Obamagate

[Sparko]

No I on the basis that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant such an investigation. See the difference?

Tassman, you have said over and over that Trump is guilty. When asked for proof you say they haven't found it yet but they are still investigating.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post442314
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post444096
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post441540
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post445352
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post433740
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post442304

But the topic is Trump, NOT

You are the one who said:

I just showed you that you were wrong. Here is is again:

[JimL]

Tassman, you have said over and over that Trump is guilty. When asked for proof you say they haven't found it yet but they are still investigating.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post442314
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post444096
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post441540
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post445352
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post433740
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post442304





You are the one who said:



I just showed you that you were wrong. Here is is again:

No he wasn't wrong, he said that that was the conclusion that the FBI came to, and that was the conclusion that the FBI came to.

[Charles]

Tassman, you have said over and over that Trump is guilty. When asked for proof you say they haven't found it yet but they are still investigating.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post442314
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post444096
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post441540
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post445352
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post433740
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post442304

I looked them all up and did not find a single quote in which it is said that Trump is guilty. Tassman talks about "considerable circumstantial evidence", he talks about Trump apearing to be guilty and so on. There is a single post about the Kushner case where we get close, but we are not there. One can see that he finds it likely that Trump is guilty but he repeatedly points to the fact that we shall wait and see.

As the saying goes... The devil is in the details (and not the alternative facts)

[Sparko]

I looked them all up and did not find a single quote in which it is said that Trump is guilty. Tassman talks about "considerable circumstantial evidence", he talks about Trump apearing to be guilty and so on. There is a single post about the Kushner case where we get close, but we are not there. One can see that he finds it likely that Trump is guilty but he repeatedly points to the fact that we shall wait and see.

As the saying goes... The devil is in the details (and not the alternative facts)

Really???

The very first link:

OR not yet released. Certainly, on the surface, Trump is as guilty as hell. Damning information is emerging on a daily basis...but we shall wait and see.

He has been going on about how Trump has been working with the Russians since the Election. Whenever we ask for proof, he invokes the "investigation" or anonymous sources that say he is. His view is Trump is guilty and the investigation will eventually prove it if we let them dig long enough.

[Charles]

Really???

The very first link:



He has been going on about how Trump has been working with the Russians since the Election. Whenever we ask for proof, he invokes the "investigation" or anonymous sources that say he is. His view is Trump is guilty and the investigation will eventually prove it if we let them dig long enough.

As we can all easily see it says: "Certainly, on the surface, Trump is as guilty as hell." Being guilty on the surface, looking guilty, is of course not enough. That is why he goes on to say: "Damning information is emerging on a daily basis...but we shall wait and see."

Of course you can pick out a part of a sentence in order to support your view. The content the words were written in tells another story.

[Sparko]

As we can all easily see it says: "Certainly, on the surface, Trump is as guilty as hell." Being guilty on the surface, looking guilty, is of course not enough. That is why he goes on to say: "Damning information is emerging on a daily basis...but we shall wait and see."

Of course you can pick out a part of a sentence in order to support your view. The content the words were written in tells another story.

yeesh. read the thread in context. Tassman was arguing that Trump was colluding with the Russians, and we were arguing that there was no evidence. That post was him deflecting by saying that he was guilty but doing his cover of "we need to let the investigation happen to prove it"

You have been here less than a month. Tassman has been going on about this for nearly a year now. Maybe you should hang around a bit longer before you start telling us what has been going on for 8 times longer than you have been here?

[Charles]

yeesh. read the thread in context. Tassman was arguing that Trump was colluding with the Russians, and we were arguing that there was no evidence. That post was him deflecting by saying that he was guilty but doing his cover of "we need to let the investigation happen to prove it"

You have been here less than a month. Tassman has been going on about this for nearly a year now. Maybe you should hang around a bit longer before you start telling us what has been going on for 8 times longer than you have been here?

Or maybe you should provide a link in which he says what you claim he said? It should be easy since you have been here for so long. You can call what he says a cover but that is your interpretation. I did read the thread by the way.

[One Bad Pig]

Democrats may come to regret their witch-hunt against President Trump. As the saying the goes, the more you roll in the mud, the more it sticks to you.

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ces-unmasking/

© Copyright Original Source

Indeed.

It's interesting that an ambassador had the authority to make these requests.

Source: Arnold Ahlert

full article

© Copyright Original Source

It's no wonder all these "sources" are hiding behind anonymity - they're leaking data illegally collected and shared.

[Sparko]

Or maybe you should provide a link in which he says what you claim he said? It should be easy since you have been here for so long. You can call what he says a cover but that is your interpretation. I did read the thread by the way.

So you are saying that Tassman does NOT think that Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians? He has been wasting all this effort for 8 months now to argue that Trump is innocent until proven guilty?

[Charles]

So you are saying that Tassman does NOT think that Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians? He has been wasting all this effort for 8 months now to argue that Trump is innocent until proven guilty?

He did not say what you claim he said in any of the links provided. That is what I am saying.

[Mountain Man]

He did not say what you claim he said in any of the links provided. That is what I am saying.

Give me a break. No reasonable person could read the posts linked by Sparko and not see that Tassmoron clearly thinks Trump is 100% guilty.

But don't take my word for it. Let's ask him.

Hey, Tassy, do you think Trump is probably guilty of colluding with Russia to win the election? Yes or no?

[Tassman]

He did not say what you claim he said in any of the links provided. That is what I am saying.

You are right and Sparko and MM as usual are wrong. As you correctly point out, my consistent argument has been that the investigation is ongoing and that we need to reserve judgement until the outcome. Do I think Trump is probably guilty of collusion? Yes. But I may be proved wrong. We shall see.

Give me a break. No reasonable person could read the posts linked by Sparko and not see that Tassmoron clearly thinks Trump is 100% guilty.

But don't take my word for it. Let's ask him.

Hey, Tassy, do you think Trump is probably guilty of colluding with Russia to win the election? Yes or no?

Um, do your realise that there's a difference between thinking "Trump is 100% guilty" and thinking he is "probably guilty? You're such an idiot

[Mountain Man]

Do I think Trump is probably guilty of collusion? Yes.

Just like Sparko said.

[JimL]

Just like Sparko said.

Yeah, I think Trump is guilty as well, what of it? When you learn what it means to think, you'll undertand.

[Charles]

Just like Sparko said.

Nope. "Probably guilty" does not mean "guilty". You can manipulate as much as you like but it will not change the fact that you and Sparko were wrong.
Some of us know how to handle the little details that actually do make a difference.