You words:Blackvegetable » 18 Feb 2022, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑ Tiny,
Are these your words?
were you lying........again?
Just to keep the record straight.Blackvegetable » 18 Feb 2022, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑
Tiny,
How many times must I tell you.....not so many extra words...
Ok....you got me.....I did read it.....you're right..you clever bastard.
So let's get on with it, lest you make a liar of yourself again.
Why would I admit to what you assert?Huey » 18 Feb 2022, 2:03 pm » wrote: ↑ You words:
Ok....you got me.....I did read it.....you're right..you clever bastard.
Go back, reread your post, and admit you were wrong to accuse me of lying.
So did you or did you not read it?
Then I guess we are done. There is no need for me to repost it. You were tagged twice on two different posts. If you need to read it again you have in your notifications,
I did as you demanded, now do as you pledged..
Now repost it, little liar.I will only repost it AFTER you admit you did read it.
No..there is...it is your part of your deal.Huey » 18 Feb 2022, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑ Then I guess we are done. There is no need for me to repost it. You were tagged twice on two different posts. If you need to read it again you have in your notifications,
Once again the many titted empress is accusing Fox News of amplyfing the claims. However Fox didn't file the motion. Special Counsel John Durham did.Misty » 17 Feb 2022, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑ The source used in the OP is FOX News.
They are the ones reporting that the Clinton campaign 'infiltrated' the Trump campaign or WH.
There is no mention of any infiltration or hacking or wiretapping in the Durham filing.
Nor does it make any connection to Hillary or her campaign.
Trump's DNI John Ratcliffe had to admit on Fox News that there was nothing really illegal about how that data was obtained.
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/stat ... 6887869443
I’ll repost both posts that you didn’t read.Blackvegetable » 18 Feb 2022, 2:18 pm » wrote: ↑ No..there is...it is your part of your deal.
**** idiot.
First I want to remind of you this. If you had really read it you would not have made scuch a stupid comment.Blackvegetable » 18 Feb 2022, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑ You repost it, so we can reconcile it with your narrative, then I'll do my part.
Deal, Sheilagh?
That's what I figured.
Don't divert.
There’s one associated with the original post. You are tagged in it.Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 8:41 am » wrote: ↑ 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 BEFORE Trump took office to try and create a narrative that Trump was working with the Russians. The tech company has access to the WH thru a contract to access and maintain the servers.
In a sense, the computer digital equivalent of breaking into the Watergate Hotel. When one of the Lawyers was interviewed by the FBI he lied by saying he was not representing any client. His billable hours got him caught.
Edit.
Correction to the WH story sue to new information.
@Blackvegetable
@Annoyed Liberall
and that would be associated with other. No more for you you.
Already done. No more reposts for you.
Huey » 18 Feb 2022, 2:23 pm » wrote: ↑ There’s one associated with the original post. You are tagged in it.
other than your correction, behind which of the details above do you continue to stand?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 BEFORE Trump took office to try and create a narrative that Trump was working with the Russians. The tech company has access to the WH thru a contract to access and maintain the servers
#readhissig
You focus on doing what you're told.Huey » 18 Feb 2022, 2:26 pm » wrote: ↑ and that would be associated with other. No more for you you.
**** you.Blackvegetable » 18 Feb 2022, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑ You focus on doing what you're told.
The first time.
**** you. You got your repost. Start reconciling, *******,
Start reconciling, *******. Read my sig for your rule on questions and demands.Blackvegetable » 18 Feb 2022, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑
other than your correction, behind which of the details above do you continue to stand?
If you no longer stand by any of them I don't need to.Huey » 18 Feb 2022, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Start reconciling, *******. Read my sig for your rule on questions and demands.
I don’t do well when ******* attempt to tell me what to do. They get the big **** you.
Too much pathology, too little lifetimeI don’t do well when ******* attempt to tell me what to do. They get the big **** you.