You are trying way too hard and this posturing is pretty funny. You have a lot of growing up to do.
I was just about to say that you should watch before you become like him. You're obviously rattled. Take some time off, maybe come back with some better trolling ideas.
You didn't address even 1/2 of my points, FYI. Maybe come back to them later, when you aren't so upset?
I do read the articles I comment on, do you read the ones you post?
From your own article:
Lol.
My butthurt retardness has nothing to do with your inability to acknowledge when you are wrong. I am sure Trump would find reason to buy you a beer as well.No, it makes him a butthurt retard that was made to look a fool yesterday and is now following me around from thread to thread trying to get me to respond to his supremely stupid posts.
I read that same quote. The expert is speculating that Manafort may have agreed with Mueller to not use his Senate testimony against him. While Manafort's counsel may be using that argument now for why the Senate shouldn't hand over the documents to Mueller, I see no suggestion that Manafort had a prior agreement with the Senate itself. The alleged agreement was between Manafort and Mueller, not Manafort and the Senate.
Perhaps Manafort told the Senate he would only testify IF Mueller agreed to not use the testimony against him, but that still doesn't mean they can't hand it over. As the article says, Manafort may have no written proof of such a deal, and even if he does, handing it over to Mueller wouldn't mean that Mueller could use it against him. The statement can be useful for Mueller's investigation whether he uses it against Manafort or not. The bottom line is, whether Manafort got transactional immunity from Mueller ahead of time or not, there's no reason for the Senate to not supply the statement to Mueller. I see no evidence that they ever promised Manafort otherwise.
That is correct, once democrats learn to stop getting played by people like you and @FIVR, I imagine they will start winning elections.Getting so easily played by degenerates is why democrats lose.
More fanciful speculation. Why on earth would mueller request the documents if he "didn't want his testimony before the senate" or whatever? He is the one requesting they give him the testimony. Mueller and his investigation are the ones who are getting screwed by the Senate.
I don't even know wtf you are talking about wrt "innuendo". I didn't include any in my posts. Would you like some along with your stories about mueller requesting testimony he doesn't want?
That is correct, once democrats learn to stop getting played by people like you and @FIVR, I imagine they will start winning elections.
Hmm, you're totally right. I have no idea how I missed the 'Mueller' part. Sigh, it's been a long day.
Mueller doesn't want the testimony if it was given under a grant of immunity & I already explained why. There is no evidence that Manafort has a congressional writ of immunity. There's no actual evidence that Mueller asked for a record of the testimony & he's plenty savvy enough to condition any request with the stipulation that he doesn't want any testimony subject to such a writ. He's been around & knows how to play the game. The reason Ollie North got off was because his immunized testimony was made in an open session, making any argument that the prosecution hadn't used it completely implausible. Mueller is way too smart to compromise any case he might have against Manafort in such a way.
Mueller doesn't want the testimony if it was given under a grant of immunity & I already explained why. There is no evidence that Manafort has a congressional writ of immunity. There's no actual evidence that Mueller asked for a record of the testimony & he's plenty savvy enough to condition any request with the stipulation that he doesn't want any testimony subject to such a writ. He's been around & knows how to play the game. The reason Ollie North got off was because his immunized testimony was made in an open session, making any argument that the prosecution hadn't used it completely implausible. Mueller is way too smart to compromise any case he might have against Manafort in such a way.
I think your real fear is that eventually, moderates like myself and the democrats you so despise will find common ground on which to move forward together, after which people like yourself and @FIVR will no longer have a seat at the table.No, complying with GOP strategy is why democrats lose, for example seeking validation ("respect") from party line shills like you. The reason why all your colleagues I've dealt with now know their place isn't too much winning.
I think your real fear is that eventually, moderates like myself and the democrats you so despise will find common ground on which to move forward together, after which people like yourself and @FIVR will no longer have a seat at the table.
That is why both of you are getting so butthurt over me doing nothing more than showing respect to other forum members. If respect and validation is what you crave, maybe you should both stop acting like insufferable children.
Or better yet, maybe you both and the white nationalists can find a field somewhere to beat one another over the heads with sticks, while the rest of us rational people find a way to clean up this mess you've created.
I am sure your response will be something along the lines of how you are more intelligent or that I am deplorable. So very flaccid.
No, complying with GOP strategy is why democrats lose, for example seeking validation ("respect") from party line shills like you. The reason why all your colleagues I've dealt with now know their place isn't too much winning.
Quote one thing I've stated that is radical right wing.He's just moving the goalposts. If he moves the idea of "moderate" further and further to the right (by defining himself as such) he can slowly make everyone to the left of him look more irrational and "liberal" while simultaneously justifying his own radical right wing beliefs as "normal".
Not my problem that you need to believe that.You're nowhere near moderate. You're closer to neonazi ****************************** than you are to moderate.
No thanks. We tried that with Bill Clinton and ended up with a disaster as well as the blame.I think your real fear is that eventually, moderates like myself and the democrats you so despise will find common ground on which to move forward together...
I appreciate you at least responding in a respectful manner. Most historians rank Bill Clinton fairly high as one of America's greatest Presidents, largely attributed to his bipartisanship. I don't particular care for him because I was in the military when he simultaneously downsized and increased our deployments, which had a very real impact on morale and readiness that no one stateside seemed to care about. Despite my disapproval of him on that point, I also cannot deny he was an otherwise good President.No thanks. We tried that with Bill Clinton and ended up with a disaster as well as the blame.
You are asking the wrong person. I want the left to get out of the way and let the GOP have everything they want for a few decades.I appreciate you at least responding in a respectful manner. Most historians rank Bill Clinton fairly high as one of America's greatest Presidents, largely attributed to his bipartisanship. I don't particular care for him because I was in the military when he simultaneously downsized and increased our deployments, which had a very real impact on morale and readiness that no one stateside seemed to care about. Despite my disapproval of him on that point, I also cannot deny he was an otherwise good President.
What would you do differently and who would you nominate to lead the left?
What? You accuse me of fabrication then fabricate Muellers intentions and thoughts to fit your narrative?
I'm starting to question whether you even read the article. It sounds like you have a lot of ideas about what it says and what happened and none of them agree with what Mueller, the Senate committee, or Manafort and his lawyers are saying.
Yeh, but none of those people are actually quoted, are they? No, they're not. It's all "sources" & speculation from a lawyer.
The senate committee is quoted directly in the article. I would invite you to actually read it.
The quotes from a congressman about wanting Manafort to testify to a HOR committee do not address the supposed spat between the Senate committee & Mueller. He's not part of that. They are irrelevant to your contentions..
CNN reported on Tuesday that a dispute had erupted between the FBI, which said it had obtained authorization from Manafort's attorneys to view the transcript, and the committee, which says it was instructed by the attorneys not to hand it over.
Directly from the article and the second time I've posted it in this thread. Third, if you count the original article:
After meeting with Mueller earlier this summer, Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr said it was not necessary for the committee leaders to meet with Mueller again. "I think we'll be in communication personally with him on any aspects that might bleed over from one to the other,"