i’m factually correctIn that case you’re factually wrong.
And you still failed to answer the question.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
i’m factually correctIn that case you’re factually wrong.
And you still failed to answer the question.
You should read appeals court overruling her.what legal precedent do you think she ignored?
The government did not have access to the documents. Factually incorrect.i’m factually correct
sure they did, they asked to come down and reviews them he said yes, they didThe government did not have access to the documents. Factually incorrect.
And you still can’t answer the question.
Were these documents under the control of the government?
show me the caseYou should read appeals court overruling her.
Basically they went through two legal tests, each with 4 points.
On all 8 point she was wrong.
Sure it does. They do it all the time.Wrong. A district court does not bind another district court.
sure they did, they asked to come down and reviews them he said yes, they did
Once again, you're conflating two separate issues: presidential records, and classified documents. This is deliberate on the part of the DOJ and the prog NAZIsIt’s not wrong. No one in their right mind like think these classified documents could rationally be considered personal documents as defined by the PRA. You’re not even pretending they could.
the govt was guarding the documents with fedeal agentsWhich means the government was not in control of the documents.
Thanks for admitting it.
"In control of" is ambiguous terminology.Which means the government was not in control of the documents.
Thanks for admitting it.
Nope. That’s not how the legal system works.Sure it does. They do it all the time.
he thinks the govt should be in control of trumps bday party menu, and attorney client privilege material"In control of" is ambiguous terminology.
Yes it does turd. Were the courts bound by the decision of one court saying that is immigration policies were unconstitutional?Nope. That’s not how the legal system works.
It’s not to anyone with an ounce of common sense."In control of" is ambiguous terminology.
If it’s a scotus decision, then yes. Precedent only binds lower courts.Yes it does turd. Were the courts bound by the decision of one court saying that is immigration policies were unconstitutional?
that doesn’t show where she ignored any precedent…in fact all it did was give the United States partial stay….
You should consider lying less.he thinks the govt should be in control of trumps bday party menu, and attorney client privilege material
The request for a special master was granted, dumbass.
You mean not to anyone who is suffering profound brain damage.It’s not to anyone with an ounce of common sense.