Trump SecDef Denies Trump Ordered Deployment of National Guard

[BackAgain]

Conservatives lie about the intent of the hearings and are willfully ignorant of the proceedings.

Libtards lie about the intent of the fake “hearings,” and are willingly ignorant about the complete lack of meaning inherent in the partisan clown show.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The ruling, you complete dumbass, was not the irrelevant snippet about the judges silly opinion. The ruling was about a testimonial privilege assertion.

You remain the idiot and the perpetual troll, Letch.

Uh,no , his ruling was based on his opinion.

You just fucked up again and opened your mouth before you knew what you were talking about.

Will you ever learn?

 

[BackAgain]

Uh,no , his ruling was based on his opinion.

You just fucked up again and opened your mouth before you knew what you were talking about.

Will you ever learn?

His ruling was on the claim of privilege.

You can stand on your head and spin like a top. But,that won’t change the fact that you’re wrong. You remain fully retarded.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His ruling was on the claim of privilege.

You can stand on your head and spin like a top. But,that won’t change the fact that you’re wrong. You remain fully retarded.

And was based on the opinion given. Duh. This isn't rocket surgey, dummy.

But you didn't know that when you commenced this latest hissy fit.

And we both know nothing is going to stop it. Everyone will just watch the cringeyness, as you once again are wrong and blaming everyone else for your own errors.

 

[BackAgain]

And was based on the opinion given. Duh. This isn't rocket surgey, dummy.

He is entitled to his opinion. But you remain wrong. The ruling was on the validity of a claim of privilege. You ultimate twit.

But you didn't know that when you commenced this latest hissy fit.

And I know you’re wrong in your assessment, too. You don’t seem to grasp your own stupidity. Now that’s even funnier.

Plus of course, you are the one having a hissy fit. I’m just mocking your vapid posting efforts.

I will lower myself to trying (albeit knowing in advance that it will be futile) to educate you, Farty:

The legal opinion (to be covered by privilege) has several requirements. One of them is, of course, that it can’t be for the purpose of committing a crime. The stupid judge opined that it was “likely” a crime. (He was wrong, of course.) But even if his opinion had some merit, the correct test isn’t whether it was “likely” a crime. The correct test is whether it IS a crime. His faulty opinion led to a bad ruling.

Poor Farty. Your lifelong dedication to being ignorant and petty isn’t getting you anywhere.

 

[g5000]

That's purely your opinion. It doesn't alter the fact that you have been wrong about this all along.

It's not opinion. It's a fact stated by the General who was there.

 

[g5000]

See post 189.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The ruling was on the validity of a claim of privilege.

And his opinion about the possible criminality was part of the basis of the ruling.

I really can't dumb this down any further for you.

 

[BackAgain]

And his opinion about the possible criminality was part of the basis of the ruling.

I really can't dumb this down any further for you.

You are already as dumb as can be. And wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I mean, a 9 year old could understand this....

"The late Tuesday ruling adds to a decision earlier this year finding that Eastman, who crafted two memos outlining the Trump campaign strategy to block the Jan. 6, 2021, Electoral College certification, cannot shield some of his work from the committee by claiming attorney-client privilege because he participated in a project to undermine the election that was likely criminal"

 

[bripat9643]

It's not opinion. It's a fact stated by the General who was there.

Please quote.

 

[Lastamender]

Conservatives lie about the intent of the hearings and are willfully ignorant of the proceedings.

What is the intent?

 

[Lastamender]

I mean, a 9 year old could understand this....

"The late Tuesday ruling adds to a decision earlier this year finding that Eastman, who crafted two memos outlining the Trump campaign strategy to block the Jan. 6, 2021, Electoral College certification, cannot shield some of his work from the committee by claiming attorney-client privilege because he participated in a project to undermine the election that was likely criminal"

The election was criminal but Trump had nothing to do with the fraud except that he was the one defrauded.

 

[Nostra]

Well golly gee. It's another anal retentive Trump asslicker who has no defense to offer for his traitor fake president.

Hopoefully DOJ is not only looking at Trump's crimes surrounding the election but also what the fuck he was doing with all those documents he stole from the W.H. labeled "Top Secret".

How many more lawyers ya think Trump will need?

Charges? Any charges?

 

[Nostra]

You've exposed nothing but your own stupidity & servitude to Trump no matter what he does.

You must be paid well for blurting out your stupid nonsense. Did you work before you took on this gig or does your baby mama support your sorry ass?

Trump resides Rent Free in your vacuous noggin, Simp.

 

[Lesh]

The ruling, you complete dumbass, was not the irrelevant snippet about the judges silly opinion. The ruling was about a testimonial privilege assertion.

WTF do you think we're talking about here?

 

[Nostra]

It's not opinion. It's a fact stated by the General who was there.

The General who mistakenly thinks Trump could have called up the NG?

 

[Lesh]

The General who mistakenly thinks Trump could have called up the NG?

You have a fantasy again?

 

[BackAgain]

See post 189.

Why would I want to do that?

 

[BackAgain]

WTF do you think we're talking about here?

I realize you don’t know. Lol.

There is a difference between a “ruling” and some “opinion” upon which that ruling is allegedly based. You simpleton.

Here the ruling was “no valid claim of privilege.” It was predicated apparently in the judge’s opinion that the subject matter of the legal opinion (the subject matter of the claim of privilege) was “likely” for the purpose of committing a crime. But whether that seems “likely” to the judge is not the proper standard. The standard is whether it does serve to further a crime.

The judge is absolutely wrong for applying the wrong standard. And his opinion is vapid anyway.

Go sit in the corner, you libtarded dunce. Here’s your special attire, Farty.