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.
No. That’s unreasonable.And it’s more than reasonable for us to say he’s full of shit because he has the ability to prove his allegations but chooses not to.
That's so oversimplified that it lacks any semblance of perspective for who is making "a claim" vis-a-vis the burden of proof in criminal jurisprudence. The government alone carries the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged. The defendant is not required to prove anything, he may instead advance any number of legal strategies or categories of circumstantial evidence that raise doubt sufficient to thwart the government's ability to carry it's heavy burden. The OJ trial is one high profile case that featured many famous examples of this.No. If you claim somebody did something wrong, they can deny it if they want, but you have to prove it, or else you are just making an unproven claim. If you have a claim and are simply unwilling to prove it, it is probably a bullshit claim and any jury or observer can make up their mind about your claim, taking into account you are unwilling to back your claim with proof. Everybody knows that, and like I said, I am no lawyer and don't even play one on TV.
It’s perfectly reasonable.No. That’s unreasonable.
If you’ve got the goods, you also get to decide when is the most advantageous time to lower the boom.
Your petty whining doesn’t change that fact. It irritates you that you don’t get to call the shots. Lol. Tough luck. Sucks to be you.
Hilarious. Someone still has faith that these losers ever follow through.I'm sure we'll be seeing snippets of the video in the weeks and months to come.
The idea isn't to let everything out of the bag immediately, but to hold it back until the video can make the biggest impact on the election cycle.
It’s perfectly reasonable.
Nope. You are just Chaffed that you don’t get to decide.If someone makes an allegation but refuses to provide proof which they possess, then it’s immediately suspect to any reasonable perso.
Nevertheless, to folks who (unlike you) are actually reasonable, making the most of what you have can include decisions on the timing of disclosure. Isn’t it great? It is great. Go ahead. Admit it. Sorry bubbala. But it is you who has shown himself/herself/itself to be unreasonable.You aren’t reasonable.
Saying “no it’s not” doesn’t support your claim. I provided a rational. You’ve provided nothing.No. It’s not. Repeating your ignorant claim doesn’t support it.
Nope. You are just Chaffed that you don’t get to decide.
Sorry bubbala. But it is you who has shown himself/herself/itself to be unreasonable.
Saying “no it’s not” doesn’t support your claim. I provided a rational.
Wrong. I refuted your lame ass whine. For, you see, even though it makes you bleed, the fact remains that the person with the goods is free to unilaterally decide when it is best put to use. Not you.You’ve provided nothing.
Anyone who comes to you for advice or sage words of wisdom is a fool and hopelessly misguided.Anyone who takes Trump or his progeny at their word is a fool.
Thread should end there. It really is that frivolous.Eric Trump said
It wasn’t a question about freedom. You didn’t provide a rationale, you merely shifted the question. It’s dishonest.You provided a lame ass whine.
Wrong. I refuted your lame ass whine. For, you see, even though it makes you bleed, the fact remains that the person with the goods is free to unilaterally decide when it is best put to use. Not you.
Anyone who comes to you for advice or sage words of wisdom is a fool and hopelessly misguided.
It wasn’t a question about freedom. You didn’t provide a rationale, you merely shifted the question. It’s dishonest.
People like you vote for senile old racist scum. Plus, of course, people like you are unable to defend their own positions. As you’ve demonstrated clearly.People like you are easy targets for people like Trump.
I did defend my position. You didn’t. You defended a different and unrelated position that was not up for debate.It wasn’t a question at all. You simply made a claim. It was regarded of you. You remain entirely dishonest.
People like you vote for senile old racist scum. Plus, of course, people like you are unable to defend their own positions. As you’ve demonstrated clearly.
You are babbling in circles now.I did defend my position. You didn’t. You defended a different and unrelated position that was not up for debate.
It’s dishonest and weak.
That is foolish. Of course they represented the Trump campaign, and were not contradicted by the campaign. Nobody telling lies here, just because you disagree. Your standards are questionable, to say the least.Why are you simply making shit up? The lawyers who were there were not even employed by Trump during the election debacle. Why don't you just STFU until you find some facts, and stop spouting your fucking ridiculous assertions also known as lies?
There will be no "next impeachment", as his day in the big chair is over.Then when he does and Americans who still believe in the rule of law react in outrage, Trump will be blamed and another count will be added to his next impeachment.
No. The government is only responsible to prove it's claims, as they too are innocent until proven guilty, and the private claimant will have to make his case or the claim will not be proven.That's so oversimplified that it lacks any semblance of perspective for who is making "a claim" vis-a-vis the burden of proof in criminal jurisprudence. The government alone carries the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged. The defendant is not required to prove anything, he may instead advance any number of legal strategies or categories of circumstantial evidence that raise doubt sufficient to thwart the government's ability to carry it's heavy burden. The OJ trial is one high profile case that featured many famous examples of this.
It was improper for them to be there at all, but this just gets better & better.
You'd think these swamp assholes would know better than to fuck with Trump by now, but they just don't get it.
Peops gonna get fired.
No such need. He cannot ignore the courts seal. And he is free to decide when he reveals the videos. Nobody “needs” to bust a move (to his own disadvantage) just to placate you.Thread should end there. It really is that frivolous.
Trumps need to put up the WARRANT, THAT THEY HAVE and this VIDEO THAT THEY HAVE or just STFU already.
All these assholes are doing is whipping up gullible rightwingers to squeeze whatever political juice they can out of their legal lemons.
YES!Eric Trump said that the security cameras at Mar-a-Lago caught FBI agents behaving improperly during Monday’s raid, alleging that investigators were accessing parts of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence that they “shouldn’t have been.”
In an interview with DailyMail.com, Eric Trump said that because staff refused to turn off the surveillance cameras at the request of the FBI, the Mar-a-Lago cameras captured agents raiding areas that they weren’t authorized to.
So the staff did not turn off the cameras! Good on them!
UPDATE: Eric Trump Says Mar-a-Lago Security Cameras Captured FBI Agents Behaving Improperly | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
President Trump’s home was raided on Monday by Joe Biden and his lawless regime.www.thegatewaypundit.com
Kind of seems odd they not only wanted no witnesses but for the video to be shut off too. That just screams legitimate doesn’t it.Any search warrant requires a representative of the plaintiff to be present to guard against improper procedures. Like planting evidence. The FBI was careful to remove EVERYONE affiliated with Trump, lawyers, waitstaff, random passers by. A closed warrant. Because...they say so. This is tantamount to illegal search and seizure no matter WHO or WHAT party is involved. It is illegal, no matter your political party.
The feds had a search warrant. All of Trump's Mar-a-Lago is fair game.Eric Trump said that the security cameras at Mar-a-Lago caught FBI agents behaving improperly during Monday’s raid, alleging that investigators were accessing parts of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence that they “shouldn’t have been.”
In an interview with DailyMail.com, Eric Trump said that because staff refused to turn off the surveillance cameras at the request of the FBI, the Mar-a-Lago cameras captured agents raiding areas that they weren’t authorized to.
So the staff did not turn off the cameras! Good on them!
UPDATE: Eric Trump Says Mar-a-Lago Security Cameras Captured FBI Agents Behaving Improperly | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
President Trump’s home was raided on Monday by Joe Biden and his lawless regime.
