---
It may not be compelling or convincing evidence, but to say that it doesn't indicate a greater probability of no crime being committed than an indictment would attest to is just plain goofy.
---
It indicates a higher probability of no crime having been committed, but that is absolutely no basis to make moronic statements like "no crime was committed."
---
I think you may have me on that one.
---
Now that you know you were wrong about that, do you think you might be wrong in your other baseless assumptions about Fitzgerald?
---
Have I called you names in hopes of provoking threats?
---
In the hopes of provoking threats? No no. You did, however, the "safety" of my keyboard. Let's not pretend we are idiots, the meaning behind that is clear.
Of course, since you are not responsible for your own actions and words, it is *my* fault you have no self-control. Like all good conservatives, personal responsibility for everyone I don't call "myself".
---
Kind of makes you wonder (well, not YOU obviously, sane people) why we need to suddenly begin indicting WH staff for something as thin as this.
---
Awesome work not acknowledging the fact that this is the first felony indictment of a White House official in 130 years.
You want people to believe it is from some web of conspiracy... yet you are completely unable to find any conspirators. Not one.
---
Logic can't get any more circular than that, Bubba.
---
It's not circular at all. I have reasons to say Fitzgerald is more trustworthy as a source of this information than every single one of your sources.
Every single one of your sources is a self-admitted right-wing op-ed columnist or blogger. Every single one.
Fitzgerald is a Republican-appointed non-partisan special prosecutor who has interviewed dozens of people about this case and has lived and breathed it for 2 years.
No circles, just plain logic.
It may not be compelling or convincing evidence, but to say that it doesn't indicate a greater probability of no crime being committed than an indictment would attest to is just plain goofy.
---
It indicates a higher probability of no crime having been committed, but that is absolutely no basis to make moronic statements like "no crime was committed."
---
I think you may have me on that one.
---
Now that you know you were wrong about that, do you think you might be wrong in your other baseless assumptions about Fitzgerald?
---
Have I called you names in hopes of provoking threats?
---
In the hopes of provoking threats? No no. You did, however, the "safety" of my keyboard. Let's not pretend we are idiots, the meaning behind that is clear.
Of course, since you are not responsible for your own actions and words, it is *my* fault you have no self-control. Like all good conservatives, personal responsibility for everyone I don't call "myself".
---
Kind of makes you wonder (well, not YOU obviously, sane people) why we need to suddenly begin indicting WH staff for something as thin as this.
---
Awesome work not acknowledging the fact that this is the first felony indictment of a White House official in 130 years.
You want people to believe it is from some web of conspiracy... yet you are completely unable to find any conspirators. Not one.
---
Logic can't get any more circular than that, Bubba.
---
It's not circular at all. I have reasons to say Fitzgerald is more trustworthy as a source of this information than every single one of your sources.
Every single one of your sources is a self-admitted right-wing op-ed columnist or blogger. Every single one.
Fitzgerald is a Republican-appointed non-partisan special prosecutor who has interviewed dozens of people about this case and has lived and breathed it for 2 years.
No circles, just plain logic.