So what is this about Paul Manafort suing the Department of Justice? Is this legit?
26-30, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
Well it's real. It's also real stupid. His claim is Mueller didn't have the authority to do him in for money laundering and from the get-go it's been pretty clear that this has always been about money laundering. Collusion is not a crime. But it's a good reason to knock out everyone for other criminal behaviour.
View 40 more replies »
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@ladycae What you called "position 1" is identical to what you called "position 2" because at no point in any of those quotes did they provide opposing or mutually exclusive viewpoints. It IS confirmed that he's laundered money. It is NOT confirmed whether or not he was aware of doing it. Trump had to make the conscious decision to sell his own hotel units to criminals. Meaning he did launder money. Whether he actually knew that the buyers were criminals looking to hide their money is NOT confirmed.
What you've called "position 3" is identical to what you've called "position 2" because you're just playing dumb word games. "A strong chance" and "strong evidence" are the same thing. You're pretending they're not, and that isn't a rebuttal.
What you've called "position 4" is not a position at all, it's essential to position 2 being true. Because otherwise position 2 wouldn't be position 2.
All said and done, only what you've called "position 2" is my actual position. You made up position 1, you created a nonexistent "position 3" by trying to play with words and failing at it, and you took one portion of position 2 and pretended it was a fourth position.
So now that you're done failing at explaining my own viewpoints to me and getting corrected for it, let's hear your own position. No, really, it's ok. I'll wait.
What you've called "position 3" is identical to what you've called "position 2" because you're just playing dumb word games. "A strong chance" and "strong evidence" are the same thing. You're pretending they're not, and that isn't a rebuttal.
What you've called "position 4" is not a position at all, it's essential to position 2 being true. Because otherwise position 2 wouldn't be position 2.
All said and done, only what you've called "position 2" is my actual position. You made up position 1, you created a nonexistent "position 3" by trying to play with words and failing at it, and you took one portion of position 2 and pretended it was a fourth position.
So now that you're done failing at explaining my own viewpoints to me and getting corrected for it, let's hear your own position. No, really, it's ok. I'll wait.
ladycae · 100+, F
@BlueMetalChick
[quote]and my position has always been as i have stated throughout. without proof he's not guilty.
[/quote]
[quote] i have always maintained that there was no proof that trump knew[/quote]
[quote]you claim i never stated my opinion when i have repeatedly said that as much as i detest him, until anything is proven he is innocent of drug trafficking and money laundering.[/quote]
[quote]and my position has always been as i have stated throughout. without proof he's not guilty.
[/quote]
[quote] i have always maintained that there was no proof that trump knew[/quote]
[quote]you claim i never stated my opinion when i have repeatedly said that as much as i detest him, until anything is proven he is innocent of drug trafficking and money laundering.[/quote]
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@ladycae That's...vague but it's a start, at least. Not nearly as developed a position as I was hoping for, but better than nothing.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@Pitchblue Oh great, more borderline nepotism.
hlpflwthat · M
BiasForAction · M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@LvChris Yeah, that old ploy.