhere in this administration. Which it hasn't. Take that as a victory on your part I guess? The point made stands in its entirety, but I guess you could argue that I wasn't specific enough in my meaning to exclude that interpretation. Grats?

you??? specific??? that's as rich as it gets.....

(12-04-2017 11:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I didn't mean to imply that there had never been any leaks on his investigation full stop, more that they've not had the history and preponderance of leaks we've seen elsewhere in this administration. Which it hasn't. Take that as a victory on your part I guess? The point made stands in its entirety, but I guess you could argue that I wasn't specific enough in my meaning to exclude that interpretation. Grats?

Well done... You've certainly earned this

(12-04-2017 11:29 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I didn't mean to imply that there had never been any leaks on his investigation full stop, more that they've not had the history and preponderance of leaks we've seen elsewhere in this administration. Which it hasn't. Take that as a victory on your part I guess? The point made stands in its entirety, but I guess you could argue that I wasn't specific enough in my meaning to exclude that interpretation. Grats?

Well done... You've certainly earned this

Uh huh, lets not act as if I said there had literally not been a single leak. That would have warranted this, but I get that you need a victory whenever you can.

(12-04-2017 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:29 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I didn't mean to imply that there had never been any leaks on his investigation full stop, more that they've not had the history and preponderance of leaks we've seen elsewhere in this administration. Which it hasn't. Take that as a victory on your part I guess? The point made stands in its entirety, but I guess you could argue that I wasn't specific enough in my meaning to exclude that interpretation. Grats?

Well done... You've certainly earned this

Uh huh, lets not act as if I said there had literally not been a single leak. That would have warranted this, but I get that you need a victory whenever you can.

Take it easy champ, you've already won this years award....

(12-04-2017 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:29 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I didn't mean to imply that there had never been any leaks on his investigation full stop, more that they've not had the history and preponderance of leaks we've seen elsewhere in this administration. Which it hasn't. Take that as a victory on your part I guess? The point made stands in its entirety, but I guess you could argue that I wasn't specific enough in my meaning to exclude that interpretation. Grats?

Well done... You've certainly earned this

Uh huh, lets not act as if I said there had literally not been a single leak. That would have warranted this, but I get that you need a victory whenever you can.

Who said this then?

Quote:We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

(12-04-2017 11:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:03 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:59 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Here's UCF's original assertion that I've challenged:

(12-01-2017 06:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

Yeah... that's easily proven to be factually incorrect. They leaked it out last Friday.

UCF has a history of making up his own facts. Keep that in mind when reading his posts.

he is definitely a "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" kind of guy.

(12-04-2017 11:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:29 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I didn't mean to imply that there had never been any leaks on his investigation full stop, more that they've not had the history and preponderance of leaks we've seen elsewhere in this administration. Which it hasn't. Take that as a victory on your part I guess? The point made stands in its entirety, but I guess you could argue that I wasn't specific enough in my meaning to exclude that interpretation. Grats?

Well done... You've certainly earned this

Uh huh, lets not act as if I said there had literally not been a single leak. That would have warranted this, but I get that you need a victory whenever you can.

Who said this then?

Quote:We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

But didn’t mean to “imply”.

Well of course not. Stated it with conviction instead

El O El...

Where’s that angry stickman hammering the keyboard meme.

Fits this perfectly.

Too freaking funny.

(12-04-2017 11:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:03 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:59 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Here's UCF's original assertion that I've challenged:

(12-01-2017 06:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

Yeah... that's easily proven to be factually incorrect. They leaked it out last Friday.

UCF has a history of making up his own facts. Keep that in mind when reading his posts.

Wow, you guys really get excited when you think I've made some incorrect statement, wish you held yourselves to that standard. I didn't mean to imply that there had never been any leaks on his investigation full stop, more that they've not had the history and preponderance of leaks we've seen elsewhere in this administration. Which it hasn't. Take that as a victory on your part I guess? The point made stands in its entirety, but I guess you could argue that I wasn't specific enough in my meaning to exclude that interpretation. Grats?

Damn, I was so hoping you'd tell us you knew more about the subject than Trey Gowdy.

But, worry not. From here forward I'll remember the paragraph above as I read your bullshyte assertions on all matters political.

(12-04-2017 12:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:29 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I didn't mean to imply that there had never been any leaks on his investigation full stop, more that they've not had the history and preponderance of leaks we've seen elsewhere in this administration. Which it hasn't. Take that as a victory on your part I guess? The point made stands in its entirety, but I guess you could argue that I wasn't specific enough in my meaning to exclude that interpretation. Grats?

Well done... You've certainly earned this

Uh huh, lets not act as if I said there had literally not been a single leak. That would have warranted this, but I get that you need a victory whenever you can.

Who said this then?

Quote:We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

But didn’t mean to “imply”.

Well of course not. Stated it with conviction instead

El O El...

Where’s that angry stickman hammering the keyboard meme.

Fits this perfectly.

Too freaking funny.

It's too easy. Not even sporting anymore to expose his false statements. He just lays then out there on a silver platter.

I mean even the little retard kid who lives next to my uncle eventually learned not to piss on the electric fence. UCF just keep walking up and whizzing away. Either stupid or a sado-masochist. Maybe both.

Now that you have all done the saddest attempt at a victory lap in history, is anyone able to provide me with any evidence it was Mueller who leaked the Grand Jury? Ostensibly you are all aware that more than just Muellers team is involved in a grand jury, yes? And you know that it's not a crime for everyone to leak the information?

Any evidence it wasn't a juror, a defense attorney, or any of the dozens of other people involved?

(12-04-2017 02:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Now that you have all done the saddest attempt at a victory lap in history, is anyone able to provide me with any evidence it was Mueller who leaked the Grand Jury? Ostensibly you are all aware that more than just Muellers team is involved in a grand jury, yes? And you know that it's not a crime for everyone to leak the information?

Any evidence it wasn't a juror, a defense attorney, or any of the dozens of other people involved?

still trying to get people to do your homework, huh?

(12-04-2017 02:27 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Now that you have all done the saddest attempt at a victory lap in history, is anyone able to provide me with any evidence it was Mueller who leaked the Grand Jury? Ostensibly you are all aware that more than just Muellers team is involved in a grand jury, yes? And you know that it's not a crime for everyone to leak the information?

Any evidence it wasn't a juror, a defense attorney, or any of the dozens of other people involved?

still trying to get people to do your homework, huh?

So you don't have any evidence that it was Mueller or his team?

(12-04-2017 02:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:27 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Now that you have all done the saddest attempt at a victory lap in history, is anyone able to provide me with any evidence it was Mueller who leaked the Grand Jury? Ostensibly you are all aware that more than just Muellers team is involved in a grand jury, yes? And you know that it's not a crime for everyone to leak the information?

Any evidence it wasn't a juror, a defense attorney, or any of the dozens of other people involved?

still trying to get people to do your homework, huh?

So you don't have any evidence that it was Mueller or his team?

we've been through this. your failure to understand an issue creates no obligation on my part.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-...le/2642434

Obama administration's flimsy pretext to try to criminally prosecute Trump administration.

(12-04-2017 02:30 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:27 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Now that you have all done the saddest attempt at a victory lap in history, is anyone able to provide me with any evidence it was Mueller who leaked the Grand Jury? Ostensibly you are all aware that more than just Muellers team is involved in a grand jury, yes? And you know that it's not a crime for everyone to leak the information?

Any evidence it wasn't a juror, a defense attorney, or any of the dozens of other people involved?

still trying to get people to do your homework, huh?

So you don't have any evidence that it was Mueller or his team?

we've been through this. your failure to understand an issue creates no obligation on my part.

Yes, we have, it happens right when you realize that you have no evidence supporting your position. Weird how that works?

(12-04-2017 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:29 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Well done... You've certainly earned this

Uh huh, lets not act as if I said there had literally not been a single leak. That would have warranted this, but I get that you need a victory whenever you can.

Who said this then?

Quote:We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

But didn’t mean to “imply”.

Well of course not. Stated it with conviction instead

El O El...

Where’s that angry stickman hammering the keyboard meme.

Fits this perfectly.

Too freaking funny.

It's too easy. Not even sporting anymore to expose his false statements. He just lays then out there on a silver platter.

I mean even the little retard kid who lives next to my uncle eventually learned not to piss on the electric fence. UCF just keep walking up and whizzing away. Either stupid or a sado-masochist. Maybe both.

Where is the evidence that I was wrong? Gowdy had no evidence that it was Mueller, plenty of other people are involved with Grand Juries, why are we talking about it as if we know it was him or his team?

If you have actual evidence, provide it. If not, want to retract that statement?

(12-04-2017 02:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-...le/2642434

Obama administration's flimsy pretext to try to criminally prosecute Trump administration.

Wait, Obama is still in office?

(12-04-2017 02:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:30 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:27 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Now that you have all done the saddest attempt at a victory lap in history, is anyone able to provide me with any evidence it was Mueller who leaked the Grand Jury? Ostensibly you are all aware that more than just Muellers team is involved in a grand jury, yes? And you know that it's not a crime for everyone to leak the information?

Any evidence it wasn't a juror, a defense attorney, or any of the dozens of other people involved?

still trying to get people to do your homework, huh?

So you don't have any evidence that it was Mueller or his team?

we've been through this. your failure to understand an issue creates no obligation on my part.

Yes, we have, it happens right when you realize that you have no evidence supporting your position. Weird how that works?

what's weird is how you just don't seem to understand the exercise. I stated no affirmative position. **bang**

(12-04-2017 02:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Uh huh, lets not act as if I said there had literally not been a single leak. That would have warranted this, but I get that you need a victory whenever you can.

Who said this then?

Quote:We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

But didn’t mean to “imply”.

Well of course not. Stated it with conviction instead

El O El...

Where’s that angry stickman hammering the keyboard meme.

Fits this perfectly.

Too freaking funny.

It's too easy. Not even sporting anymore to expose his false statements. He just lays then out there on a silver platter.

I mean even the little retard kid who lives next to my uncle eventually learned not to piss on the electric fence. UCF just keep walking up and whizzing away. Either stupid or a sado-masochist. Maybe both.

Where is the evidence that I was wrong? Gowdy had no evidence that it was Mueller, plenty of other people are involved with Grand Juries, why are we talking about it as if we know it was him or his team?

If you have actual evidence, provide it. If not, want to retract that statement?

How do you know Gowdy has no evidence that it was Mueller's team? Trey Gowdy's made a claim, UCF has made a claim. Who to believe?

Actually, you've made two claims. 1) Mueller's team doesn't leak, and 2) Gowdy has no evidence.

So far you've backed up, well, zero.