You make a conclusion about Levy’s disingenuousness. I think we may be working with different ideas of what it means to “know”.Read what Levy said after he made his disingenuous claim that somebody was killed because of the dossier.
Is he? Where does that idea come from?Corruption under Obama and in the Clinton campaign has kept me up at night, but you
are more concerned with someone who compares the size of inaugural crowds.
No, I am more concerned with someone who has lied to the American public 75% of the time in only one year, and is still lying, whereas you are more concerned with someone who was less-than-truthful 25% of the time in eight years, and is now a private citizen.are more concerned with someone who compares the size of inaugural crowds.
here is a difference between comparing the size of inaugural crowds to the corruption and lies we have seen by Obama administration and Clinton campaign.
You are very naive my friend.I am not concerned with the Clintons or the Obamas. They are private citizens and likely to remain that way. What they do will not affect my life.
I am concerned with a proven serial liar named Donald Trump, who just happens to be the leader of the free world. What he says and does will affect my life, and the lives of many, greatly. In a very negative way, if he doesn’t stop lying.
Based on what? The fact that I don’t approve of serial liars? Or is the statement a totally and utterly baseless insult?You are very naive my friend.
Why don’t you make a cogent argument instead of a personal insult?You are very naive my friend.
No one suggested that that is trivial.I don’t see how weaponizing the IRS and the high leaders of the FBI would be trivial
Since you say “correct” is statement, you have concluded that the first one was untrue.Levy told the Senate Judiciary Committee that a dossier source got killed because of the dossier. Is that true? Who is this person and why then did Levy correct his statement
To block? But his questioner agreed that he would not have to identify a source, but was asking only for steps taken to check credibility.Levy made his original claim that a dossier source was killed in order to block Simpson from having to answer questions about dossier sources.
“Lying” assumes intent to deceive. But intent can be inferred from simple inaccuracy or faulty memory. One remembers Franken’s trap for Sessions. Sessions appears to have misunderstood Franken’s convoluted question about whether he had ever “met” with a Russian official. Sessions appears to have understood it as “have a personal meeting with”. Turned out Sessions had been in the same open meeting with others in which a Russian official was also present.Wonder why they lied? Why would anyone lie to the FBI? That could cause one a whole bunch of trouble!
I watched that session live and saw it repeated over and over again on the news, and the above simply is not true. Sessions was asked not once but twice, and in both cases denied having any contacts with any Russians. Had the question asked of him been vague, Sessions could easy have explained the difference or asked Franken exactly what he meant, but he didn’t.Sessions appears to have misunderstood Franken’s convoluted question about whether he had ever “met” with a Russian official. Sessions appears to have understood it as “have a personal meeting with”
We’re not going to have a wall (I didn’t want one), and what we are going to have is going to be paid for by the US taxpayers, not Mexico.Yup, the serial liar who’s actually delivering his campaign promises.
Just want to highlight this, it’s very important. Innocent people want the truth to come out.IOW, we know they lied, which begs the question why? Plus why the efforts to try and stop Mueller’s investigation by Trump himself? If I did nothing wrong, I want all the information to come out to show that I’m innocent.