good- i would tooOsodecentx said:
Trump emerged from the question-and-non-answer session with praise for the "very professional" way Attorney General Letitia James's team handled the meeting, in which he refused more than 400 times to answer questions about his businesses, property valuations and loans, according to a person with knowledge of the discussion.
What a pile of crap.Sam Lowry said:Actually it's not relevant to Oso's original point, which was that Trump isn't releasing what he has. You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights" by not showing the warrant during the search, an abuse which has never been alleged by Trump's lawyers or anyone else. If you'd bothered to read the interviews instead of crying foul at the first sight of a legitimate news link, you'd know Christina Bobb was quoted saying the opposite.Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
ok then, i need better sources.. i hadnt heard they got an actual copy.Sam Lowry said:WaPo said they had a copy. His lawyer said they didn't get it right away. There's no contradiction except the one y'all are trying to manufacture.4th and Inches said:shown and allowed to read the unsealed part, no copy was presented according to cited sources.Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
A copy was presented according to unnamed source.
Who to beleive, who to beleive..
Osodecentx said:If the DOJ publishes it, you'll complain that Dear Leader is being smeared. If they don't release it, you'll complain that Dear Leader is being smeared.RMF5630 said:Rawhide said:It may also be that the left wants to just create another narrative about orange man bad to hurt is 2024 bid. Since we're engaging in conjecture and everythingOsodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
Why should it be up to the citizen to publish the reasoning for a DOJ warrant? It is up to the Govt to defend search and seizure. Things are backwards! He is innocent until proven guilty, not speculated guilty. Burden is on Govt. Once again the Marshal Tito approach to jurisprudence...
Either way, you'll vote for the guy
I was there. Don't remember seeing you.Oldbear83 said:When they were given the warrant matters, Sam.Sam Lowry said:WaPo said they had a copy. His lawyer said they didn't get it right away. There's no contradiction except the one y'all are trying to manufacture.4th and Inches said:shown and allowed to read the unsealed part, no copy was presented according to cited sources.Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
A copy was presented according to unnamed source.
Who to beleive, who to beleive..
Did you skip class the day they covered that?
ON THE FBI’S RAID OF MAR-A-LAGO pic.twitter.com/c6TvXvrjbI
— Trae Crowder in IA, NE, and MO 9/6-8 (@traecrowder) August 9, 2022
Because I'm not depending on your dreams. Don't worry, the class let you get your rest.Sam Lowry said:I was there. Don't remember seeing you.Oldbear83 said:When they were given the warrant matters, Sam.Sam Lowry said:WaPo said they had a copy. His lawyer said they didn't get it right away. There's no contradiction except the one y'all are trying to manufacture.4th and Inches said:shown and allowed to read the unsealed part, no copy was presented according to cited sources.Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
A copy was presented according to unnamed source.
Who to beleive, who to beleive..
Did you skip class the day they covered that?
It's perfectly kosher to leave a copy there at the end of the search. That's what happened in this case, according to his lawyer:Oldbear83 said:What a pile of crap.Sam Lowry said:Actually it's not relevant to Oso's original point, which was that Trump isn't releasing what he has. You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights" by not showing the warrant during the search, an abuse which has never been alleged by Trump's lawyers or anyone else. If you'd bothered to read the interviews instead of crying foul at the first sight of a legitimate news link, you'd know Christina Bobb was quoted saying the opposite.Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
Come on Sam, even you can't be claiming its kosher to perform a search and give the warrant sometime later.
Quote:
The attorney, Christina Bobb, also told NBC on Tuesday that a copy of the search warrant that FBI agents left at the Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach indicated agents are investigating possible violations of laws related to the Presidential Records Act and the handling of classified material.
Very little about this incident can be called "normal".Sam Lowry said:
Normally they would leave it at the end of the search. If you're arguing they made a return trip, show some evidence.
The warrant doesn't prevent them from seizing other evidence if they find it in the course of the authorized search. I suspect it may be very different, and that won't be good for Trump.Oldbear83 said:
Still nothing about when. Two minutes later, two hours later, the next day?
And nice try to duck that no one knows just yet what the agents actually took.
May be very different from what they were allowed to touch. per the warrant.
Harrison Bergeron said:
Has the FBI released the titles of the overdue library books?
I believe these were some of the titles:Harrison Bergeron said:
Has the FBI released the titles of the overdue library books?
Your imagination is very far from reality, Sam.Sam Lowry said:The warrant doesn't prevent them from seizing other evidence if they find it in the course of the authorized search. I suspect it may be very different, and that won't be good for Trump.Oldbear83 said:
Still nothing about when. Two minutes later, two hours later, the next day?
And nice try to duck that no one knows just yet what the agents actually took.
May be very different from what they were allowed to touch. per the warrant.
Exactly. It's incredible how many purported "conservatives" miss this valid point.RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:If the DOJ publishes it, you'll complain that Dear Leader is being smeared. If they don't release it, you'll complain that Dear Leader is being smeared.RMF5630 said:Rawhide said:It may also be that the left wants to just create another narrative about orange man bad to hurt is 2024 bid. Since we're engaging in conjecture and everythingOsodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
Why should it be up to the citizen to publish the reasoning for a DOJ warrant? It is up to the Govt to defend search and seizure. Things are backwards! He is innocent until proven guilty, not speculated guilty. Burden is on Govt. Once again the Marshal Tito approach to jurisprudence...
Either way, you'll vote for the guy
I vote for Trump only if he wins nomination and the Dems run the same cast of characters. Just like last two.elections, ******* with good policies better than ******* with bad policies. Run a Joe Lieberman or Jon Bell Edward's I would think about voting Dem. I am a registered independent by the way and have been for 20 years.
It would help to see the affidavit, but it's not hard to think of explanations for any of that. Other than the fact that Trump is involved, you're not delivering anything too extraordinary.Oldbear83 said:Very little about this incident can be called "normal".Sam Lowry said:
Normally they would leave it at the end of the search. If you're arguing they made a return trip, show some evidence.
Raiding a residence where Trump has not been for months?
Raiding when they had already seen the docs months ago, and could have them with a simple subpeona?
30 armed FBI agents?
Seeking 'classified material' but no Special Master?
Come on Sam, this is better described as 'unprecedented' and very reasonably could be called 'unreasonable'.
Just because you hate Trump does not make this clean.
yes, yes you are..J.B.Katz said:
These people are immune to irony and allergic to self-awareness.ON THE FBI’S RAID OF MAR-A-LAGO pic.twitter.com/c6TvXvrjbI
— Trae Crowder in IA, NE, and MO 9/6-8 (@traecrowder) August 9, 2022
Sam Lowry stars in "Denial"Sam Lowry said:It would help to see the affidavit, but it's not hard to think of explanations for any of that. Other than the fact that Trump is involved, you're not delivering anything too extraordinary.Oldbear83 said:Very little about this incident can be called "normal".Sam Lowry said:
Normally they would leave it at the end of the search. If you're arguing they made a return trip, show some evidence.
Raiding a residence where Trump has not been for months?
Raiding when they had already seen the docs months ago, and could have them with a simple subpeona?
30 armed FBI agents?
Seeking 'classified material' but no Special Master?
Come on Sam, this is better described as 'unprecedented' and very reasonably could be called 'unreasonable'.
Just because you hate Trump does not make this clean.
We agree that we don't know what the agents actually took, and some of it may not be related to the PRA issue. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. I suspect it has a lot to do with why they were there.Oldbear83 said:
Still nothing about when. Two minutes later, two hours later, the next day?
And nice try to duck that no one knows just yet what the agents actually took.
May be very different from what they were allowed to touch. per the warrant.
J.B.Katz said:
These people are immune to irony and allergic to self-awareness.ON THE FBI’S RAID OF MAR-A-LAGO pic.twitter.com/c6TvXvrjbI
— Trae Crowder in IA, NE, and MO 9/6-8 (@traecrowder) August 9, 2022
Millions just like this fella . Misunderstood geniuses all.4th and Inches said:yes, yes you are..J.B.Katz said:
These people are immune to irony and allergic to self-awareness.ON THE FBI’S RAID OF MAR-A-LAGO pic.twitter.com/c6TvXvrjbI
— Trae Crowder in IA, NE, and MO 9/6-8 (@traecrowder) August 9, 2022
Enjoy your evening!
So, in your safe space, that makes your boogey man automatically guilty?Osodecentx said:Dear Leader did.Oldbear83 said:You oppose Americans using their Constitutional rights.Osodecentx said:Old Fifth Amendment Leader has your loyalty to the bitter endOldbear83 said:Yup, Oso has gone squirmy and sweaty, like Hunter when he first heard about a search warrant.Osodecentx said:I don't take the Fifth like Dear leaderOldbear83 said:You seem uneasy, Oso.Osodecentx said:Did your Dear Leader declassify all of the classified documents a Mar a Lago while he was POTUS?Oldbear83 said:If Trump declassified the documents, then he committed no crime no manner how you spin it, Oso.Osodecentx said:Did he declassify the documents he illegally took?Oldbear83 said:Never occurred to you that as President, Trump had the authority to declassify documents?LateSteak69 said:Donald Trump signed a law that might’ve turned himself into a felon. Brilliant. pic.twitter.com/NgsbHSHSpK
— Jason Selvig (@jasonselvig) August 10, 2022
And no, Hillary never had that power, so another swing and miss from the roadkill poster.
And in case you imagine those documents were stamped 'CLASSIFIED' like you see in movies and TV, that's not how this works.
Is your scheme falling apart already?
You are the weak minded who will get him nominated for 2024, just like Dems want
Noted.
'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?' Trump's position on declining to testify has changed over time.
Over the years, former President Donald J. Trump has generally criticized other politicians for taking the Fifth Amendment. But on Wednesday, he invoked the right himself during a deposition at the office of the New York attorney general, and it wasn't the first time.
Mr. Trump previously contended that invoking one's Fifth Amendment rights was virtually an admission of wrongdoing.
"So there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" Mr. Trump said at a rally in Iowa in 2016, referring to investigations into Hillary Clinton's handling of potentially classified material as secretary of state.
Soon after, at a presidential debate, Mr. Trump doubled down on criticizing Ms. Clinton for using a private email server as secretary of state, again referencing the Fifth Amendment. "When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth, so they're not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it's disgraceful," he said.
Yet in 1998, he suggested that President Bill Clinton should have done just that during the impeachment investigation into Clinton. "It's a terrible thing for a president to take the Fifth Amendment, but he probably should have done it. I don't think he could have done any worse than what's happened," Trump said.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump was singing a different tune, however, when he arrived at the New York attorney general's office in downtown Manhattan to give sworn testimony for a civil inquiry into his business practices.
In a statement emailed just before the questioning started, Mr. Trump acknowledged his shifting positions over the years, but said circumstances had changed. He portrayed himself as the victim of politically motivated investigations, not just by the New York attorney general, but by the Justice Department and other prosecutors who he asserted "have lost all moral and ethical bounds of decency."
"I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?'" he wrote. "Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/nyregion/trump-fifth-amendment-comments.html
Thy name is Denial...and it could not be more appropriate.Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry stars in "Denial"Sam Lowry said:It would help to see the affidavit, but it's not hard to think of explanations for any of that. Other than the fact that Trump is involved, you're not delivering anything too extraordinary.Oldbear83 said:Very little about this incident can be called "normal".Sam Lowry said:
Normally they would leave it at the end of the search. If you're arguing they made a return trip, show some evidence.
Raiding a residence where Trump has not been for months?
Raiding when they had already seen the docs months ago, and could have them with a simple subpeona?
30 armed FBI agents?
Seeking 'classified material' but no Special Master?
Come on Sam, this is better described as 'unprecedented' and very reasonably could be called 'unreasonable'.
Just because you hate Trump does not make this clean.
A sequel.
How dare the boogey man! To have the gall to excerise his constitutional right; horrid, completely Un-AmericanOsodecentx said:
Trump emerged from the question-and-non-answer session with praise for the "very professional" way Attorney General Letitia James's team handled the meeting, in which he refused more than 400 times to answer questions about his businesses, property valuations and loans, according to a person with knowledge of the discussion.
Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
With the thugs that are in charge these days, he'd be an idiot not to envoke his 5th amendment right4th and Inches said:good- i would tooOsodecentx said:
Trump emerged from the question-and-non-answer session with praise for the "very professional" way Attorney General Letitia James's team handled the meeting, in which he refused more than 400 times to answer questions about his businesses, property valuations and loans, according to a person with knowledge of the discussion.
I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
Trae Crowder is a comedian.. pretty funny dudeCanada2017 said:Millions just like this fella . Misunderstood geniuses all.4th and Inches said:yes, yes you are..J.B.Katz said:
These people are immune to irony and allergic to self-awareness.ON THE FBI’S RAID OF MAR-A-LAGO pic.twitter.com/c6TvXvrjbI
— Trae Crowder in IA, NE, and MO 9/6-8 (@traecrowder) August 9, 2022
Enjoy your evening!
Someone else's fault they are 3 months behind on their credit card debt , 6 months behind on child support payments and still living with their grandparents .
If that's your 'talk into the mirror' routine Sam, good luck to you.Sam Lowry said:Thy name is Denial...and it could not be more appropriate.Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry stars in "Denial"Sam Lowry said:It would help to see the affidavit, but it's not hard to think of explanations for any of that. Other than the fact that Trump is involved, you're not delivering anything too extraordinary.Oldbear83 said:Very little about this incident can be called "normal".Sam Lowry said:
Normally they would leave it at the end of the search. If you're arguing they made a return trip, show some evidence.
Raiding a residence where Trump has not been for months?
Raiding when they had already seen the docs months ago, and could have them with a simple subpeona?
30 armed FBI agents?
Seeking 'classified material' but no Special Master?
Come on Sam, this is better described as 'unprecedented' and very reasonably could be called 'unreasonable'.
Just because you hate Trump does not make this clean.
A sequel.
You're the only one trying to weasel your way out of it, like you always do with everyonea about everything.Sam Lowry said:I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
did you put debunked when you posted your response? Sam told me that helps make it more reputable where people pay attention to it..Rawhide said:You're the only one trying to weasel your way out of it, like you always do with everyonea about everything.Sam Lowry said:I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
The fact is... you said cops didn't let people in, you were wrong, I provided a video showing that you were wrong, then you promptely tried to change argument, like you're doing now by trying to interject willingly or authorized or whatever word salad you want to use next.
The fact in the video, the cops stood there, did not try to prevent people from entering the building and told some of the protestors to be respectful while they calmly filed in.
You were wrong then and you still can't admit it (without the scary quotes)
Again, it did not happen in the sense you want to insinuate.Rawhide said:You're the only one trying to weasel your way out of it, like you always do with everyonea about everything.Sam Lowry said:I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
The fact is... you said cops didn't let people in, you were wrong, I provided a video showing that you were wrong, then you promptely tried to change argument, like you're doing now by trying to interject willingly or authorized or whatever word salad you want to use next.
The fact in the video, the cops stood there, did not try to prevent people from entering the building and told some of the protestors to be respectful while they calmly filed in.
You were wrong then and you still can't admit it (without the scary quotes)
Just don't suggest a news article. Rawhide wants no truck with that ivory tower BS.4th and Inches said:did you put debunked when you posted your response? Sam told me that helps make it more reputable where people pay attention to it..Rawhide said:You're the only one trying to weasel your way out of it, like you always do with everyonea about everything.Sam Lowry said:I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
The fact is... you said cops didn't let people in, you were wrong, I provided a video showing that you were wrong, then you promptely tried to change argument, like you're doing now by trying to interject willingly or authorized or whatever word salad you want to use next.
The fact in the video, the cops stood there, did not try to prevent people from entering the building and told some of the protestors to be respectful while they calmly filed in.
You were wrong then and you still can't admit it (without the scary quotes)
I would suggest a gif but you already included a video so its cool
