3157 pts ยท February 2, 2017
I didn't get your goat. I am your goat.
Keep downvoting me, though. I really don't care.
It baffles me that you acknowledge how clear evidence of criminality would damage Clinton's campaign, w/o acknowledging it would be just.
This is because I've already given you the evidence, and the link is simply citation. However, you seem to not understand "evidence"
If it is simply a matter of convenience, I'd be happy to supply. I have the link ready in my clipboard.
That you have not gone and found it yourself suggests that you do not wish to see--that you are uninterested in the truth.
The reason I'm wanting you to confirm is that the evidence has been widely publicized and is easily accessible.
If you're not open to changing your mind, then you're not actually engaging in debate.
Lastly, asking you to acknowledge you are open to changing your mind is not asking you to beg.
Furthermore, legal definitions are more restrictive than casual usage definitions. The information was not asked for, it was freely offered.
You have poor reading comprehension. And evidence of criminality is in a class of its own.
Meanwhile, Lynch and Fusion GPS, after agreeing to hearings, are now backing out.
While not legally meaningful, it is significant that of all the people involved in this scandal, Trump's ppl are the only ones testifying.
It's at this point that you might want to consider the relationship this Russian lawyer had with multiple democratic groups and politicians
It was literally nothing.
Additionally, no information was ultimately provided. So nothing of value was offered. Nothing was solicited, and nothing was given.
That is not solicitation. You can't just make up definitions to suit your whims.
The article very plainly stated that there is no evidence that demonstrates Jr. committed a crime.
The email also clarifies that the information hypothetically offered would unlikely be regarded as "something of value" given its nature.
The article did not say that, and reading his email it is clear that there was no solicitation.
At this point, I can only assume you are acting in bad faith, and never had any intention of aiding the truth.
You also continue to ignore the posts where I challenge you to be open to changing your mind in light of new evidence.
You continue to not read what I post, and restate the same irrelevant points.
Yes, and as I literally just stated for the second time--1. nothing was solicited, 2. evidence of a crime cannot be "something of value".
As soon as you say you are open to the possibility of being wrong, I will provide a link to the easily found and well documented evidence.
So far, all you arguments have lacked evidence and lacked logic. Not only are they invalid, they'r unsubstantiated.
You still have yet to acknowledge whether you are open to changing your mind if provided hard evidence.
Remember that whole bit where I covered how it would be absurd to consider evidence of illegal acts to be "something of value"?
If you read the article critically, you'll find that almost all of "legal questions" are answered quite clearly by the evidence.
I did acknowledge it by pointing out that literally none of the information we have demonstrates any illegality.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for any evidence of illegality on behalf of Trump, or Trump Jr. in regards to the election.
Keep downvoting me, though. I really don't care.
It baffles me that you acknowledge how clear evidence of criminality would damage Clinton's campaign, w/o acknowledging it would be just.
This is because I've already given you the evidence, and the link is simply citation. However, you seem to not understand "evidence"
If it is simply a matter of convenience, I'd be happy to supply. I have the link ready in my clipboard.
That you have not gone and found it yourself suggests that you do not wish to see--that you are uninterested in the truth.
The reason I'm wanting you to confirm is that the evidence has been widely publicized and is easily accessible.
If you're not open to changing your mind, then you're not actually engaging in debate.
Lastly, asking you to acknowledge you are open to changing your mind is not asking you to beg.
Furthermore, legal definitions are more restrictive than casual usage definitions. The information was not asked for, it was freely offered.
You have poor reading comprehension. And evidence of criminality is in a class of its own.
Meanwhile, Lynch and Fusion GPS, after agreeing to hearings, are now backing out.
While not legally meaningful, it is significant that of all the people involved in this scandal, Trump's ppl are the only ones testifying.
It's at this point that you might want to consider the relationship this Russian lawyer had with multiple democratic groups and politicians
It was literally nothing.
Additionally, no information was ultimately provided. So nothing of value was offered. Nothing was solicited, and nothing was given.
That is not solicitation. You can't just make up definitions to suit your whims.
The article very plainly stated that there is no evidence that demonstrates Jr. committed a crime.
The email also clarifies that the information hypothetically offered would unlikely be regarded as "something of value" given its nature.
The article did not say that, and reading his email it is clear that there was no solicitation.
At this point, I can only assume you are acting in bad faith, and never had any intention of aiding the truth.
You also continue to ignore the posts where I challenge you to be open to changing your mind in light of new evidence.
You continue to not read what I post, and restate the same irrelevant points.
Yes, and as I literally just stated for the second time--1. nothing was solicited, 2. evidence of a crime cannot be "something of value".
As soon as you say you are open to the possibility of being wrong, I will provide a link to the easily found and well documented evidence.
So far, all you arguments have lacked evidence and lacked logic. Not only are they invalid, they'r unsubstantiated.
You still have yet to acknowledge whether you are open to changing your mind if provided hard evidence.
Remember that whole bit where I covered how it would be absurd to consider evidence of illegal acts to be "something of value"?
If you read the article critically, you'll find that almost all of "legal questions" are answered quite clearly by the evidence.
I did acknowledge it by pointing out that literally none of the information we have demonstrates any illegality.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for any evidence of illegality on behalf of Trump, or Trump Jr. in regards to the election.