Liberal Forum

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:02 am

Don't forget the actual motion.  You're an idiot.

So far you have posted no facts, no narrative, no links.  You keep bellowing "THAT'S ****" and running away.

When was Joffe's company contracted to do the analysis of these calls?

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:00 am

At the time, all we had was that story AND the court filling.  At that time that was the story.

And yet I don't see you posting any thing that refutes it.  You have Sussmann's lawyers asking to have the factual background section removed or at least a portion of it.  THEY are saying ONE "fact" is incorrect.  I posted about that on one of the other threads where you trolled me. 

That narrative is still not challenged.

At the time, all we had was that story AND the court filling.  At that time that was the story.

no...that's a lie.

There was nothing new in the filing, just a "retelling", the sole purpose of which was to wag the dog.

Stinkbait for the Stupid.

And yet I don't see you posting any thing that refutes it. 

It has been posted for days.

I will...if you stipulate that you will acknowledge it when done.

That narrative is still not challenged.

Your cureent position is that the narrative isn't **** because that's what FOX told you.

On Wednesday President Trump released a new video “Justice is Coming for Hillary.”

This past weekend Special Counsel John Durham released proof that revealed the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democrats were spying on Donald Trump’s campaign and later the Trump White House.

The video exposes not just Hillary Clinton but the wicked and dishonest mainstream media in this country.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... g-hillary/



 

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:35 am

When was Joffe's company contracted to do the analysis of these calls?

Sorry, that is a question.  

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 9:39 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:39 am

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:00 am

At the time, all we had was that story AND the court filling.  At that time that was the story.

And yet I don't see you posting any thing that refutes it.  You have Sussmann's lawyers asking to have the factual background section removed or at least a portion of it.  THEY are saying ONE "fact" is incorrect.  I posted about that on one of the other threads where you trolled me. 

That narrative is still not challenged.

At the time, all we had was that story AND the court filling.  At that time that was the story.

no...that's a lie.

There was nothing new in the filing, just a "retelling", the sole purpose of which was to wag the dog.

Stinkbait for the Stupid.

And yet I don't see you posting any thing that refutes it. 

It has been posted for days.

I will...if you stipulate that you will acknowledge it when done.

That narrative is still not challenged.

Your cureent position is that the narrative isn't **** because that's what FOX told you.

 

No, my position is when that narrative was posted, based on the story AT THE TIMR and the filing, the summary is accurate.  You have not posted anything to dispute.  

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:02 am

Don't forget the actual motion.  You're an idiot.

So far you have posted no facts, no narrative, no links.  You keep bellowing "THAT'S ****" and running away.

You're so **** stupid.

Do you read your own posts?

They said Durham had a fact wrong: that Sussmann told the CIA about internet data related to Russian phones being used around the White House before Trump was President, and not from after he took office.

Basically, Clinton Campaign Lawyers got a tech company to data mine the servers of both Trump towers AND the servers in the White House after Trump took office

 

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:45 am

No, my position is when that narrative was posted, based on the story AT THE TIMR and the filing, the summary is accurate.  You have not posted anything to dispute.

To be clear,

Is your story now that, in response to AL's question, you rebleated the talking points she specifically asked you to eschew?


First time.
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 9:39 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:39 am

no...that's a lie.

There was nothing new in the filing, just a "retelling", the sole purpose of which was to wag the dog.

Stinkbait for the Stupid.

It has been posted for days.

I will...if you stipulate that you will acknowledge it when done.

Your cureent position is that the narrative isn't **** because that's what FOX told you.

 

Huey-13 minutes ago

WINNING!

IN YOUR FACE!


BOOOYAH!

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:45 am

No, my position is when that narrative was posted, based on the story AT THE TIMR and the filing, the summary is accurate.  You have not posted anything to dispute.

It wasn't even accurate THEN.

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 9:50 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:50 am

It wasn't even accurate THEN.

That's ****!  LOL!

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:52 am

That's ****!  LOL!

I'm not the idiot with the hook in his lip.

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:47 am

To be clear,

Is your story now that, in response to AL's question, you rebleated the talking points she specifically asked you to eschew?

First time.

That's ****.
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:53 am

I'm not the idiot with the hook in his lip.

That's ****.

My narrative stands based on the info available at the time.  You have provided NO INFO.  Just questions.  That won't be answered. 

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 9:56 am

That's ****.

My narrative stands based on the info available at the time.  You have provided NO INFO.  Just questions.  That won't be answered.

So you are the victim of a FOX Sussman Clinton Debacle?

But not an idiot...

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 10:02 am

So you are the victim of a FOX Sussman Clinton Debacle?

But not an idiot...

More questions.  My narrative is correct concerning the information and the filing available as of the past weekend.

You have posted nothing that refutes it.  Remember, I have already talked about what Sussmenn and his lawyer are saying.

Let the meltdown continue.  

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 10:04 am

More questions.  My narrative is correct concerning the information and the filing available as of the past weekend.

You have posted nothing that refutes it.  Remember, I have already talked about what Sussmenn and his lawyer are saying.

Let the meltdown continue.

You refuted the narrative you were spoonfed by FOX.

While insisting that your narrative stands unchallenged.

Because you're a moron.
 

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 10:11 am

You refuted the narrative you were spoonfed by FOX.

While insisting that your narrative stands unchallenged.

Because you're a moron.

To quote you, that's ****.  Still no facts.

 

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 10:44 am

To quote you, that's ****.  Still no facts.

Does the CNN link you posted inform us that the surveillance in question PRECEDED Grifty's election?

Blackvegetable » 17 Feb 2022, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 10:52 am

Does the CNN link you posted inform us that the surveillance in question PRECEDED Grifty's election?

More questions.  I'll answer.

That link, on another thread, is informing you that SUSSMANN and his lawyers are telling you that.  As I have often said let the court's figure it out.

Additionally, that same link informs you that is the ONLY FACT that SUSSMANN and the lawyers are saying is wrong,  

The narrative, based on the filing and the article, is accurate. 

 

Huey » 17 Feb 2022, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2022, 11:03 am

More questions.  I'll answer.

That link, on another thread, is informing you that SUSSMANN and his lawyers are telling you that.  As I have often said let the court's figure it out.

Additionally, that same link informs you that is the ONLY FACT that SUSSMANN and the lawyers are saying is wrong,  

The narrative, based on the filing and the article, is accurate.
 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics ... index.html

"Tech Executive-1." In 2016, Joffe, who has not been previously identified, worked with researchers to collect internet data about the Trump Organization that Sussmann took to the FBI


Do you want to confirm the date of that story?