Jump to content
Nanker

Operation Boomerang AG Barr's Investigation of Acts of Treason by Federal Employees

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Foxx said:

from the guy who argued that hearsay can be better than firsthand knowledge. lol.

Well, 3rd chair gets his information from the 2nd chair who gets it from the 1st chair. What would you expect him to claim?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love you two chiming in to share something objectively wrong!  But I don’t expect anything less.  It’s why juries have to be treated like babies, there is no expectation that the common American has any accurate knowledge of the legal system (we actually presume the opposite: that they hold inaccurate information.  Example would be you two)

 

hearsay can be credible, direct evidence can be not credible.  Wild wild stuff to understand, I know 

Edited by Crayola64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Everyone's out to get Donald Trump! Do you ever stop to think how bat....crazy this is?

 

Drunk posting is fun.🤣

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Everyone's out to get Donald Trump! Do you ever stop to think how bat....crazy this is?

 

batshit crazy is Crossfire Hurricane, Steele Dossier, Russian Collusion, Ukrainegate and probably whatever the Dems come up with next.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Foxx said:

batshit crazy is Crossfire Hurricane, Steele Dossier, Russian Collusion, Ukrainegate and probably whatever the Dems come up with next.


just gonna ignore the lies you posted on this same page?  Nice job spreading misinformation lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:


just gonna ignore the lies you posted on this same page?  Nice job spreading misinformation lol

what lies? did you or did you not argue that hearsay can be better than firsthand knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

I love you two chiming in to share something objectively wrong!  But I don’t expect anything less.  It’s why juries have to be treated like babies, there is no expectation that the common American has any accurate knowledge of the legal system (we actually presume the opposite: that they hold inaccurate information.  Example would be you two)

 

hearsay can be credible, direct evidence can be not credible.  Wild wild stuff to understand, I know 

See the source image

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

additionally, McCabe did commit the crime of lying under oath. not once, not twice but three times. @Crayola64 implying he did nothing wrong is just plain disingenuous.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Foxx said:

additionally, McCabe did commit the crime of lying under oath. not once, not twice but three times. @Crayola64 implying he did nothing wrong is just plain disingenuous.

 

Now, now, you're not a lawyer, so you aren't qualified to determine whether his untruthful statements under oath are in fact lies.  You need to defer that judgement to a big time lawyer, or at minimum a CNN anchor.

 

Get back into your place, peon.  😛

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Now, now, you're not a lawyer, so you aren't qualified to determine whether his untruthful statements under oath are in fact lies.  You need to defer that judgement to a big time lawyer, or at minimum a CNN anchor.

 

Get back into your place, peon.  😛

Hey now, as a lawyer he was once a 3rd chair and he also "won a preliminary hearing". By his own admission that is the totality of his courtroom experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Deek, just in case some here don't know why the police like to use so many officers on many arrests, I thought I would just explain briefly, as I understand it. 

 

In many cases, a person about to be arrested for anything serious, starts to consider his/her options.  Is it possible to get out of this situation by overpowering the arresting officer?  If I run, might I get away? 

 

The police tactic of using lots of officers (overwhelming force) is designed to answer those questions emphatically.  Clearly, to any rational person, resistance is futile.  If the arrestee turns irrational, all of those police guns gain control quickly.  The tactic itself is effective but I think we agree, it is overused.  I mentioned earlier, I think SWAT teams like to practice

 

As I said Bob, we’ll see if you feel the same way when you’re woken up in the middle of the night. This old man and his wife were neither violent, hiding, or a flight risk. US Citizens are not supposed to be used as practice for law enforcement. These ‘professionals’ train all the time. In short....this was completely out of line and you know it. Everyone knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Now, now, you're not a lawyer, so you aren't qualified to determine whether his untruthful statements under oath are in fact lies.  You need to defer that judgement to a big time lawyer, or at minimum a CNN anchor.

 

Get back into your place, peon.  😛

 

To be fair (and truthful 😛), when you live in a world where Trump/Russia collusion is real,  the FBI didn't abuse the FISA court and Trump/Republicans have a monopoly on Ukraine associated malfeasance, you might have issues separating reality from fantasy in pretty much all aspects of your professional and personal life.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Hey now, as a lawyer he was once a 3rd chair and he also "won a preliminary hearing". By his own admission that is the totality of his courtroom experience. 


id love for you to quote me on any of that lol.  

3 hours ago, Foxx said:

additionally, McCabe did commit the crime of lying under oath. not once, not twice but three times. @Crayola64 implying he did nothing wrong is just plain disingenuous.


I never said any of that.  Just pointing out your comment on hearsay was objectively dumb, false, and misinformation.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:


id love for you to quote me on any of that lol.  


I never said any of that.  Just pointing out your comment on hearsay was objectively dumb, false, and misinformation.   

Are you denying it or just saying I won't be able to find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crayola64 said:

... I never said any of that.  Just pointing out your comment on hearsay was objectively dumb, false, and misinformation.   

you're objectively an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

you're objectively an idiot.

 

says the person who said false information on this page lolololol.  Hearsay can't be better than first-hand knowledge?  What a dumb thing to say

54 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Are you denying it or just saying I won't be able to find it?

 

You are are obsessed with my successful career.  I have done far more court experience than that, and done all hearings from preliminary to dispositive.  Still waiting for you to share your career lol.

 

And hate to break it to you, but when you firm only handles large-scale multi-million dollar litigation, getting trial experience as an associate is a nice accomplishment.  So it is a funny thing to try and put someone down for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, njbuff said:

What false information is Crayola talking about?

 

Saying hearsay information can't be better than first-hand evidence.  It was a random thing he chimed in with (off-topic), that is objectively not true

 

It also highlights his stupidity that he chose that of all things to highlight about me lol, he essentially said "this coming from a guy who said this true thing"

Edited by Crayola64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 11:10 AM, Buffalo_Gal said:

huh
 

 

 

"Huh" she says.

 

How and why do you guys sit over here using each other as conspiratorial sounding boards? Do you all honestly find this fulfilling?

 

You must because a handful of you seem to live in this message board.

 

For as hypercritical as many of you seem to be about anyone with left leaning views or anyone who thinks Trump is not a good President and Obama was, I feel like you've lost the noses in front of your eyes.

 

So the Mueller investigation was a partisan witchhunt but the Durham investigation initiated by Barr isn't? I bet you also believe Barr's new sentencing recommendation for Stone was completely objective and Trump's public comments on that "too harsh" sentence was pure coincidence... because that just happens to be the story, right?

 

How can you guys be okay with having always been lied to previously (as @Deranged Rhino likes to CONSTANTLY say) but be perfectly fine with countless lies coming out of the White House?

 

This guy was supposed to drain the swamp. Dude is a swamp. 

 

Look at all the tax money he spends at his leisure on everything from golf outings (one of MANY lies he made... remember how critical he was of Obama for golfing too much and how he claimed he'd "never leave the White House?") to trips to his own resorts to military planes flying into his own resorts to... so DAMN MUCH!!!

 

There are so many goddamn lies it's ridiculous!

 

How are you fine with these lies but view MSM as the Devil?

 

And for as utterly critical as many of you are of mainstream media and as much as you can cherry pick examples where they get things wrong, Journalists earn their credentials and are then also using pretty high bar "sourcing" standards set forth for professional journalists that simply don't apply to the bloggers on Twitter I see posted here consistently.

 

And look, I think that's awesome that you're retired. Seriously. Congratulations! I'm quite sure you worked your butt off to get there. I have a feeling you're not the only one in this forum who is given the amount of time so many spend over here.

 

But just because a lot of you have the time to read all these things not everyone does doesn't mean you're reading it all with the ability to properly decipher all of it. 

 

It reminds me of this parable:

 

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

 

Ever consider the possibility you might just be blind men & women feeling different parts of the same tail or side or tusk or trunk of an Elephant?

Edited by transplantbillsfan
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Saying hearsay information can't be better than first-hand evidence.  It was a random thing he chimed in with (off-topic), that is objectively not true

 

It also highlights his stupidity that he chose that of all things to highlight about me lol, he essentially said "this coming from a guy who said this true thing"

i rest my case. 

 

of course i may have been being too kind in calling the idiot an objective idiot when he clearly is an unabashed idiot.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i rest my case. 

 

of course i may have been being too kind in calling the idiot an objective idiot when he clearly is an unabashed idiot.

 

first-hand: Adam Schiff saying he saw putin and trump meet in a closet

 

hearsay: a text message chain of senators saying they heard Schiff was making it up

 

 

Foxx thinks that hearsay can't be better evidence than firsthand knowledge haha...we convict people of murder based on hearsay you idiot 

Edited by Crayola64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Hey now, as a lawyer he was once a 3rd chair and he also "won a preliminary hearing". By his own admission that is the totality of his courtroom experience. 

 

Which clearly makes him more qualified than anyone else here to read testimony.  :wacko:  

 

Well, assuming no CNN anchors post here.  He'd clearly have to take the 2nd seat and refer to their expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

first-hand: Adam Schiff saying he saw putin and trump meet in a closet

 

hearsay: a text message chain of senators saying they heard Schiff was making it up

 

 

Foxx thinks that hearsay can't be better evidence than firsthand knowledge haha...we convict people of murder based on hearsay you idiot 

 

speculation: i heard crayola64 on the phone bragging about beating his wife

 

I missed the part about board game night.  But that didn't stop the cops from arresting him

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine if DOJ had investigated McCabe for two years & at the end of it declined to charge him criminally but still wrote a report detailing all the bad things he’d ever said, done or thought about doing & then claimed the report “does not exonerate” him & hinted he be impeached.
 
Then imagine that the “crime” he was being investigated for never even happened, was largely based on a fake dossier funded by his political opponents and McCabe’s attempts to clear his name were then claimed as evidence of “obstruction” despite being legally incoherent.
 
Boy that’d sure be a “disgrace”. Can’t have that.
Sounds very politicized Yet that’s what McCabe helped to do to Trump and many in his orbit
If Durham delivers nothing given him taking a victory lap on this expect the anger to be volcanic
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...