- Thread starter
- #261
Semantics semantics?! You use it for your convenience, but unfortunately for you, you aren't clever enough to use it in a logical debate. The missing link you are looking for, that you really aren't looking for is understanding the con game between Trump and Stone, and the fact that the law doesn't discriminate against other evidence. Only those who wish to be out to lunch on this issue are out to lunch. The fact that Trump had an opinion about Stone is all that is needed in this criminal investigation for which Trump himself is a subject of. Anything between a witness and a subject is subject to scrutiny. And this sure is.Yes I did prove it.If you can prove the evidence is inaccurate. Which you never did. To say it isn't so isn't worth squat. You can't even play a decent game with semantics because you never say anything.It is a perfectly logical point to say you are wrong based on the failed attempt at evidence which you posted.Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.I already did and it made you into my bitch.If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.
You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.
Keep lying little boy
He made no effort to tell others what to say in their testimony which is what the law forbids.