The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Total dishonesty on the part of Twitter

Thanks Johnnie for pointing out how the president United States is a big goofball who is too dumb understand the difference between commercial speech and free speech.

So tell me Elk what's the difference between
Commercial speech and free speech..?

Are you saying commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment?

Notice johnforbes couldn't produce any facts to refute the Washington Post facts, but he still calls it "dishonest" to call Trump on his lies. Trump DID lie in his tweets and johnny knows it. That's why he didn't even try to refute it in the thread he started.

It's always the "ad hominem attack" with johnfibs because the facts simply never support his desperate political views.

Be honest, Clown.

You wouldn't want me to "fact-check" your posts, would you?

Absolutely, johnny. I always want to know the truth.

But you realize you would have to post some links or attributed quotations to back up you phony "fact checks" right?

That pretty much puts you out of business.

When twitter said "fact check" Trump went ape shit bananas.

Nuff Said!

I have fact-checked the last 32,000 of Clown's posts.

My neutral experts have rated them 98 percent false.

That's what I expected from you, johnny, complete impotence....even in the wit department.

What a pussy.

I have fact-checked Clown's claim.

It is false.

Now provide your corroborating evidence for your claim, johnny.




Yeah, that's what I thought, you impotent pussy.

But you realize you would have to post some links or attributed quotations to back up you phony "fact checks" right?

Well Clown ..as long as you have an open mind about it..!

Exactly, as long as I have an open mind about things. You should try it.


Now humor me and post some validated facts instead of your usual shit-eating-grin made up stupid shit.

www.clowntoker's_posts_are_inaccurate.org

Section 230 needs to be changed, and even Biden agreed with that.

Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are pro-Left, and they censor out anything but leftist content.

Johnnie....the sword cuts both ways, if they go through what you propose, eventually a democrat will become president and will go after the right wing media.

So be very careful what you ask for.

Trump thinks you can put out a fire with gasoline and it's going to fucking blow up in his face.

I actually agree about the double edge notion, but kidding aside for a second think about this:

Why shouldn't Trump pay Fusion GPS for another fake dossier?

Why shouldn't Trump find people at the FBI and DoJ who favor him, and why shouldn't they tell the same lies to the FISA court, and why shouldn't the next Democrat president have his staff wiretapped as Trump's was?

Why shouldn't the next Democrat president face a two year investigation even though all the investigators know there is no evidence?

If what was done to Trump was fine, and Democrats think it was, why shouldn't the very same thing be done to hamper the next Democrat president?

Set aside the usual silly posts and think seriously about this.

johnny, the "same thing" WILL be done to the next Democrat president. It will just be over different "same things".

Only this time you won't have a negative word to say about it. You will actually support it.

And why? Because of your partisan hypocrisy.

john pretending there was /is no evidence to support an investigation, is so sad.

there's fucking evidence every day right out of his mouth. like a magician right before your eyes.
law firm of the year, person of the year, first visits, "vetted" staff members lied about contacts NUMEROUS TIMES , bank "deals, property deals, laundry deals. all connected to one country. ALL reasons for an investigation.
just like clinton for a blow job. a reason. main difference is one concerns national security and private wealth gain. Other was a sex act. even kenny starr never reported the fact that clinton was set up with a power slut. players recording just ready for the up-coming planed impeachment.

It is sad that all those who hated Trump, from Brennan to Clapper to Rice to Yates -- all of them -- suggested on TV they had evidence of Russia collusion.

Under oath, in private, they admitted they had ZERO EVIDENCE.

NONE, nothing, nada.

Mueller and Weissman knew this at the START of their two year investigation, but they kept it going TWO YEARS in an effort to hurt Trump.

Any real Democrat should care about Civil Rights, and should care about the federal government seeking to destroy a person WITH ZERO EVIDENCE.

Will Divermouse post any evidence he has?

No; he doesn't have any either.

The evidence is in the Mueller Grand Jury documentation that the House has requested....in which Trump has gone to the supreme court to block. If there is "no evidence" as you claim then you could been sure that Trump would have released it.

So Johnnie why is Trump blocking the release of Mueller's grand jury information?

I hope they do.

But again, Elkin, your focus on this point merely shows how little you understand about litigation at a snail's pace.

What does the "litigation at a snail's pace" have anything to do with the release of Mueller's grand jury documentation?

Trump can easily release Mueller's grand jury documentation without involving the legal system. Trump is not releasing that material because he knows there is information in the documentation which will make him look bad.

Why do you think Trump blocked Bolton and Pompeo from testifying before the congress? If these guys had information that would have exonerated Trump....they sure as hell would have testified by now...

How do you know what is in documents you haven't seen?

All of the Trump haters -- from Brennan and Clapper to Rice to Yates to Comey -- were asked for evidence of Russia collusion.

They had NOTHING.

Mueller spent two more years pretending to look, and he found NOTHING.

This was 100 percent lies from Democrats who hated Trump.

Johnnie....you claim "they" had nothing in documents you haven't seen? That's why people want to gain access to Mueller's grand jury documentation. And that's why congress wanted Pompeo and Bolton to testify.

Yet Trump is blocking the release of the grand jury information and blocked Pompeo and Bolton from testifying before congress.

And Flynn lied to the FBI....twice....then he said he didn't lie and Trump dropped the FBI charges afterwards. Looks like Flynn is now more loyal to Trump than to the rule of law.

And in the end Mueller in sworn testimony stated that Trump WAS NOT exonerated.

Whatever the grand jury had, it couldn't be more than what Trump-haters like Brennan and Clapper had access too.

They hated Trump, and they were very partisan with their political hatred of Trump on CNN and other outlets.

But, when asked under oath, they had ZERO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIA COLLUSION.

Mueller knew that at the start, but WASTED TWO YEARS BEFORE ADMITTING HE HAD NO EVIDENCE.

But Mueller DIDN'T waste those two years, johnny, and he NEVER admitted he had no evidence. You made it up.

In his report Mueller said there is evidence of at least nine cases of Trump breaking the law. Just because Sessions and Barr and Trump are corrupt enough to bury the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any, johnny. Stop your incessant partisan lying.

All they need to do is release the evidence that supposedly "exonerates" Trump instead of suing the United States to keep it secret.

He said there was no evidence of Russia collusion.

Which there wasn't.

They all knew this from the start, and Mueller should be singled out along with Weissman for dishonesty.

Ahh, so you admit the two years spent uncovering evidence of nine other crimes was time well spent.

Got it.

Elkin, aren't you aware that the statements under oath from those people were released?

They are the ones who said they had no evidence of collusion.

Sure, their statements on TV led naïve viewers to think they had something, but you can read the actual statements which they made under oath.

There was ZERO EVIDENCE of Russia collusion, and they all knew it.

Within 3 weeks of the commencement of his probe, Mueller learned that too, and he should have halted his investigation at that point.

Instead, he let the charade burn on for TWO MORE YEARS.

Collusion?

What Collusion?

What are you talking about?

Mueller never investigated collusion?

So how can you say there was no evidence of collusion?

"He said there was no evidence of Russia collusion."-johnfibs

That's a blatant lie, johnny. If you had bothered to read even the summary of the Mueller report you would know that Mueller said there wasn't "sufficient evidence" to get a conviction, not that there was "no evidence" of a Trump crime. He made it clear that he believed Trump did the crime, he just couldn't get a conviction with the available evidence.

johnfibs always likes to argue by splitting legal hairs to his advantage---- unless, of course, the precise words Mueller used make him into a liar the way they do now.

That is true that he said it that way, and that was because of his legal training.

In our system, there must be evidence and Mueller's obvious dislike of Trump was not evidence.

There was NEVER any evidence of collusion (which, by the way, wouldn't be a crime anyhow in that context).

So what Clowntoker is saying is that we should launch a two year special counsel investigation of Biden even though there is no evidence.