Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The question is not whether I believe the reporter’s account, which I sometimes don’t believe. The question was whether there was or, as you baselessly claimed, there was no such evidence at all.Yeah, ok. Weird how these unmanned sources are dismissed with the wave of when you do not agree with what they are selling.
The question is not whether I believe the reporter’s account, which I sometimes don’t believe. The question was whether there was or, as you baselessly claimed, there was no such evidence at all.
Again, I didn’t expect you to acknowledge it. I even predicted you next deflection effort. Successfully predicted.
False. Her reputation has been enhanced by the fact that she did her duty and provided fairness.The Judge expressed "concern" on "reputational harm" to Trump.
Just saw that on MSNBC. This so-called Judge sounds batshit crazy! Her reputation is gone!
It is whenever the NY Slimes or SeeB.S. or MSLSD “reports” anything you libs happen to like, at least according to your programmed beliefs and claims.Is an unmanned source really evidence?
It is whenever the NY Slimes or SeeB.S. or MSLSD “reports” anything you libs happen to like, at least according to your programmed beliefs and claims.
Nice bait and switch.Feel free to find a post from me backing up the claims you just made about me
Nice bait and switch.
Doesn’t change a thing. You claimed “no evidence.” You didn’t say “no evidence which I find credible.”
Sorry Gigi. Another mighty swing and miss by you.
Yes it is. It’s just not evidence YOU happen to credit. On that score, I remain indifferent.I did claim that, and so far I am correct. What you presented is not evidence.
Boy, am I glad that's not happening. That would be bad.
Boy, am I glad that's not happening. That would be bad.
They are threatening judges AgainFalse. Her reputation has been enhanced by the fact that she did her duty and provided fairness.
Yer a trained leftist Parrot.Little more.Not by stealing classified documents.
Yep. And one element of theft is the “intent” to permanently deprive the owner of possession. Since Trump was in negotiations with lawyers for the government over ownership and possession of the documents (and had already provided the government with 15 boxes), it is absolutely ABSURD to claim that anybody could ever prove that element.It’s hard to steal what is already yours and you have already permitably obtained
I think its support of the law, and questions the legality of the panty raid in the first place. Poopeypants lied because he instigated the whole thing, including the illegal reversal of an ex presidents privelege with documents taken with him.A federal judge has granted a request by former President Donald Trump’s legal team to appoint a special master to review documents seized by the FBI during a search of his Florida home last month.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday granted a request by former President Donald Trump’s legal team to appoint a special master to review documents seized by the FBI during a search of his Florida home last month.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon came despite the objections of the Justice Department, which said an outside legal expert was not necessary in part because officials had already completed their review of potentially privileged documents. The judge had previously signaled her inclination to approve a special master, asking a department lawyer during arguments this month, “What is the harm?”
The appointment may slow the pace of the department's investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago, but it is unlikely to affect any investigative decisions or the ultimate outcome of the probe.
JUDGE GREEN-LIGHTS TRUMP’S ‘SPECIAL MASTER’ REQUEST
Not a surprise from a Trump-appointed judge. However, this won't affect the final outcome. What do you think?
Lackhonor-how do you now propose to extend your denial of reality?This is the game over for lying lib loons
The FBI and doj screwed themselves out of that intentional theft argument, by babbling endlessly about how badly the documents were arranged how they were mixed in with non-classified documents. If the documents were so jumbled, that certainly does not show intent to keep them. It seems like a classic case of extreme carelessness.Yep. And one element of theft is the “intent” to permanently deprive the owner of possession. Since Trump was in negotiations with lawyers for the government over ownership and possession of the documents (and had already provided the government with 15 boxes), it is absolutely ABSURD to claim that anybody could ever prove that element.
For once we can completely agree.I think he "shoulda" cut the classification markings off the declassified documents when he got a subpoena specifically seeking declassified documents with classification markings, and mailed the cut off markings directly to Merrick Garland.
