But I did provide you an answer. Maybe not the one you were looking for, but an answer nonetheless.
I was specifically addressing your question. You are simply spewing Trump-hating rhetoric as if it is factual and then expecting me to respond with a straight face.
Way out of scope for Mueller.
Hey, I don’t mind you dodging. People of any intelligence know what it means.
I don’t think you understand what the word “rhetoric” means.
Can you refute anything in the Times article?
Simply not true. But please feel free to provide some supporting evidence.
Do you really not see the irony of this post?
That I won’t cave to Trump-hater demands??? Is that what you are referring to?
Why bother posting here, if you won’t respond to anyone’s post, other than to stick you fingers in your ears and scream “LA LA LA FAKE NEWS LA LA LA”?
No. Simply that you’re dodging. Red flag stuff.
You still don’t get it.
Like every Trump hit piece, the article latched onto some questionable information and proceeded to spin like crazy.
And Trump-haters than point to the spin as factual, when it is nothing more than spin.
You didn’t even read the article, did you?
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
I could go back to my framing argument, but I’m sure you would prefer I didn’t.
You never framed an argument to begin with. I doubt you’d start now.
What set of information would be non trump hating to you?
Mouth frothing!
2 Likes
Of course not - you might trip over a LW talking point and get a boo boo.
What can I say, ya’ll love reality TV stars!!
Only posts that honor him. Use peek’s body of work as reference.
Nothing is out of scope…re-read the initial directive…here is the key part:
Section b part ii
“any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”
