Oh, never mind.  He is from Texas.  Land of Abbot, Paxton, Cruz, et al.

All you need to do is go to YouTube for Louie's Greatest Hits and you'll quickly find he's perhaps the dumbest Republican on the planet. And in a world including MTG and Lauren Boobert. that's no mean accomplishment.

Not a single major Democrat wants to defund the police, legalize shoplifting or let addicts camp out. Where were you when NY Mayor Adams swept the homeless off the streets?

when you make wild statements like the ones I called out, which are so far from true that a ten-year-old should know better, that's the definition of lying. The only other possible excuse is a stupidity so profound as to be nearly impossible.
Lying is speaking an untruth knowing it's not true. So your only excuse is you deeply believe what you say is true. That's not possible because these untruths have been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. And these are not situations where it's possible to have another interpretation of the facts. This makes what you said a lie.

You were replying to any one of laffy’s tens of thousands of posts.

Joe doesn't lie.  He speaks untruths everyday, but he has no fucking clue they are false.  He just reads what his handlers put in front of him.  He doesn't have enough awareness of what is going on to have an opinion of his own, so he most likely labors under the false assumption that he can trust his staff not to put dishonest words in his mouth.  While you cannot call him a liar if the standard is that he MUST be aware that what he is saying is false, he still puts out more false information on a daily basis than anybody in DC.  

It is a different  Democrat shit show

If you had any reading comprehension you'd comprehend I already proved you've been lying continually here.
As for Laffy, at best he's guilty of hyperbole. But on the facts he's been right most of the time.

Funny that you mention Laffy, because in his absence you sit at the top rung of hyperbole here on this board.

Laffy's hundreds of posts about Trump colluding with Russia.  Those "facts" were all lies.  

1) What part of Don, Jr.'s note back to a Russian offering help vs. Hillary which read, "I love it" did you not understand?
2) What part of Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort's provision of polling data to the Russians did you not understand?

were indicted or charged with what you are talking about, so it's apparently not a crime.  Are Dems just stupid koolaid drinkers, or did they not really have the goods on these two when they made the allegations in the Mueller report?  

Why Donnie, Jr., hasn't been is ridiculous. But the evidence is right out there and can't be denied.

They had the goods on Trump Jr.. Despite having been warned by the FBI, their determination was that Junior was too stupid to understand that he was breaking the law so they let him walk.  
.
Manafort LIED to Mueller. As a result, Manafort's sentence (for other crimes) was increased.  
http://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/13/paul-manafort-ruling-1169380
Judge rules Manafort lied to Mueller about contacts with Russian.
"A federal judge ruled in favor of Robert Mueller on Wednesday that Paul Manafort intentionally violated the terms of his guilty plea by lying to federal prosecutors and a grand jury, clearing the way for the special counsel to push for a harsher sentence. ..."  
.
"Mueller’s team in December accused Manafort of making misstatements infive different areas during his cooperation with the special counsel, including his contacts with the Trump administration and Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian national and longtime associate whom the special counsel has also charged with witness tampering. ..."

neither one of these guys was charged with colluding with Russia.  Manafort was punished more for not turning on Trump than for anything else.  Republicans cannot lie to the FBI without punishment. Democrats can.  

As Mueller made clear, there is no such crime as "collusion."
.
There can be collusion between Team Trump team and the Russians -- and Mueller cited over 140 instances of COLLUSION between Team Trump and the Russians -- but he did not bring a CHARGE of CRIMINAL ***CONSPIRACY***.  Collusion events referred to non-trivial interactions related to the Trump Campaign. "Hello, Comrade. I'm going to be in Moscow next month. Can you recommend a good restaurant?" is NOT collusion. "Hello, Comrade. Here's the polling data.  Please give it to our boys at the Kremlin. They'll know what to do with it." IS an example of the kind of COLLUSION Mueller was referring to.
.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/criminal-conspiracy-vs-collusion--340444
.
STOP CONFUSING the correct use of "COLLUSION" and "CONSPIRACY" in an attempt to confuse others.

Get your facts straight.  
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Paul_Manafort
"Manafort's first trial on 18 criminal counts began on July 31, 2018. ... Manafort was found guilty on eight counts (covering filing ***false tax returns***, ***bank fraud***, and ***failing to disclose a foreign bank account***), but a mistrial was declared on the remaining ten counts due to a single juror harboring reasonable doubts. ..."
.
"Weeks later, before a second trial on seven separate criminal counts could begin, Manafort reached a plea bargain on two of those counts (***conspiracy to defraud the United States*** and ***witness tampering***). As part of the agreement, he also admitted guilt to an additional seven counts left unresolved from the earlier mistrial (***bank fraud*** and ***bank fraud conspiracy***), forfeited several properties and accounts, ***and agreed to full cooperation with the prosecution.*** ..."
.
"In November 2018, after Mueller's office said Manafort had violated the terms of his plea deal, ***Trump publicly hinted that he might pardon Manafort.*** Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, opined that *****"dangling a pardon in front of Manafort" could lead to charges of obstruction of justice.***** ..."
.
In December 2020, Trump DELIVERED ON HIS PROMISE AND PARDONED MANAFORT for not providing evidence against Trump.  
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55433522
Trump pardons Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Charles Kushner.

Any criminal conspiracy that occurred was on Hillary's side, not Trump's.  If you're being honest, I'm sure you would agree.

What are you talking about? Sources? The Sessions-Barr (and continuing Durham) DoJ investigations came up with nothing on Clinton (and I'm no fan of Clinton).  Trump leading his cult in chanting "Lock Her Up!" thousands of times is neither a criminal charge nor a conviction.

testified in the Sussman trial that Hillary okayed the submission of the false report to the FBI by Sussman.  Maybe you missed that.  

There was such a witness but Durham did not produce any corroborating witnesses. Maybe you missed that.  The jury acquitted Sussman. Maybe you missed that.  Durham has not charged Clinton with anything. Maybe you missed that.

that rebuts the testimony, you don't need a corroborating witness.  It didn't matter anyway.  The jury was made up of Clinton donors.  The fix was in from the beginning.

The last time CDL mentioned the Sussman jury, he said: "...several of the jurors were Hillary Clinton donors..."  That was merely poetic license as I pointed out:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/you-should-have-added-that-the-sussman-jury-also-had-an-aoc-donor-426680?#426680

voir dire, other may NOT have admitted it.  It still COULD be all, or something less.  We will never know for sure.  The dishonesty the jurors showed in not following the law allows assumptions that they are not truthful.  The exact number is irrelevant, anyway, even ONE biased juror is too many.  

If the Judge felt the jurors were out of line on their verdict, he can set it aside.  At least in CA I believe.

a guilty verdict in a criminal case, but not an acquittal.  

Fair Enuf.  U are right.  I wasn't sure.