Kash Patel Undermines His "Big Case" Against Wisconsin Judge

[martybegan]

Secured? Don’t be a moron. They were kept in a closet at a social club. You could unlock the door with a coat hanger. That’s not secured.

See what I mean? You believe lies.

Still doesn’t explain the obstruction. The lying.

Yet that’s only a problem when other people do it. Your king doesn’t have to abide by the laws we abide by.

That's the narrative you are sticking to.

I don't believe you, I don't believe the press, and I don't believe the partisan hacks at the FBI.

And a lot of people think the same way I do.

Only when Trump does something other Presidents have done before is it somehow a "Crime"

 

[Marener]

That's the narrative you are sticking to.

I don't believe you, I don't believe the press, and I don't believe the partisan hacks at the FBI.

And a lot of people think the same way I do.

Only when Trump does something other Presidents have done before is it somehow a "Crime"

Those are the facts I’m sticking to, while you tell yourself lies.

So let’s go with the judge. The case against her is lawfare. The partisan hacks at the FBI are lying.

 

[martybegan]

Those are the facts I’m sticking to, while you tell yourself lies.

So let’s go with the judge. The case against her is lawfare. The partisan hacks at the FBI are lying.

"facts"

Nope, she broke an actual federal law, lying to federal agents. This is going to be a simple one to prove.

 

[Marener]

"facts"

Nope, she broke an actual federal law, lying to federal agents. This is going to be a simple one to prove.

Who said she lied? That’s right. Those partisan FBI hacks that we don’t believe. There’s no proof.

See how easy it is when you can just decide not to believe someone?

 

[martybegan]

Who said she lied? That’s right. Those partisan FBI hacks that we don’t believe. There’s no proof.

See how easy it is when you can just decide not to believe someone?

Now you are just playing semantics.

It will come out at the trial, and for once we will see everything because there are no classified statues that would hide information from coming out.

 

[Marener]

Now you are just playing semantics.

It will come out at the trial, and for once we will see everything because there are no classified statues that would hide information from coming out.

Not at all. You said you don’t believe federal agents because, well, because you think they’re partisan hacks.

Why can’t we say the same about the people accusing the judge?

We call it lawfare. Why not?

This is the problem with your worldview. You just declare things true or not because it’s convenient for you. That’s what makes you a hack.

 

[martybegan]

Not at all. You said you don’t believe federal agents because, well, because you think they’re partisan hacks.

Why can’t we say the same about the people accusing the judge?

We call it lawfare. Why not?

This is the problem with your worldview. You just declare things true or not because it’s convenient for you. That’s what makes you a hack.

You can say it all you want.

That's all you have, spinning our accusations around and playing word games. It's pathetic.

 

[Mac-7]

View attachment 1105449

For those who might have a genuine concern this judge broke the law, this should infuriate you. Your own team is undermining the case against the judge. It is a prosecutorial axiom that you try the case in court, and not the in public, as Patel is doing. It’s also a prosecutorial axiom that you don’t give the defense any freebie arguments through your own actions, as Patel is doing in this case. If nothing else Patel is giving defense counsel leverage in any plea agreement negotiations. At worst, his repeated flouting of guidelines aimed at protecting a fair trial for defendants risks a sympathetic judge dismissing the case.

Kash Patel Undermines His Big Case Against Wisconsin Judge.

With much fanfare, as it turns out too much fanfare, the Trump Regime has arrested a Wisconsin judge. The Regime claims Judge Hannah Dugan hindered the arrest of an alien who was at the judge’s courtroom for a hearing by essentially sneaking him out...

www.dailykos.com

Shouldn't be a problem, since Trump is in such good standing with the judiciary...

It all depends on who the federal judge is and who appointed him to the bench

If he’s a flaming anti trump lib she will get away with it

 

[Marener]

You can say it all you want.

That's all you have, spinning our accusations around and playing word games. It's pathetic.

I don’t have to spin anything. You were very clear. You don’t believe the FBI “hacks”.

So why should we believe them when it comes to this judge?

 

[Marener]

It all depends on who the federal judge is and who appointed him to the bench

If he’s a flaming anti trump lib she will get away with it

Like how Trump got away with obstructing justice because he had a flaming pro-Trump judge?

 

[martybegan]

I don’t have to spin anything. You were very clear. You don’t believe the FBI “hacks”.

So why should we believe them when it comes to this judge?

You can believe what you want.

 

[Marener]

You can believe what you want.

Since I’m not a hack like you, I believe this judge probably committed a crime and will probably be convicted.

I don’t choose what to believe because it’s convenient. You choose to believe the FBI lied about Trump because you wanted Trump to be president and his felonies would make that less likely. So you made an excuse for yourself. You lie to yourself. You believe the lies told to you.

That’s what hacks do. You’re a hack.

 

[martybegan]

Since I’m not a hack like you, I believe this judge probably committed a crime and will probably be convicted.

I don’t choose what to believe because it’s convenient. You choose to believe the FBI lied about Trump because you wanted Trump to be president and his felonies would make that less likely. So you made an excuse for yourself. You lie to yourself. You believe the lies told to you.

That’s what hacks do. You’re a hack.

So. Much. Bullshit.

You just pretend to give a bit on this to create what you think is some argumentative high ground.

It's see through and pathetic.

Like your entire existence.

 

[Marener]

So. Much. Bullshit.

You just pretend to give a bit on this to create what you think is some argumentative high ground.

It's see through and pathetic.

Like your entire existence.

Yet again, you're being a partisan hack. You make this accusation about me because it makes you feel better. You know you're a hack and now need to pretend everyone else is too, which makes it okay.

So let's take it another step.
Everyone lies to federal agents, so why should we prosecute one judge who did so?

 

[martybegan]

Yet again, you're being a partisan hack. You make this accusation about me because it makes you feel better. You know you're a hack and now need to pretend everyone else is too, which makes it okay.

So let's take it another step.
Everyone lies to federal agents, so why should we prosecute one judge who did so?

This all stems from me calling you hack first, and now it's your only retort to me. Pathetic.

because we expect our judges to not lie to federal agents in the cases of valid federal detainers being applied to fucking criminals?

 

[Marener]

This all stems from me calling you hack first, and now it's your only retort to me. Pathetic.

because we expect our judges to not lie to federal agents in the cases of valid federal detainers being applied to fucking criminals?

And we don't expect former presidents to not lie to federal agents in the cases of valid subpoenas for classified documents?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[martybegan]

And we don't expect former presidents to not lie to federal agents in the cases of valid subpoenas for classified documents?

Give me a fucking break.

We don't expect the next administration to gun for the previous one over politics.

And yet that is what happened to Trump.

 

[Marener]

We don't expect the next administration to gun for the previous one over politics.

And yet that is what happened to Trump.

All they did was ask Trump to turn over classified government documents that were improperly taken from secure locations. That's exactly what you would expect the government to do no matter who they're talking about.

Court subpoenas are legally binding, unlike an ICE detainer.

 

[Mac-7]

Like how Trump got away with obstructing justice because he had a flaming pro-Trump judge?

Trump only had 4 years to appoint fed judges whereas the anti trump libs have had 40 years to appoint swamp rats of their own kind

So the odds are in your favor

 

[martybegan]

All they did was ask Trump to turn over classified government documents that were improperly taken from secure locations. That's exactly what you would expect the government to do no matter who they're talking about.

Court subpoenas are legally binding, unlike an ICE detainer.

They were personal documents held by the President, and we never were told what they actually were.

I doubt they were the only copies, yet the archives made it into somehow a criminal case.

And ICE detainer sure as hell is legally binding.

On the other hand the classification system only has any power via the elected President.