Search results

It appears that the good judge isn't terribly bright and is a little slow on the uptake. :tearsofjoy:

Very easily #triggered ... :tearsofjoy: Glad you asked: :tearsofjoy: Oh yes ... that will be very interesting indeed. :tearsofjoy: Seems like an entirely reasonable proposition ... :tearsofjoy:

Is there an FBI announcement that the laptop didn't contain Russian disinformation ? Yeah, I didn't think so ... :tearsofjoy: Their warning to FacePalm was general, didn't address the laptop specifically. :rolleyes:

So easily #triggered ... :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy: Oh ... she's certainly hardworking alright ... but that isn't all. She went out of her way to act as Trump's defense lawyer, making arguments his attorney's hadn't even made, similar to what the now-disgraced Cover Up General did who was...

Yes ... it will be interesting to see if DOJ appeals. On the one hand they have the law and existing precedent on their side. On the other hand, the 11th Circuit is not exactly you'd pick if you had your choice among others. True. Also true.

Not even close. Which is typical. No evidence of that. So what ? :tearsofjoy: Would have known what ? :tearsofjoy: Cry harder. Since that's a false dichotomy, I pick ... neither. :tearsofjoy:

Awww ... that's sweet ... you felt you needed to answer for Dan and deflect. I guess someone was hard-pressed to offer a justification for his own misrepresentations and to answer up himself, given that it's apparent that he likely read my post (since he "liked" yours) But you've only managed...

Possibly the Deep State, George Soros, or Antifa ? Or maybe all three ? "Q" will probably tell us very soon ... :tearsofjoy:

If it were, you would have directly quoted him or posted the video clip where he said it ... rather than using your own paraphrase of what he said to misrepresent what he actually said. #SAD! #WEAK! :tearsofjoy:

In someone's fevered dreams ... :tearsofjoy:

That's good as a rando comment ... was there something specific that you were wanting it to apply to ? :tearsofjoy: Let me know if there's anyone you find actually disputing something that's actually in the Constitution. :tearsofjoy:

No ... that isn't at all what he said. Try again. :tearsofjoy:

They can "disagree" all they want. The bottomline is that what matters is the outcome in the courts. :tearsofjoy:

No idea on either.

Pretty sure the issue isn't just limited to the "noo-clee-ur" codes ... :tearsofjoy:

Largely inapplicable to the points I raised in the post that you were replying to. Just more obfuscation and deflection. #SAD! :tearsofjoy:

Still no evidence of that. It does not appear that the only records in question in this matter were presidential records ... It appears that other federal records - such as agency records - were involved as well. Probably why DOJ cited other laws than the PRA that were criminally violated...

You should probably be more concerned with correcting your own incorrect (false) statements and let the media fend for themselves. :tearsofjoy:

No - that's not what special masters do. Not even close. :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy:

So far as I know that's the case. Fact. Yes. Likely true ... although I wouldn't preclude the possibility of some screwball judge going there.