(10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us again why the doj and original judge failed to un-redact the portion of the affidavit that showed Trump was cooperating, then rushed to do it after it was clear there would be a special master.
Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of. 
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
WHy did they keep the Trump cooperation redacted, ProBono? Therew wa NOTHING in that section that should have been redacted. It was the easiest un-redaction ever.
And it came quickly as soon as the special master was getting appointed.
Taint. Its whats for dinner for some of you guys.
(10-12-2022 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us again why the doj and original judge failed to un-redact the portion of the affidavit that showed Trump was cooperating, then rushed to do it after it was clear there would be a special master.
Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of.
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
WHy did they keep the Trump cooperation redacted, ProBono? Therew wa NOTHING in that section that should have been redacted. It was the easiest un-redaction ever.
And it came quickly as soon as the special master was getting appointed.
Taint. Its whats for dinner for some of you guys.
Interesting, doesn't know the definition of cooperating (or posited) but sure does know the definition of taint! Quite telling.
(10-12-2022 01:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of.
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
WHy did they keep the Trump cooperation redacted, ProBono? Therew wa NOTHING in that section that should have been redacted. It was the easiest un-redaction ever.
And it came quickly as soon as the special master was getting appointed.
Taint. Its whats for dinner for some of you guys.
Interesting, doesn't know the definition of cooperating (or posited) but sure does know the definition of taint! Quite telling.
Says the dude that has keeps allowing himself to be hoodwinked, over and over and over again.
(10-12-2022 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us again why the doj and original judge failed to un-redact the portion of the affidavit that showed Trump was cooperating, then rushed to do it after it was clear there would be a special master.
Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of.
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
WHy did they keep the Trump cooperation redacted, ProBono? Therew wa NOTHING in that section that should have been redacted. It was the easiest un-redaction ever.
And it came quickly as soon as the special master was getting appointed.
Taint. Its whats for dinner for some of you guys.
Im still waiting for the simple answer of what did Trump do to 'cooperate'. Apparently that is a mountain you are unable to climb.
And, to be precise, Gomer, nothing in the affidavit should ordinarily be revealed to anyone *but* a judge prior to an indictment. I guess you forgot about that little extra special sauce so soon.
The point is that the DOJ actually pointed that out to the judge, that is the judge who made the decision to issue the warrant.
Redacting it or not after the fact has zero to play. The nuances and the actual law seemingly fk up your Alex Jones schtick to no end.
The *only* issue in that is whether the DOJ revealed that to the issuing judge. They did. And, to note, they were being very liberal in using the word or even the concept of 'cooperate' there.
Still waiting for the amazing story of Trump's *actual* cooperation from you, chuckles. Put that out there and lets compare to the other stuff listed. Amazingly, you seemingly cannot (or will not) even do that simple task. Lolz.
(10-12-2022 01:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of.
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
WHy did they keep the Trump cooperation redacted, ProBono? Therew wa NOTHING in that section that should have been redacted. It was the easiest un-redaction ever.
And it came quickly as soon as the special master was getting appointed.
Taint. Its whats for dinner for some of you guys.
Interesting, doesn't know the definition of cooperating (or posited) but sure does know the definition of taint! Quite telling.
The dude cant even answer what Trump did to 'cooperate'. Amazing that.
If. They. Had. ANYTHING. On. Trump. It. Would. Have. Been. Leaked. To. Every. Libtard. Media. Outlet. On. Day. One.
It really is amusing to see you lefties call other people "dumb". I mean, it's seriously HILARIOUS!!
(10-12-2022 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
WHy did they keep the Trump cooperation redacted, ProBono? Therew wa NOTHING in that section that should have been redacted. It was the easiest un-redaction ever.
And it came quickly as soon as the special master was getting appointed.
Taint. Its whats for dinner for some of you guys.
Interesting, doesn't know the definition of cooperating (or posited) but sure does know the definition of taint! Quite telling.
The dude cant even answer what Trump did to 'cooperate'. Amazing that.
Its in the unredacted part of the warrant ProBono. You should read it.
Also, read the updated inventory list. You know, the one the doj scrambled to "correct" after the judge said the fib/doj could be put under oath about the inventory.
(10-12-2022 01:46 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
WHy did they keep the Trump cooperation redacted, ProBono? Therew wa NOTHING in that section that should have been redacted. It was the easiest un-redaction ever.
And it came quickly as soon as the special master was getting appointed.
Taint. Its whats for dinner for some of you guys.
Interesting, doesn't know the definition of cooperating (or posited) but sure does know the definition of taint! Quite telling.
The dude cant even answer what Trump did to 'cooperate'. Amazing that.
Its in the unredacted part of the warrant ProBono. You should read it.
Also, read the updated inventory list. You know, the one the doj scrambled to "correct" after the judge said the fib/doj could be put under oath about the inventory.
I have read it, Gomer. Trump made a conciliatory turn over of a small number of documents, all while concealing more of them, refusing requests to inspect the documents, and then lying under a letter under oath that no more existed.
Oh, and Trump said he would cooperate all the while he was doing the above.
Quite the cooperation there, sparkles.
And, since you go into the inventory issue --- please do tell us all the massive changes to that list.
At least the DOJ is making even small corrections to the list it puts into the court under oath. I guess that small number of accounting pennies of numbers is a big deal to an Alex Jones wannabe. SO be it.
On the other hand, seemingly everything that Trump did was a stonewall or an abject lie to the Feds. No matter how many times you tap your ruby shoes together while repeating the reason and rationale that changes like clockwork.
Not to mention the his everchanging story in public. They are mine --- no, they were planted -- they are mine --- they are planted. Funny that Trump's lawyers dont let him spew that pablum to a court in a filing -- under oath.
Cant wait for your next round of empty Alex Jones-wannabe detritus.
tanq, ol' boy, you are a 'gas' ...
Tanq seems to be really invested in this. I wonder if Trump stole his girlfriend or something?
(10-12-2022 05:07 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq seems to be really invested in this. I wonder if Trump stole his girlfriend or something?
Cant respond substantively so you simply lower your comment to the above --- good job there.... <slow clap>
(10-12-2022 05:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 05:07 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq seems to be really invested in this. I wonder if Trump stole his girlfriend or something?
Cant respond substantively so you simply lower your comment to the above --- good job there.... <slow clap>
That’s obviously absurd, MHB.
I’m pretty sure that the actual explanation is that tanq. heard somewhere that the FBI is dangling a $1mm award to anyone who can provide a credible excuse for the inexcusable raid.
(10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us again why the doj and original judge failed to un-redact the portion of the affidavit that showed Trump was cooperating, then rushed to do it after it was clear there would be a special master.
Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of.
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents when they were there'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'. Please do tell, exactly *how* Trump 'cooperated' in your corner of the universe? I am really interested to see the level and scope that you bring out, and be able to compare it to the above.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
Trump employee tells FBI that Trump directed boxes to be moved at Mar-a-Lago after subpoena served…
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics/...index.html
(10-12-2022 06:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us again why the doj and original judge failed to un-redact the portion of the affidavit that showed Trump was cooperating, then rushed to do it after it was clear there would be a special master.
Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of.
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents when they were there'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'. Please do tell, exactly *how* Trump 'cooperated' in your corner of the universe? I am really interested to see the level and scope that you bring out, and be able to compare it to the above.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
Trump employee tells FBI that Trump directed boxes to be moved at Mar-a-Lago after subpoena served…
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics/...index.html
You finally got em.... this is truly the end
Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk
(10-12-2022 06:59 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 06:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of.
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents when they were there'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'. Please do tell, exactly *how* Trump 'cooperated' in your corner of the universe? I am really interested to see the level and scope that you bring out, and be able to compare it to the above.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
Trump employee tells FBI that Trump directed boxes to be moved at Mar-a-Lago after subpoena served…
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics/...index.html
You finally got em.... this is truly the end
Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk
If you do not see an obstruction indictment coming, then you’re willfully blind.
(10-12-2022 06:59 PM)maximus Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 06:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 01:04 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]Like posited, yet another word you don't know the definition of.
Swallow that taint.
To UtechSchoolstate, I guess 'cooperate' means 'blow off a subpoena', 'when pushed, only partially comply with the subpoena', 'lie under oath about having any more documents covered by the subpoena', and 'refuse to let the DOJ look at the documents when they were there'.
Quite a non-standard re-definition of the word 'cooperate'. Please do tell, exactly *how* Trump 'cooperated' in your corner of the universe? I am really interested to see the level and scope that you bring out, and be able to compare it to the above.
I guess if once you can seemingly ignore all of the above, yeah, Trump may have 'cooperated.' Cha cha cha.
Trump employee tells FBI that Trump directed boxes to be moved at Mar-a-Lago after subpoena served…
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics/...index.html
You finally got em.... this is truly the end
Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk
The walls have closed in so much I had to take off one of my many facemasks. I literally quoted Saints Eric Garner and George Floyd "I can't breathe" before shuddering and removing it. I only have 10 left!
(10-12-2022 05:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 05:07 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq seems to be really invested in this. I wonder if Trump stole his girlfriend or something?
Cant respond substantively so you simply lower your comment to the above --- good job there.... <slow clap>
Keep trying to polish that turd, Tanq. You may succeed one day. Then you can mount it and put it in that trophy case.
(10-12-2022 07:20 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 05:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022 05:07 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq seems to be really invested in this. I wonder if Trump stole his girlfriend or something?
Cant respond substantively so you simply lower your comment to the above --- good job there.... <slow clap>
Keep trying to polish that turd, Tanq. You may succeed one day. Then you can mount it and put it in that trophy case.
I find it endearing when some cant do anything but what you have done twice in row.
If you cant bother with facts or a discussion, just get maddy poo and call them a personal insult.
Bravo..... (I guess).
I don't know what makes you think I'm mad. I just find it amusing how you won't let go of this, like it's personal to you.
(10-12-2022 07:12 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]If you do not see an obstruction indictment coming, then you’re willfully blind.
Obstruction of a political hit job is not a crime.