Manafort Could Totally Escape Jail With Trump Pardon

[RAMOSS]

I understand now, your mindless left wing rhetoric is ok but the right's mindless right wing rhetoric is not.

What mindless rhetoric you are doing. You don't understand human nature very well.

 

[OscarLevant]

You just said that Mueller is getting closer and closer and yet you don't know that. So, that's not true. He is only getting closer in the left's rabid minds infected with TDS.

We do know that. Just read the latest offering by the Mueller team.

 

[Moderate Right]

We do know that. Just read the latest offering by the Mueller team.

You mean your interpretation of the latest offering by the Mueller team.

 

[OscarLevant]

You mean your interpretation of the latest offering by the Mueller team.

A rational interpretation by anybody with half of a brain or more

 

[Moderate Right]

A rational interpretation by anybody with half of a brain or more

So, you admit that it is just your interpretation. No facts.

 

[OscarLevant]

So, you admit that it is just your interpretation. No facts.

BFD. Perhaps you never got the memo that people interpret things based on facts presented, it's a given and pointing that out is rather meaningless. It's like saying "the sky is blue", without making a point about it. It's a given. Therefore, my interpretation, rightly or wrongly, is competent, reasonable, based on the existing events, evidence, and facts surrounding this investigation of Mueller and the SDNY. Giving an opinion is giving an opinion ( interpretation, same thing, etc ). Pointing it out that an opinion is "an opinion" this is not a competent rebuttal, if that is all you are relying on to rebut, and it seems you are.

Moreover...


This retort by you

left's rabid minds infected with TDS.

is incompetent, for it seems that is the entire jist of your rebuttal.

An opinion doesn't have to be correct to be competent opinion. Incompetence is where one resorts to verbal gimmickry, or some variant of the tired pseudo-debate technique of posturing, i.e, shaming your opponent in order to puff yourself up. The truth is, it's not a competent debate method. Doing it does not support your argument, or any point you are trying to make. Though I suppose we all do it, at times, what I try to avoid is to rely on such a trick all by itself.

Apparently, that is all you are doing here.

 

[Moderate Right]

BFD. Perhaps you never got the memo that people interpret things based on facts presented, it's a given and pointing that out is rather meaningless. It's like saying "the sky is blue", without making a point about it. It's a given. Therefore, my interpretation, rightly or wrongly, is competent, reasonable, based on the existing events, evidence, and facts surrounding this investigation of Mueller and the SDNY. Giving an opinion is giving an opinion ( interpretation, same thing, etc ). Pointing it out that an opinion is "an opinion" this is not a competent rebuttal, if that is all you are relying on to rebut, and it seems you are.

Moreover...


This retort by you



is incompetent, for it seems that is the entire jist of your rebuttal.

An opinion doesn't have to be correct to be competent opinion. Incompetence is where one resorts to verbal gimmickry, or some variant of the tired pseudo-debate technique of posturing, i.e, shaming your opponent in order to puff yourself up. The truth is, it's not a competent debate method. Doing it does not support your argument, or any point you are trying to make. Though I suppose we all do it, at times, what I try to avoid is to rely on such a trick all by itself.

Apparently, that is all you are doing here.

Interpret is just another way of saying opinion. YOUR interpretation means nothing. I interpret the facts, of which there are none. So, there is no interpretation that can be made with zero facts. Not one fact of Russian Collusion. Not one fact of obstruction of justice. Not one fact that he directed Cohen to break campaign finance laws. And, it's perfectly legal for an international businessman to do international business to build a building in another country, something he has done many times before.

 

[OscarLevant]

Interpret is just another way of saying opinion. YOUR interpretation means nothing. I interpret the facts, of which there are none. So, there is no interpretation that can be made with zero facts. Not one fact of Russian Collusion. Not one fact of obstruction of justice. Not one fact that he directed Cohen to break campaign finance laws. And, it's perfectly legal for an international businessman to do international business to build a building in another country, something he has done many times before.

So every time somebody offers an interpretation are you going to make the same rebuttal towards them? you'll be doing it all day long. Your mentioning it is even more meaningless then what you are responding to.

Usually when I see post like that I just say " evidence?"

Besides there are a plethora of White House insiders and Beyond that have made dozens of contacts with Russians so there is a panoply circumstantial evidence which is why there's an investigation. This doesn't prove there is collusion but the investigation is warranted because there is probable cause and we won't know the outcome of that investigation until Mueller is finished because he does not leak. Therefore to assert there is no evidence of collusion is really premature and you guys have been prematurely asserting that every day of the week for the last 2 years Ad nauseam.

Regarding Cohen we have corroborating evidence with the no prosecution agreement signed by the head of the National Enquirer and in that agreement it's states the purpose which concurs with Cohen's purpose while acting at the direction of the president the effort was to suppress the story about the hush money so as not to damage his campaign and thus to deprive voters of information they need to make an informed decision.

It's not "perfectly" legal for a businessman to make illegal campaign donations. A portion of the sentence Cohen received that was due to that campaign violation.

That Cohen is going to jail and what he's going to jail for was at the direction of the president demonstrates that the president is implicated and is therefore guilty of the same thing. This was the finding of fact by a federal judge. At this juncture there is no debate on that single point.

 

[Moderate Right]

So every time somebody offers an interpretation are you going to make the same rebuttal towards them? you'll be doing it all day long. Your mentioning it is even more meaningless then what you are responding to.

Usually when I see post like that I just say " evidence?"

Besides there are a plethora of White House insiders and Beyond that have made dozens of contacts with Russians so there is a panoply circumstantial evidence which is why there's an investigation. This doesn't prove there is collusion but the investigation is warranted because there is probable cause and we won't know the outcome of that investigation until Mueller is finished because he does not leak. Therefore to assert there is no evidence of collusion is really premature and you guys have been prematurely asserting that every day of the week for the last 2 years Ad nauseam.

Regarding Cohen we have corroborating evidence with the no prosecution agreement signed by the head of the National Enquirer and in that agreement it's states the purpose which concurs with Cohen's purpose while acting at the direction of the president the effort was to suppress the story about the hush money so as not to damage his campaign and thus to deprive voters of information they need to make an informed decision.

It's not "perfectly" legal for a businessman to make illegal campaign donations. A portion of the sentence Cohen received that was due to that campaign violation.

That Cohen is going to jail and what he's going to jail for was at the direction of the president demonstrates that the president is implicated and is therefore guilty of the same thing. This was the finding of fact by a federal judge. At this juncture there is no debate on that single point.

In other words, you admit no proof, only opinions. Of course we know what the left's opinions are of Trump.