You want to provide anything more than Donald Trump jr tweeting an accusation based on innuendo? The Axios report is pretty clear. I'm betting you never read the original Axios article.
yes the axios article clearly took Stalwell's version to heart.
Either Stalwell was involved with a spy or not, what say you? Either grab them by the p**sy still has legs or not, amiright?
Let's see. Binary thinking and the inability to distinguish innuendo from fact. Good to know the recipe for making mallible fucknuts needed to poison a society from within.
Considering the article tells you to what extent Swalwell interacted with or knew Christine Fang, I suspect your definition of being involved isn't involved here.
Undercutting President Donald Trump on multiple fronts, Attorney General William Barr said Monday he saw no reason to appoint a special counsel to look into the president’s claims about the 2020 election or to name one for the tax investigation of President-elect Joe Biden’s son.
Barr, in his final public appearance as a member of Trump’s Cabinet, also reinforced the belief of federal officials that Russia was behind a massive hack of U.S. government agencies, not China as the president has suggested.
I don’t know if the quote above was short enough for Xanax and the jenius to consume, but I can make it more readable for them:
Bill Barr -> NO! Bad Trump! Bad! NO!
- Doc
Goood try but that's still too intellectual for the Jenius......can you make it a little simpler please, words like NO! are quite difficult for 6 month old intellects.....
I don’t know if the quote above was short enough for Xanax and the jenius to consume, but I can make it more readable for them:
Bill Barr -> NO! Bad Trump! Bad! NO!
- Doc
Goood try but that's still too intellectual for the Jenius......can you make it a little simpler please, words like NO! are quite difficult for 6 month old intellects.....
Shock collar.
LIGHT HAS A NAME
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
yes the axios article clearly took Stalwell's version to heart.
Either Stalwell was involved with a spy or not, what say you? Either grab them by the p**sy still has legs or not, amiright?
Let's see. Binary thinking and the inability to distinguish innuendo from fact. Good to know the recipe for making mallible fucknuts needed to poison a society from within.
Considering the article tells you to what extent Swalwell interacted with or knew Christine Fang, I suspect your definition of being involved isn't involved here.
Thanks for circling back to the "we asked Stalwell.." rebuttal. Clever sidestep, but in the words of canpakes - you didn't answer the question. Binary question gets non-binary answer.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
Either grab them by the p**sy still has legs or not, amiright?
It might, given that an assault differs from a consensual relationship.
Your mileage may vary, of course. It depends, I guess, on how you were raised.
Neither example has been proven to be non-consenual. But maybe your mileage varies with groupies. Either way, your consistent use of assigning value is wishy...and maybe a bit washy too.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
Neither example has been proven to be non-consenual.
We are not in court here. No-one has laid a criminal charge of (say) conspiring to commit an indecent assault against Trump on the basis of that tape of what he said on the bus about "just grab them by the p**sy". The 'innocent until proven guilty' maxim, applicable to a defendant on a criminal charge, is therefore irrelevant.
I suggest that the appropriate maxim to apply to Trump's sexual boasting to his colleague on that bus is, rather, that enunciated by the wise and clever Maya Angelou:
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.
Any decent man listening to that crap Trump spouted can easily recognise what kind of guy is talking.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Let's see. Binary thinking and the inability to distinguish innuendo from fact. Good to know the recipe for making mallible fucknuts needed to poison a society from within.
Considering the article tells you to what extent Swalwell interacted with or knew Christine Fang, I suspect your definition of being involved isn't involved here.
Thanks for circling back to the "we asked Stalwell.." rebuttal. Clever sidestep, but in the words of canpakes - you didn't answer the question. Binary question gets non-binary answer.
I asked you to provide evidence that Swalwell was complicit in any activity beyond having known Christine Fang. I know that conservative media is using the Axios report's findings that two mayors in the Midwest had relations with her to imply that Stalwell did, too. But that's just made up innuendo again. You are now in the mode of arguing his statement shouldn't be accepted despite the FBI also confirming he did nothing illegal, but can't find any other reason to support this fanciful made up fan-fic adaptation of the Axios report other than you prefer the story with the tiger as told by Don Jr. on Twitter.
Again, binary thinking and confusing innuendo for fact. Unless you have facts this time?
It might, given that an assault differs from a consensual relationship.
Your mileage may vary, of course. It depends, I guess, on how you were raised.
Neither example has been proven to be non-consenual. But maybe your mileage varies with groupies. Either way, your consistent use of assigning value is wishy...and maybe a bit washy too.
The idea Swalwell had any kind of relations with Fang is an invention by right wing media. OTOH, Trump's grab 'em by the pussy comment was caught on tape. Why you chose to conflate them is irrelevant given you aren't concerned with reality anyway. To even entertain the idea as a what if is just dumb, though.
