Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

All based on open source reporting and admissions by the parties...

---

Translation: You don't have any proof to back up your story

We already knew that.

---

In a shocking turn of events, HuMcK posted his proof and Oldbear ignored it to banter with Cinque.

---

That was hardly "proof".

But please, continue to pretend you are not a Progressive as you side with them in all threads.

---

You got what you asked for. You ignored it. And now you claim that because I called you on your hypocrisy that makes me a Progressive.

At least you are consistent.

---

No, I got a link to a paper known to be hostile to Trump, which provided nothing in the way of proof.

But to speak of 'consistent', you continue to play your hypocrisy and imagine anyone buys it. Guess that's some kind of hobby for you,

---

No, that's not how it works. You have to read the article and then point out the flaws.

---

No, your side made the contention, it remains your job to prove it.

Just posting a link to someone who tells the same story is not worth the spit you spray on your screen when you post against the President.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

riflebear said:

---

Nothing to see here...

---

I just love the way you can see "ultimate client" and just ignore this all started with a Republican group.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

All based on open source reporting and admissions by the parties...

---

Translation: You don't have any proof to back up your story

We already knew that.

---

In a shocking turn of events, HuMcK posted his proof and Oldbear ignored it to banter with Cinque.

---

That was hardly "proof".

But please, continue to pretend you are not a Progressive as you side with them in all threads.

---

You got what you asked for. You ignored it. And now you claim that because I called you on your hypocrisy that makes me a Progressive.

At least you are consistent.

---

No, I got a link to a paper known to be hostile to Trump, which provided nothing in the way of proof.

But to speak of 'consistent', you continue to play your hypocrisy and imagine anyone buys it. Guess that's some kind of hobby for you,

---

No, that's not how it works. You have to read the article and then point out the flaws.

---

No, your side made the contention, it remains your job to prove it.

Just posting a link to someone who tells the same story is not worth the spit you spray on your screen when you post against the President.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

This judge is out of line.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

All based on open source reporting and admissions by the parties...

---

Translation: You don't have any proof to back up your story

We already knew that.

---

In a shocking turn of events, HuMcK posted his proof and Oldbear ignored it to banter with Cinque.

---

That was hardly "proof".

But please, continue to pretend you are not a Progressive as you side with them in all threads.

---

You got what you asked for. You ignored it. And now you claim that because I called you on your hypocrisy that makes me a Progressive.

At least you are consistent.

---

No, I got a link to a paper known to be hostile to Trump, which provided nothing in the way of proof.

But to speak of 'consistent', you continue to play your hypocrisy and imagine anyone buys it. Guess that's some kind of hobby for you,

---

No, that's not how it works. You have to read the article and then point out the flaws.

---

No, your side made the contention, it remains your job to prove it.

Just posting a link to someone who tells the same story is not worth the spit you spray on your screen when you post against the President.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

---

Unsupported? There's a ton of detail in there. The contacts with Lokhova didn't concern you? The gig with RT? He was Director of the DIA...

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

All based on open source reporting and admissions by the parties...

---

Translation: You don't have any proof to back up your story

We already knew that.

---

In a shocking turn of events, HuMcK posted his proof and Oldbear ignored it to banter with Cinque.

---

That was hardly "proof".

But please, continue to pretend you are not a Progressive as you side with them in all threads.

---

You got what you asked for. You ignored it. And now you claim that because I called you on your hypocrisy that makes me a Progressive.

At least you are consistent.

---

No, I got a link to a paper known to be hostile to Trump, which provided nothing in the way of proof.

But to speak of 'consistent', you continue to play your hypocrisy and imagine anyone buys it. Guess that's some kind of hobby for you,

---

No, that's not how it works. You have to read the article and then point out the flaws.

---

No, your side made the contention, it remains your job to prove it.

Just posting a link to someone who tells the same story is not worth the spit you spray on your screen when you post against the President.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

---

Unsupported? There's a ton of detail in there. The contacts with Lokhova didn't concern you? The gig with RT? He was Director of the DIA...

---

You act like all Russian connections are suspect.

There is ZERO evidence that Flynn betrayed this country or committed a crime.

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Nothing to see here...

---

I just love the way you can see "ultimate client" and just ignore this all started with a Republican group.

---

So that's your go to now? LOL

That's been covered a 1000 times the last couple years.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

All based on open source reporting and admissions by the parties...

---

Translation: You don't have any proof to back up your story

We already knew that.

---

In a shocking turn of events, HuMcK posted his proof and Oldbear ignored it to banter with Cinque.

---

That was hardly "proof".

But please, continue to pretend you are not a Progressive as you side with them in all threads.

---

You got what you asked for. You ignored it. And now you claim that because I called you on your hypocrisy that makes me a Progressive.

At least you are consistent.

---

No, I got a link to a paper known to be hostile to Trump, which provided nothing in the way of proof.

But to speak of 'consistent', you continue to play your hypocrisy and imagine anyone buys it. Guess that's some kind of hobby for you,

---

No, that's not how it works. You have to read the article and then point out the flaws.

---

No, your side made the contention, it remains your job to prove it.

Just posting a link to someone who tells the same story is not worth the spit you spray on your screen when you post against the President.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

---

Unsupported? There's a ton of detail in there. The contacts with Lokhova didn't concern you? The gig with RT? He was Director of the DIA...

---

You act like all Russian connections are suspect.

There is ZERO evidence that Flynn betrayed this country or committed a crime.

---

Correct.

Apart from his own testimony...

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

All based on open source reporting and admissions by the parties...

---

Translation: You don't have any proof to back up your story

We already knew that.

---

In a shocking turn of events, HuMcK posted his proof and Oldbear ignored it to banter with Cinque.

---

That was hardly "proof".

But please, continue to pretend you are not a Progressive as you side with them in all threads.

---

You got what you asked for. You ignored it. And now you claim that because I called you on your hypocrisy that makes me a Progressive.

At least you are consistent.

---

No, I got a link to a paper known to be hostile to Trump, which provided nothing in the way of proof.

But to speak of 'consistent', you continue to play your hypocrisy and imagine anyone buys it. Guess that's some kind of hobby for you,

---

No, that's not how it works. You have to read the article and then point out the flaws.

---

No, your side made the contention, it remains your job to prove it.

Just posting a link to someone who tells the same story is not worth the spit you spray on your screen when you post against the President.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

---

Unsupported? There's a ton of detail in there. The contacts with Lokhova didn't concern you? The gig with RT? He was Director of the DIA...

---

You act like all Russian connections are suspect.

There is ZERO evidence that Flynn betrayed this country or committed a crime.

---

Correct.

Apart from his own testimony...

---

Ugh, are you aware of the side deal by the special counsel for him to plead guilty?

They threatened to go after his son.

I can't believe you respect legal choices coming from Andrew Weissman.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

t.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

---

Unsupported? There's a ton of detail in there. The contacts with Lokhova didn't concern you? The gig with RT? He was Director of the DIA...

---

You act like all Russian connections are suspect.

There is ZERO evidence that Flynn betrayed this country or committed a crime.

---

Correct.

Apart from his own testimony...

---

Ugh, are you aware of the side deal by the special counsel for him to plead guilty?

They threatened to go after his son.

I can't believe you respect legal choices coming from Andrew Weissman.

---

Yes, and they violated their agreement.

Now back to Flynn's sworn testimony that he committed a crime.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

t.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

---

Unsupported? There's a ton of detail in there. The contacts with Lokhova didn't concern you? The gig with RT? He was Director of the DIA...

---

You act like all Russian connections are suspect.

There is ZERO evidence that Flynn betrayed this country or committed a crime.

---

Correct.

Apart from his own testimony...

---

Ugh, are you aware of the side deal by the special counsel for him to plead guilty?

They threatened to go after his son.

I can't believe you respect legal choices coming from Andrew Weissman.

---

Yes, and they violated their agreement.

Now back to Flynn's sworn testimony that he committed a crime.

---

The exculpatory evidence shows he didn't lie though. The Kislyak call isn't nefarious.

Turley is spot on about Judge Sullivan:

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

t.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

---

Unsupported? There's a ton of detail in there. The contacts with Lokhova didn't concern you? The gig with RT? He was Director of the DIA...

---

You act like all Russian connections are suspect.

There is ZERO evidence that Flynn betrayed this country or committed a crime.

---

Correct.

Apart from his own testimony...

---

Ugh, are you aware of the side deal by the special counsel for him to plead guilty?

They threatened to go after his son.

I can't believe you respect legal choices coming from Andrew Weissman.

---

Yes, and they violated their agreement.

Now back to Flynn's sworn testimony that he committed a crime.

---

The exculpatory evidence shows he didn't lie though. The Kislyak call isn't nefarious.

Turley is spot on about Judge Sullivan:

---

He lied about making the call. I don't care if it was nefarious or not.

And Trump fired him after 24 days. I don't recall you ever being pissed at Trump about that.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

t.

---

Calm down. Read the article. If you see flaws point them out.

---

I'm fine, boyo. Still up to you to support your claim.

Or just admit you cannot do that.

---

Not my claim. But if it were the offered evidence is still unrefuted, or even read, by you.

Don't let your hate make you keep deflecting and lying.

Do you have that copyrighted or do I have to give you attribution?

---

You keep accusing me falsely.

I read the article, identified it as unsupported noise, so informed you, and since then you have been Mister Deflection.

But in the interest of accuracy, your side has failed to support the claim made.

Too bad, so sad, thanks for playing.

---

Unsupported? There's a ton of detail in there. The contacts with Lokhova didn't concern you? The gig with RT? He was Director of the DIA...

---

You act like all Russian connections are suspect.

There is ZERO evidence that Flynn betrayed this country or committed a crime.

---

Correct.

Apart from his own testimony...

---

Ugh, are you aware of the side deal by the special counsel for him to plead guilty?

They threatened to go after his son.

I can't believe you respect legal choices coming from Andrew Weissman.

---

Yes, and they violated their agreement.

Now back to Flynn's sworn testimony that he committed a crime.

---

The exculpatory evidence shows he didn't lie though. The Kislyak call isn't nefarious.

Turley is spot on about Judge Sullivan:

---

He lied about making the call. I don't care if it was nefarious or not.

And Trump fired him after 24 days. I don't recall you ever being pissed at Trump about that.

---

New documents released today:

1/30/17 DOJ(?) Memo:

"FBI advised that they believed Flynn believed what he was saying was true."

FBI determined "Flynn was not acting as an agent of Russia."



3/30/17 - Dana Boente notes from meeting with Comey.

Michael Flynn: "Do not view as source of collusion."



Tashina Gauhar notes from 1/25/17 meeting with the FBI - the day after the Flynn interview.

FBI assessed Flynn believed he was telling the truth.

FBI: Flynn knows we have tech cuts, was affirmative in his answers.



https://www.scribd.com/document/468702127/US-v-Flynn-DOJ-July-2020-Production

Look quash, I respect your opinion. You're a smart guy.

Put the dots together man:

Doc Holliday said:

---

Look quash, I respect your opinion. You're a smart guy.

Put the dots together man:

---

The dots say no FARA violation. So?