Mueller Report Incoming

[WhiskeyDebates]

What has been demonstrated is that the Trump campaign contributed to, and endorsed a rally begun by the Russians. It wouldn't matter if it was just signs, or an ad on Facebook promoting it. They provided their support, thereby their endorsement of everything that rally represented, including the actress.

In what magical lollipop land of delusion is that how anything works? That is a complete and total non-sequitur. How do you get from "sure we can mail you some signs" to "we endorse everything and anything said or done at this rally held by people we don't know". If there was a shooting at the rally does that mean the campaign endorsed shootings at the rally? Jesus, I have seen you desperate and grasping at straws before but this is on a whole different level.

From collusion is a "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others,"  to "any involvement of any kind with anyone doing anything that anyone finds possibly dishonest". Seriously what the fuck is wrong with your brain?

They provided signs, that's it. You are being intentionally imprecise with your language, so you can leave yourself wiggle room to justify your dishonest and baseless assumptions. We know EXACTLY what the campaign's involvement was, the provided signs at that's all. It ends there full stop. How is providing signs, a thing they did regularly throughout the campaign, an agreement with the intent to deceive?

Actually, answer the goddamn question Free, how is agreeing to provide signs on request evidence of a secret plan form with the intent to deceive a third party? Show me the chain of evidence, not your assumptions and assertions but the actual evidence. Show me how you get from point A to point B using just evidence.

Both are responsible.

That's not how collusion works and you fucking know it, we literally had an entire debate on the word collusion you can't just make up new definitions on the fly. Show me the secret agreement between the two parties with the express intent to deceive a third party. Show your fucking work kid.

The campaign provided signs on request and that is the extent of their involvement unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

You can't possibly win this argument, no matter how hard you try.

That's not up to you a biased bad faith actor working backwards from a conclusion to decide, secondly, I don't care about winning this argument I care about getting you to at least act a little less like the conspiracy theory loon that you are. You have been abandoning entire arguments, standards, definitions and examples for days now. You dropped the Tump tower meeting, you seem to have dropped Florida, and now you are arguing that a single instance of the campaign doing nothing but providing signs on request is enough to support your collusion delusion.

You think after being pushed this far back you are doing well? Really?

It's in the indictment, and it's factual.

Providing signs is not an indicator of collusion. A deal formed with the intent to deceive is. It's entirely possible to send someone something and not be a part of a secret plan to deceive a third party. For the last goddamn time, you can't point to any involvement of any kind by anyone at any time for any reason and then conclude collusion without a demonstration of all the required facts needed to get to collusion. You are engaged in one giant non-sequitur.

You have not met the basic requirements for collusion, you haven't met any requirement for collusion.

[Free]

You have not met the basic requirements for collusion, you haven't met any requirement for collusion.

Tell it to the judge, dude.

The Trump campaign agreed to cooperate with the Russians on a rally in New York. That type of cooperation requires obvious communication and coordination. The rally included the signs and the actress to falsely portray Clinton as a criminal.

Collusion 101.

[WhiskeyDebates]

The Trump campaign agreed to cooperate with the Russians on a rally in New York.

By providing signs. Is it possible to provide signs without it being an act of collusion? Yes obviously, so you have to actually show the agreement forged with the intent to deceive. Get on it.

That type of cooperation requires obvious communication and coordination.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating communication and coordination beyond simply providing signs. Get on it, stop inventing conversations you can't show and get fuckingon it.
DEMONSTRATE.

The rally included the signs and the actress to falsely portray Clinton as a criminal.

Utterly fucking irrelevant, providing signs is not evidence of anything another than that they provided signs. It's not evidence of anything else, your fucking stupid non-sequitur is not evidence. If you have actual demonstrable evidence you would have provided it by now.

Collusion 101.

Sure if we ignore litterally everything required in the definition of collusion. 

Are you drunk?

[Free]

The Trump campaign agreed to cooperate with the Russians on a rally in New York.

By providing signs. Is it possible to provide signs without it being an act of collusion? Yes obviously, so you have to actually show the agreement forged with the intent to deceive. Get on it.

That type of cooperation requires obvious communication and coordination.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating communication and coordination beyond simply providing signs. Get on it, stop inventing conversations you can't show and get fuckingon it.
DEMONSTRATE.

The rally included the signs and the actress to falsely portray Clinton as a criminal.

Utterly fucking irrelevant, providing signs is not evidence of anything another than that they provided signs. It's not evidence of anything else, your fucking stupid non-sequitur is not evidence. If you have actual demonstrable evidence you would have provided it by now.

Collusion 101.

Sure if we ignore litterally everything required in the definition of collusion. 

Are you drunk?

Just because you don't like it isn't going to make it go away.

If you don't think there was communication, perhaps you would like to explain how they got the signs? Silence gets you nothing.  Details and names would need to be exchanged, as well as location and events. It's called "vetting." 

You are just desperate if you think they didn't communicate. Don't insult yourself. Just don't.

It's over. 

[WhiskeyDebates]

Just because you don't like it isn't going to make it go away.

Don't like what? You have not demonstrated any agreement or plan with the intent to deceive.

If you don't think there was communication..

I have never claimed there was no communication you massively dishonest cunt. I'm maintained consistantly that unless you can show an actual plan forged with the intent to deceive a third party you have JUST communication and communication is not an agreement with intent to commit deception which is something YOU as the person asserting collusion are required to demonstrate.

You can not jump from "well they talked and stuff" to "so clearly they had a secret plan to deceive the American public".

You have an agreement to provide signs and that's it. AGAIN you can't point to any involvement of any kind by anyone at any time for any reason and then conclude collusion without a demonstration of all the required facts needed to get to collusion. You are engaged in one giant non-sequitur. 

Details and names would need to be exchanged, as well as location and events.

None of which demonstrates an agreement with the intent to deceive a third party, nor does this get you to an "endorsement of everything that rally represent" like you asserted it did.

You are just desperate if you think they didn't communicate.

Communication is not collusion and I have NEVER denied they communicated, they did. About signs and that is all, if you disagree prove they did more. I'm getting really fucking tired of you shifting the goalposts in such bald-faced dishonest manner. You are just outright ignoring what collusion actually is at this point.

Where is the agreement between the campaign and the Russians to deceive a third party in the communication about signs? Show me the agreement.

It's over.

It will be over when you reject your delusion and acknowledge the reality of the available evidence or when you once again tuck tail and run abandoning this conversation.

[Free]

Just because you don't like it isn't going to make it go away.

Don't like what? You have not demonstrated any agreement or plan with the intent to deceive.

If you don't think there was communication..

I have never claimed there was no communication you massively dishonest cunt. I'm maintained consistantly that unless you can show an actual plan forged with the intent to deceive a third party you have JUST communication and communication is not an agreement with intent to commit deception which is something YOU as the person asserting collusion are required to demonstrate.

You can not jump from "well they talked and stuff" to "so clearly they had a secret plan to deceive the American public".

You have an agreement to provide signs and that's it. AGAIN you can't point to any involvement of any kind by anyone at any time for any reason and then conclude collusion without a demonstration of all the required facts needed to get to collusion. You are engaged in one giant non-sequitur. 

Details and names would need to be exchanged, as well as location and events.

None of which demonstrates an agreement with the intent to deceive a third party, nor does this get you to an "endorsement of everything that rally represent" like you asserted it did.

You are just desperate if you think they didn't communicate.

Communication is not collusion and I have NEVER denied they communicated, they did. About signs and that is all, if you disagree prove they did more. I'm getting really fucking tired of you shifting the goalposts in such bald-faced dishonest manner. You are just outright ignoring what collusion actually is at this point.

Where is the agreement between the campaign and the Russians to deceive a third party in the communication about signs? Show me the agreement.

It's over.

It will be over when you reject your delusion and acknowledge the reality of the available evidence or when you once again tuck tail and run abandoning this conversation.

Nope.

Collusion 101

[Old Man Marsh]

"Crunchy tacos!"

"Soft tacos!"

"Crunchy tacos!

"Soft tacos!"

[Grim]

Free's argument can be summed up like this:

A man, pretending to be a landscaper, calls a hardware store and asks if they sell shovels and hammers. After making his purchase, he used the hammer to kill someone, and the shovel to bury the body.

Free is asking us to convict the hardware store owner of conspiracy to commit murder.

[Free]

Free's argument can be summed up like this:

A man, pretending to be a landscaper, calls a hardware store and asks if they sell shovels and hammers. After making his purchase, he used the hammer to kill someone, and the shovel to bury the body.

Free is asking us to convict the hardware store owner of conspiracy to commit murder.

False analogy.

There was no crime committed. No purchases were made. The signs were not used to kill anyone like the shovel and hammer were.

The Trump campaign knew what the signs were for. They knew there was a rally. They communicated withe Russians on details. Names were exchanged. People had to meet each other to get the signs.

Horrible analogy.

This is why Republicans can't have nice things.

[WhiskeyDebates]

Nope.

Collusion 101

And now you are not even trying to support your assertions or argue the points raised.

Demonstrate the agreement forged with the intent to deceive a third person.

[WhiskeyDebates]

The Trump campaign knew what the signs were for. They knew there was a rally. They communicated withe Russians on details. Names were exchanged. People had to meet each other to get the signs.

None of these things constitutes collusion at all. Did every other American who got campaign signs collude with the campaign?

[WhiskeyDebates]

Horrible analogy.

No, actually he is right. YOU asserted that providing any kind of support, for example giving someone a sign, is the equivalent of endorsing everything that person or persons does or says. He's merely pointing out how fucking stupid that is, and you are able to tell how stupid it is the second you remove it from the thing you are delusionally biased against.

[Free]

The Trump campaign knew what the signs were for. They knew there was a rally. They communicated withe Russians on details. Names were exchanged. People had to meet each other to get the signs.

None of these things constitutes collusion at all. Did every other American who got campaign signs collude with the campaign?

Not every other American organized a rally, now did they?

False comparison.

[WhiskeyDebates]

Not every other American organized a rally, now did they?

Didn't claim every other American held a rally dumbass. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

[Free]

Horrible analogy.

No, actually he is right. YOU asserted that providing any kind of support, for example giving someone a sign, is the equivalent of endorsing everything that person or persons does or says. He's merely pointing out how fucking stupid that is, and you are able to tell how stupid it is the second you remove it from the thing you are delusionally biased against.

If you think his analogy is correct, it isn't much wonder how you didn't see the collusion, despite you even mentioning the signs a few times. I always knew about the thing in New York, but had good reason to suspect the one in Florida also.

[Free]

Not every other American organized a rally, now did they?

Didn't claim every other American held a rally dumbass. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

I never said you did. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

It should have been obvious I was stating a difference between your assertion of "Did every other American who got campaign signs collude with the campaign," and the Russians and Trump campaign who organized the rallies. Attending a rally with a sign is not the same as organizing one. And the person who is just waving a sign is not the same as an organizer who places actresses to falsely portray Hillary Clinton as a criminal.

[WhiskeyDebates]

it isn't much wonder how you didn't see the collusion,

The complete lack of evidence for collusion, a plan formed with the intent to deceive a third party is why I don't see collusion. 

despite you even mentioning the signs a few times.

Because the campaign providing signs on request is not evidence of collusion. I keep asking for a demonstration of the agreement to deceive and all I'm getting is you asserting "lol collusion 101" and no evidence, demonstration, and not a shred of proof.

I always knew about the thing in New York,

You know the campaign supplied signs, everything past that is something you made up in your head, which is why after dozens of attempts to get you to demonstrate any of your goddamn lies not only have you not made a demonstration you have actively avoided doing so.

but had good reason to suspect the one in Florida also.

How good could they be if you entirely abandoned defending them to point at some fucking signs in New York lol?

All I have been asking is you to demonstrate the evidence that actually falls under an agreement with the intent to deceive. Why can't you? 

the same as an organizer who places actresses to falsely portray Hillary Clinton as a criminal.

And the person providing signs is not the same as an event organizer.

You have no evidence.

[Free]

it isn't much wonder how you didn't see the collusion,

The complete lack of evidence for collusion, a plan formed with the intent to deceive a third party is why I don't see collusion. 

despite you even mentioning the signs a few times.

Because the campaign providing signs on request is not evidence of collusion. I keep asking for a demonstration of the agreement to deceive and all I'm getting is you asserting "lol collusion 101" and no evidence, demonstration, and not a shred of proof.

I always knew about the thing in New York,

You know the campaign supplied signs, everything past that is something you made up in your head, which is why after dozens of attempts to get you to demonstrate any of your goddamn lies not only have you not made a demonstration you have actively avoided doing so.

but had good reason to suspect the one in Florida also.

How good could they be if you entirely abandoned defending them to point at some fucking signs in New York lol?

All I have been asking is you to demonstrate the evidence that actually falls under an agreement with the intent to deceive. Why can't you? 

the same as an organizer who places actresses to falsely portray Hillary Clinton as a criminal.

And the person providing signs is not the same as an event organizer.

You have no evidence.

Collusion 101.

It's dead, Jim.

[WhiskeyDebates]

Collusion 101.

It's dead, Jim.

All I have been asking is you to demonstrate the evidence that actually falls under an agreement with the intent to deceive. Why can't you? 


All I have been asking is you to demonstrate the evidence that actually falls under an agreement with the intent to deceive. Why can't you? 


All I have been asking is you to demonstrate the evidence that actually falls under an agreement with the intent to deceive. Why can't you?

[Free]

Collusion 101.

It's dead, Jim.

All I have been asking is you to demonstrate the evidence that actually falls under an agreement with the intent to deceive. Why can't you? 


All I have been asking is you to demonstrate the evidence that actually falls under an agreement with the intent to deceive. Why can't you? 


All I have been asking is you to demonstrate the evidence that actually falls under an agreement with the intent to deceive. Why can't you?

It's been done.

It's been done.

It's been done.

[WhiskeyDebates]

It's been done.

It's been done.

It's been done.

Cool, then you shouldn't have any problems quoting your demonstration of an agreement with the intent to deceive a third party by the people providing the signs in New York.

Go on then.

[Free]

It's been done.

It's been done.

It's been done.

Cool, then you shouldn't have any problems quoting your demonstration of an agreement with the intent to deceive a third party by the people providing the signs in New York.

Go on then.

It's simple. The Trump campaign supported and endorsed the Russian rally in New York, and that means they are equally responsible for all that happens there, including the actress. They were actively involved with the rally, therefore they also share responsibility for it. They were contacted by the Russians, and responded to the Russian request to cooperate and assist.

[WhiskeyDebates]

It's simple. The Trump campaign supported and endorsed the Russian rally in New York, and that means they are equally responsible for all that happens there, including the actress. They were actively involved with the rally, therefore they also share responsibility for it. They were contacted by the Russians, and responded to the Russian request to cooperate and assist.

They provided signs, how is that an agreement with the intent to deceive? Where is the agreement, not "support", not "communication", not an "endorsement" but an agreement with the intent to deceive?

Stop using deliberately dishonest and imprecise language and use the definition of collusion.

You believe that because they provided signs, and that is all, they have an equal share of responsability for the event as those who planned, organized, funded, and advertized it? Seriously?

[Free]

It's simple. The Trump campaign supported and endorsed the Russian rally in New York, and that means they are equally responsible for all that happens there, including the actress. They were actively involved with the rally, therefore they also share responsibility for it. They were contacted by the Russians, and responded to the Russian request to cooperate and assist.

They provided signs, how is that an agreement with the intent to deceive? Where is the agreement, not "support", not "communication", not an "endorsement" but an agreement with the intent to deceive?

Stop using deliberately dishonest and imprecise language and use the definition of collusion.

You believe that because they provided signs, and that is all, they have an equal share of responsability for the event as those who planned, organized, funded, and advertized it? Seriously?

The agreement was to support the rally. The rally had an actress to portray a false image of Hillary Clinton as a criminal. They even provided signs for the rally. They were all in.

[WhiskeyDebates]

It's simple. The Trump campaign supported and endorsed the Russian rally in New York, and that means they are equally responsible for all that happens there, including the actress. They were actively involved with the rally, therefore they also share responsibility for it. They were contacted by the Russians, and responded to the Russian request to cooperate and assist.

They provided signs, how is that an agreement with the intent to deceive? Where is the agreement, not "support", not "communication", not an "endorsement" but an agreement with the intent to deceive?

Stop using deliberately dishonest and imprecise language and use the definition of collusion.

You believe that because they provided signs, and that is all, they have an equal share of responsability for the event as those who planned, organized, funded, and advertized it? Seriously?

The agreement was to support the rally. The rally had an actress to portray a false image of Hillary Clinton as a criminal. They even provided signs for the rally. They were all in.

No you don't understand. I'm not asking for any agreement you can find, I'm asking you to show an agreement with the intent to deceive. Providing signs is not an agreement with intent to deceive, it's an agreement sure but not one with intent to deceive.

Where is the agreement with intent to deceive?


I love how you said "they even provided signs" as if they had fucking provided anything else lol