CNN's Acosta: Trump lied about birtherism, Inauguration crowd, Comey tapes, but nobody had to resign

[edthecynic]

I didn't care on day one and I STILL don't care! Dude, what the **** difference does it make how many people show up at a Presidential inauguration? This is such a non issue it borders on farce that people like you still obsess about it.

The difference is it shows Don THE Con for the lying scum he is. And if YOU weren't obsessed with it you would not have had so many posts in this thread!!!!!

THAT right there, Ed is the first intelligent point you've made in this string! Why AM I wasting my time arguing something as stupid as this with a chat room full of people who spend all day posting nonsense? Get back to me when you want to debate what Trump's legislative agenda is...you know...the stuff that actually IS important?

Your deflection in defeat is noted.

 

[Faun]

I didn't care on day one and I STILL don't care! Dude, what the **** difference does it make how many people show up at a Presidential inauguration? This is such a non issue it borders on farce that people like you still obsess about it.

The difference is it shows Don THE Con for the lying scum he is. And if YOU weren't obsessed with it you would not have had so many posts in this thread!!!!!

THAT right there, Ed is the first intelligent point you've made in this string! Why AM I wasting my time arguing something as stupid as this with a chat room full of people who spend all day posting nonsense? Get back to me when you want to debate what Trump's legislative agenda is...you know...the stuff that actually IS important?

You're a ******* retard. No one is making you post on this thread which is about the very topic you're now bitching about; even though 10% of the posts on this thread came from you, arguing about the topic you now feign apathy over. The reality is -- you were wrong about this and you're not man enough to admit it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like we've cleared up Acosta's lies in the title of the thread.

Despite Acosta's hysterical whining, Trump didn't lie about the crowd size, didn't lie about at Comey tapes. About birtherism, nobody seems to know. Still no evidence one way or another about that.

And no amount of screaming, insults, and profanity from the resident liberals fanatics, has changed any of it.

 

[edthecynic]

Trump didn't lie about the crowd size

Already proven in this very thread that Don THE Con did in fact lie about his crowd size.

 

[radical right]

Trump didn't lie about the crowd size, didn't lie about at Comey tapes. About birtherism, nobody seems to know. Still no evidence one way or another about that.

Talk about being in complete denial of reality.Even Trump admitted Obama was born in the USA.

 

[edthecynic]

Trump didn't lie about the crowd size, didn't lie about at Comey tapes. About birtherism, nobody seems to know. Still no evidence one way or another about that.

Talk about being in complete denial of reality.Even Trump admitted Obama was born in the USA.

But even Acorn knows Don THE Con ALWAYS lies!

 

[radical right]

But even Acorn knows Don THE Con ALWAYS lies!

You are not supposed to take what Trump says literally.

Take Trump seriously and literally

If they gave Pulitzer Prizes for pithiness, journalist Salena Zito’sanalytical couplet on the surprise winner of Campaign 2016 would get one. The press took Republican Donald Trump “literally, but not seriously,” she wrote, whereas Trump’s supporters took him “seriously, but not literally.”

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You have linked facts that Ken Starr had any relationship with those he represented? Let's just see how knowledgeable you are of the facts.

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

You have linked facts that Ken Starr had any relationship with those he represented? Let's just see how knowledgeable you are of the facts.

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

That's recuse on refuse, and it's not a strawman argument dumbass. I spoke of Mueller's inability to present a legal case against Trump based on his relationship to those he is representing in the case, a constant argument I have stated from the beginning, and you present me with a BS Ken Starr argument that you yourself still can not explain HOW and in what way that speaks to Starrs inability to legally represent Paula Jones. Simply throwing a term "friend of the court" doesn't mean jack shit if you Faun (1) don't know the meaning behind the term, (2) don't have the slightest clue as its context, and (3) what circumstabce is specifically made in reference to that actually compromises his impartiality on his legal representation of those women against Bill Clinton.

This is the second time I've called you out on it. Your response is as shallow as your knowledge of the subject surrounding "friend of the court". So why don't you come back to me when you actually are capable of back up what you present with some actual knowledge of the case beyond just throwing out a legal term. Stop wasting my time.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

Starr was the most impartial guy there.....and everyone said it even the democrats.....until he caught clinton committing perjury and getting the people around him to commit perjury...

Riiiight... and by impartial, you mean someone who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Don't ask him to go in detail beyond just the term "friend-of-the-court", that's is as far as his knowledge goes. You may force him to actually think for himself, and we can't have that.

 

[Faun]

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

That's recuse on refuse, and it's not a strawman argument dumbass. I spoke of Mueller's inability to present a legal case against Trump based on his relationship to those he is representing in the case, a constant argument I have stated from the beginning, and you present me with a BS Ken Starr argument that you yourself still can not explain HOW and in what way that speaks to Starrs inability to legally represent Paula Jones. Simply throwing a term "friend of the court" doesn't mean jack shit if you Faun (1) don't know the meaning behind the term, (2) don't have the slightest clue as its context, and (3) what circumstabce is specifically made in reference to that actually compromises his impartiality on his legal representation of those women against Bill Clinton.

This is the second time I've called you out on it. Your response is as shallow as your knowledge of the subject surrounding "friend of the court". So why don't you come back to me when you actually are capable of back up what you present with some actual knowledge of the case beyond just throwing out a legal term. Stop wasting my time.

And that's your strawman as I'm taking about Starr, not Mueller.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

That's recuse on refuse, and it's not a strawman argument dumbass. I spoke of Mueller's inability to present a legal case against Trump based on his relationship to those he is representing in the case, a constant argument I have stated from the beginning, and you present me with a BS Ken Starr argument that you yourself still can not explain HOW and in what way that speaks to Starrs inability to legally represent Paula Jones. Simply throwing a term "friend of the court" doesn't mean jack shit if you Faun (1) don't know the meaning behind the term, (2) don't have the slightest clue as its context, and (3) what circumstabce is specifically made in reference to that actually compromises his impartiality on his legal representation of those women against Bill Clinton.

This is the second time I've called you out on it. Your response is as shallow as your knowledge of the subject surrounding "friend of the court". So why don't you come back to me when you actually are capable of back up what you present with some actual knowledge of the case beyond just throwing out a legal term. Stop wasting my time.

And that's your strawman as I'm taking about Starr, not Mueller.

No ... that was your response to my original post on Mueller, your own post of which you obviously have a lot of trouble expressing the details of the specifics surrounding what it actually refers.

So is this the best you have to offer in a response? Ok let's try a third time for you to go into specifics of impartiality beyond just throwing out a term you read that's supposed to sound impressive to everyone. Legal terms don't impress all that much if (based on your responses) you haven't the faintest clue surrounding it. What are the details of what the phrase actually makes reference to, the circumstance that compromises his impartiality? You see Faun, you are a bull shitter who doesn't know really much of anything beyond trying to impress everyone here with your "friend-of-the-court" term you just happen to read without having the faintest a clue of anything associated with it beyond those words.

 

[Faun]

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

That's recuse on refuse, and it's not a strawman argument dumbass. I spoke of Mueller's inability to present a legal case against Trump based on his relationship to those he is representing in the case, a constant argument I have stated from the beginning, and you present me with a BS Ken Starr argument that you yourself still can not explain HOW and in what way that speaks to Starrs inability to legally represent Paula Jones. Simply throwing a term "friend of the court" doesn't mean jack shit if you Faun (1) don't know the meaning behind the term, (2) don't have the slightest clue as its context, and (3) what circumstabce is specifically made in reference to that actually compromises his impartiality on his legal representation of those women against Bill Clinton.

This is the second time I've called you out on it. Your response is as shallow as your knowledge of the subject surrounding "friend of the court". So why don't you come back to me when you actually are capable of back up what you present with some actual knowledge of the case beyond just throwing out a legal term. Stop wasting my time.

And that's your strawman as I'm taking about Starr, not Mueller.

No ... that was your response to my original post on Mueller, your own post of which you obviously have a lot of trouble expressing the details of the specifics surrounding what it actually refers.

So is this the best you have to offer in a response? Ok let's try a third time for you to go into specifics of impartiality beyond just throwing out a term you read that's supposed to sound impressive to everyone. Legal terms don't impress all that much if (based on your responses) you haven't the faintest clue surrounding it. What are the details of what the phrase actually makes reference to, the circumstance that compromises his impartiality? You see Faun, you are a bull shitter who doesn't know really much of anything beyond trying to impress everyone here with your "friend-of-the-court" term you just happen to read without having the faintest a clue of anything associated with it beyond those words.

You can pound sand all you want. Who cares? I've already proven Starr filed a brief on behalf of the woman suing Clinton, allowing her lawsuit to be heard. If you think that screams impartiality to then investigate Clinton, that's on you.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol........since the first day Trump was in office, Acosta has lost every time he opens his mouth!! Remember how he pwned himself at the first press conference and got his nut sack ripped off by Spicer?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation
So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

That's recuse on refuse, and it's not a strawman argument dumbass. I spoke of Mueller's inability to present a legal case against Trump based on his relationship to those he is representing in the case, a constant argument I have stated from the beginning, and you present me with a BS Ken Starr argument that you yourself still can not explain HOW and in what way that speaks to Starrs inability to legally represent Paula Jones. Simply throwing a term "friend of the court" doesn't mean jack shit if you Faun (1) don't know the meaning behind the term, (2) don't have the slightest clue as its context, and (3) what circumstabce is specifically made in reference to that actually compromises his impartiality on his legal representation of those women against Bill Clinton.

This is the second time I've called you out on it. Your response is as shallow as your knowledge of the subject surrounding "friend of the court". So why don't you come back to me when you actually are capable of back up what you present with some actual knowledge of the case beyond just throwing out a legal term. Stop wasting my time.

And that's your strawman as I'm taking about Starr, not Mueller.

No ... that was your response to my original post on Mueller, your own post of which you obviously have a lot of trouble expressing the details of the specifics surrounding what it actually refers.

So is this the best you have to offer in a response? Ok let's try a third time for you to go into specifics of impartiality beyond just throwing out a term you read that's supposed to sound impressive to everyone. Legal terms don't impress all that much if (based on your responses) you haven't the faintest clue surrounding it. What are the details of what the phrase actually makes reference to, the circumstance that compromises his impartiality? You see Faun, you are a bull shitter who doesn't know really much of anything beyond trying to impress everyone here with your "friend-of-the-court" term you just happen to read without having the faintest a clue of anything associated with it beyond those words.

You can pound sand all you want. Who cares? I've already proven Starr filed a brief on behalf of the woman suing Clinton, allowing her lawsuit to be heard. If you think that screams impartiality to then investigate Clinton, that's on you.

Faun you don't have the slightest clue as to why that term would be associated with Ken Starr or that it's even used properly. Who cares says all I need to know about your knowledge of the link you presented. You presented nothing but someone's "opinion" that you can't even begin to explain to us.

 

[JBond]

Shame on CNN and Donald Trump for being fake news purveyors. Great point by Acosta.

CNN's Jim Acosta: Trump lied about birtherism, Inauguration crowds, and Comey tapes, but "nobody had to resign"

Complete failure by CNN. That you would parrot the lies tells me a lot about you.

 

[Muhammed]

When did Trump lie about the Comey tapes?

More CNN fake news....they'll never learn, useless assholes

He didn't lie about Obama's place of birth or the size of the inauguration crowd either.

The article in the OP is simply more crude, defamatory disinformation (aka fake news) being propagated by CNN.

 

[Faun]

Again with the strawman. I said nothing about whether or not Mueller should or should not refuse himself. I showed where Starr was not impartial. It matters not to me that you can't deal with that.

That's recuse on refuse, and it's not a strawman argument dumbass. I spoke of Mueller's inability to present a legal case against Trump based on his relationship to those he is representing in the case, a constant argument I have stated from the beginning, and you present me with a BS Ken Starr argument that you yourself still can not explain HOW and in what way that speaks to Starrs inability to legally represent Paula Jones. Simply throwing a term "friend of the court" doesn't mean jack shit if you Faun (1) don't know the meaning behind the term, (2) don't have the slightest clue as its context, and (3) what circumstabce is specifically made in reference to that actually compromises his impartiality on his legal representation of those women against Bill Clinton.

This is the second time I've called you out on it. Your response is as shallow as your knowledge of the subject surrounding "friend of the court". So why don't you come back to me when you actually are capable of back up what you present with some actual knowledge of the case beyond just throwing out a legal term. Stop wasting my time.

And that's your strawman as I'm taking about Starr, not Mueller.

No ... that was your response to my original post on Mueller, your own post of which you obviously have a lot of trouble expressing the details of the specifics surrounding what it actually refers.

So is this the best you have to offer in a response? Ok let's try a third time for you to go into specifics of impartiality beyond just throwing out a term you read that's supposed to sound impressive to everyone. Legal terms don't impress all that much if (based on your responses) you haven't the faintest clue surrounding it. What are the details of what the phrase actually makes reference to, the circumstance that compromises his impartiality? You see Faun, you are a bull shitter who doesn't know really much of anything beyond trying to impress everyone here with your "friend-of-the-court" term you just happen to read without having the faintest a clue of anything associated with it beyond those words.

You can pound sand all you want. Who cares? I've already proven Starr filed a brief on behalf of the woman suing Clinton, allowing her lawsuit to be heard. If you think that screams impartiality to then investigate Clinton, that's on you.

Faun you don't have the slightest clue as to why that term would be associated with Ken Starr or that it's even used properly. Who cares says all I need to know about your knowledge of the link you presented. You presented nothing but someone's "opinion" that you can't even begin to explain to us.

Too retarded. I just explained what it meant and that apparently sailed clear over your pointy head.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That's recuse on refuse, and it's not a strawman argument dumbass. I spoke of Mueller's inability to present a legal case against Trump based on his relationship to those he is representing in the case, a constant argument I have stated from the beginning, and you present me with a BS Ken Starr argument that you yourself still can not explain HOW and in what way that speaks to Starrs inability to legally represent Paula Jones. Simply throwing a term "friend of the court" doesn't mean jack shit if you Faun (1) don't know the meaning behind the term, (2) don't have the slightest clue as its context, and (3) what circumstabce is specifically made in reference to that actually compromises his impartiality on his legal representation of those women against Bill Clinton.

This is the second time I've called you out on it. Your response is as shallow as your knowledge of the subject surrounding "friend of the court". So why don't you come back to me when you actually are capable of back up what you present with some actual knowledge of the case beyond just throwing out a legal term. Stop wasting my time.

And that's your strawman as I'm taking about Starr, not Mueller.

No ... that was your response to my original post on Mueller, your own post of which you obviously have a lot of trouble expressing the details of the specifics surrounding what it actually refers.

So is this the best you have to offer in a response? Ok let's try a third time for you to go into specifics of impartiality beyond just throwing out a term you read that's supposed to sound impressive to everyone. Legal terms don't impress all that much if (based on your responses) you haven't the faintest clue surrounding it. What are the details of what the phrase actually makes reference to, the circumstance that compromises his impartiality? You see Faun, you are a bull shitter who doesn't know really much of anything beyond trying to impress everyone here with your "friend-of-the-court" term you just happen to read without having the faintest a clue of anything associated with it beyond those words.

You can pound sand all you want. Who cares? I've already proven Starr filed a brief on behalf of the woman suing Clinton, allowing her lawsuit to be heard. If you think that screams impartiality to then investigate Clinton, that's on you.

Faun you don't have the slightest clue as to why that term would be associated with Ken Starr or that it's even used properly. Who cares says all I need to know about your knowledge of the link you presented. You presented nothing but someone's "opinion" that you can't even begin to explain to us.

Too retarded. I just explained what it meant and that apparently sailed clear over your pointy head.

Filing a brief to simply ALLOW a case to be heard in court does not equate to impartiality, he is presenting a legal motion on behalf of a group of clients who seeks legal representation ... you moron!

 

[Muhammed]

When did Trump lie about the Comey tapes?

More CNN fake news....they'll never learn, useless assholes

All liberals think that what they believe to be true is true, perception is reality.

Thus they want there to be tapes just like Watergate. So in their heads there are tapes that are damning.

So Trump says there are not tapes, thus Trump has to be lying because he goes against the liberal narrative.

That is so dumb. Trump's lie was when he implied he had the tapes in an effort to intimidate Comey. Yes, that was a lie.

Trump said, "James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" He did not say there were tapes. Furthermore, Trump showed incredible foresight by predicting that Comey would become a leaker.

 

[Faun]

And that's your strawman as I'm taking about Starr, not Mueller.

No ... that was your response to my original post on Mueller, your own post of which you obviously have a lot of trouble expressing the details of the specifics surrounding what it actually refers.

So is this the best you have to offer in a response? Ok let's try a third time for you to go into specifics of impartiality beyond just throwing out a term you read that's supposed to sound impressive to everyone. Legal terms don't impress all that much if (based on your responses) you haven't the faintest clue surrounding it. What are the details of what the phrase actually makes reference to, the circumstance that compromises his impartiality? You see Faun, you are a bull shitter who doesn't know really much of anything beyond trying to impress everyone here with your "friend-of-the-court" term you just happen to read without having the faintest a clue of anything associated with it beyond those words.

You can pound sand all you want. Who cares? I've already proven Starr filed a brief on behalf of the woman suing Clinton, allowing her lawsuit to be heard. If you think that screams impartiality to then investigate Clinton, that's on you.

Faun you don't have the slightest clue as to why that term would be associated with Ken Starr or that it's even used properly. Who cares says all I need to know about your knowledge of the link you presented. You presented nothing but someone's "opinion" that you can't even begin to explain to us.

Too retarded. I just explained what it meant and that apparently sailed clear over your pointy head.

Filing a brief to simply ALLOW a case to be heard in court does not equate to impartiality, he is presenting a legal motion on behalf of a group of clients who seeks legal representation ... you moron!

It wasn't just any case and it wasn't just any defendant. Suits filed against sitting presidents were typically not heard. No less a politically driven suit by Jones, backed by Republicans, filing a bullshit case as the statute of limitations expired. Starr filed a brief on her behalf to get the case heard after a district court rejected because it was against a sitting president.

You're retarded to think Starr was then impartial when he went on to investigate Clinton.