Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 1:22 pm

Of course....so would you give us this minute's version of what informed your most recent sensational narrative?

Every time I think of it, water rises to my eyes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/06/trumps- ... utors.htmlTrump's lender Deutsche Bank subpoenaed by NYC prosecutors, hands over documents, report says

Bloomberg app · 
Trump Nears Deal With House on Deutsche Bank Subpoenas

https://fortune.com/2021/02/04/trumps-d ... eal-probe/Trump’s banker at Deutsche Bank resigned amid a property deal probe

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/investin ... index.htmlDeutsche Bank won't do any more business with Trump

 

• Bloomberg has corrected its bombshell report that special counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB) records pertaining to President Trump and his family.
• The corrected article states the bank records "pertain to people affiliated" with Trump, while the original reported that Mueller "zeroed in" on Trump, which was disputed by the president's personal lawyer and the White House.
• Previously: Deutsche Bank receives subpoena from Mueller (Dec. 05 2017)

 

Rock » 15 Feb 2022, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 1:36 pm

What link can you provide that proves that?

  If you notice I provide no links for a thing.
You can prove me wrong or not I could care less. 
I'm here for the trolling.
And gun stuff.
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 2:05 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:05 pm

• Bloomberg has corrected its bombshell report that special counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB) records pertaining to President Trump and his family.
• The corrected article states the bank records "pertain to people affiliated" with Trump, while the original reported that Mueller "zeroed in" on Trump, which was disputed by the president's personal lawyer and the White House.
• Previously: Deutsche Bank receives subpoena from Mueller (Dec. 05 2017)

And what did I tell you at that time?


Run.
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 2:03 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:03 pm

Lmao!  That is. Not the Dec 17 story where they had to issue a correction.  Nice lie!

Dwarf,

Please don't be stupid.



 

Squatchman » 15 Feb 2022, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:12 pm

  If you notice I provide no links for a thing.
You can prove me wrong or not I could care less. 
I'm here for the trolling.
And gun stuff.

Well at least you're honest. I can appreciate that.

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:16 pm

Dwarf,

Please don't be stupid.

Sorry, I already slammed you.  With facts.  They had to correct the 2017 story you ran to the forum to post.  You had egg all over your face.
 

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:20 pm

Sorry, I already slammed you.  With facts.  They had to correct the 2017 story you ran to the forum to post.  You had egg all over your face.

What did I tell you at the time?

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:22 pm

What did I tell you at the time?

Nothing of importance in 2017.  Your source was wrong, they had to correct the story, and you embarrassed yourself.

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:37 pm

Nothing of importance in 2017.  Your source was wrong, they had to correct the story, and you embarrassed yourself.

No...I said I would wait for it to come back to me.

It did.
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:41 pm

No...I said I would wait for it to comeback to me.

It did.

Lmao!  Days after you tried to spin your way out of it.  You never admitted they got it wrong.

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:42 pm

Lmao!  Days after you tried to spin your way out of it.  You never admitted they got it wrong.

No...you're lying..

You always do...

Wanna see a fresh example?
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:44 pm

No...you're lying..

You always do...

Wanna see a fresh example?

No, I am not.  You spent days spinning and then came up with that lame excuse.  

But back to the present.  Again, the narrative remains unchallenged.  And you don’t have the “peas” to challenge it.  

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:45 pm

No, I am not.  You spent days spinning and then came up with that lame excuse.  

But back to the present.  Again, the narrative remains unchallenged.  And you don’t have the “peas” to challenge it.

Dwarf,

Don't come on with the power of your NoRecall.

I know exactly what I said, and when.

And I was right, chappy.
 

Rock » 15 Feb 2022, 2:18 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:18 pm

Well at least you're honest. I can appreciate that.

  Thanks!
But I am just a dick.
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 2:49 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:49 pm

Dwarf,

Don't come on with the power of your NoRecall.

I know exactly what I said, and when.

And I was right, chappy.

Your title of that thread was what killed you.

Now, my narrative is still not challenged.  You can use the ARTICLE in the OP as well as the document itself.  

As I said multiple time the other sources I went to over the weekend all either used that story OR it was close.  Add one more.  

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 3:07 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 3:07 pm

Your title of that thread was what killed you.

Now, my narrative is still not challenged.  You can use the ARTICLE in the OP as well as the document itself.  

As I said multiple time the other sources I went to over the weekend all either used that story OR it was close.  Add one more.

I'm not interested in any of that ****, Tiny..

Answer the question.

 

Squatchman » 15 Feb 2022, 2:56 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 2:56 pm

  Thanks!
But I am just a dick.

   

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 3:14 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 3:14 pm

I'm not interested in any of that ****, Tiny..

Answer the question.

Already answered and I am still unchallenged.  You aren’t man enough because you know my narrative accurately describes the allegation and what is contained in the court filing.

Huey » 15 Feb 2022, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 3:18 pm

Already answered and I am still unchallenged.  You aren’t man enough because you know my narrative accurately describes the allegation and what is contained in the court filing.

Not interested in the 37th retelling of the narrative, Tiny.

Save the bandwidth.

Blackvegetable » 15 Feb 2022, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2022, 3:21 pm

Not interested in the 37th retelling of the narrative, Tiny.

Save the bandwidth.

But that is the answer.

You can’t back up your statement that my narrative was cockeyed.  You keep on running, Forrest.