Elections Trump Indicted On 91 Counts

Darkballs said:
That refers to the SUBJECT ACCOUNT, which was Trump. That's clear from the section heading, as it's written in big bold letters, that you intentionally left out (this is becoming a theme).

And this is for a warrant application that was issued and executed back in January. And the defense has not objected to it in any way.

If you think that a federal judge approved a warrant for the credit card information from everyone who like a Trump tweet, you are an idiot.

What happened is that your shitty right-wing source dug up and old document, intentionally omitted a large portion of it, and then fed it to you with a bullshit premise, knowing that people like you would bother to read it for yourself.

This wasn't a story a year ago when it happened, and you won't be able to make it a story now by lying.

Just keep your fingers crossed that no one clicks on the link for themselves. You might manage to convince one or two really partisan trump fans that way. Although they are already in his pocket, so I fail to see the point.
Click to expand...

You're either a liar or an idiot. I even quoted it and underlined the relevant part. You've just been owned again. Go get me a beer loser.

Attachment B, Section 3B:

All information from the "Connect" or "Notifications" tab for the account, including all lists of Twitter users who have favorited or retweeted tweets posted by the account (i.e., "mentions" or "replies")
 
Whippy McGee said:
You're either a liar or an idiot. I even quoted it and underlined the relevant part. You've just been owned again. Go get me a beer loser.

Attachment B, Section 3B:

All information from the "Connect" or "Notifications" tab for the account, including all lists of Twitter users who have favorited or retweeted tweets posted by the account (i.e., "mentions" or "replies")
Click to expand...
Whilst I understand, this is also something that would be easily obtainable by anyone with a twitter account. Just makes it look more legal.

Whilst I did laugh and said Im fine with X having problems cause of it, I work in I.T so this kind of thing is relevant to my interests and concerns in the ever increasing cyber world
 
Whippy McGee said:
You're either a liar or an idiot. I even quoted it and underlined the relevant part. You've just been owned again. Go get me a beer loser.

Attachment B, Section 3B:

All information from the "Connect" or "Notifications" tab for the account, including all lists of Twitter users who have favorited or retweeted tweets posted by the account (i.e., "mentions" or "replies")
Click to expand...

Uh huh. And can you tell me which parts of the warrant were granted in whole, or in part? Can you tell me for which underline part of the crime that list was regarded, in terms of how it would be valid under the Federal Rules of Evidence? Bear in mind that this issue was settled back in January with no motion by the defense to object, so this has long been ruled on. And your source intentionally omitted that part.

So how about you do your homework, and then get back to us sparky. I'll give you a hint, it's somewhere between pages 24 and 48, and it relates to how much traction said statements in said tweets made with people, and does not call for the government to get the actual names of individual trump fans. It's about the fucking users and how many people hear X statement or decided to amplify this.

Christ, it's clear you just cut and pasted this shit, and never read it for yourself.
 
Darkballs said:
Uh huh. And can you tell me which parts of the warrant were granted in whole, or in part? Can you tell me for which underline part of the crime that list was regarded, in terms of how it would be valid under the Federal Rules of Evidence? Bear in mind that this issue was settled back in January with no motion by the defense to object, so this has long been ruled on. And your source intentionally omitted that part.

So how about you do your homework, and then get back to us sparky. I'll give you a hint, it's somewhere between pages 24 and 48, and it relates to how much traction said statements in said tweets made with people, and does not call for the government to get the actual names of individual trump fans. It's about the fucking users and how many people hear X statement or decided to amplify this.

Christ, it's clear you just cut and pasted this shit, and never read it for yourself.
Click to expand...

Look at you dodge. I just gave you the text of the heavily redacted warrant and now you want to play semantic games. My source was the actual document you lying goof. Take your loss and go home.
 
i'm not even sure what you guys are even arguing about. a bunch of orange cosby's grievances that already got struck down in court like a year ago which mango molesto didn't even object to?

is this another typical case of where something did not go well for our beloved molestini cheetolini but we still have to put on our clown masks and do the dance and pretend like he's winning anyways?

the mandarin molesters criminal trials can't come soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Fergelmince said:
So you enjoyed it when Trump turned Quasem Soleimani in to a red mist, right?
Click to expand...
I don't think he or any like-minded person cared about Soleimani's fate but rather questioned the pertinence of carrying out the assassination in the first place.

It was talked about for a week and when we saw Iran didn't reply as they said they would, we moved on.
 
Damien Karras said:
I don't think he or any like-minded person cared about Soleimani's fate but rather questioned the pertinence of carrying out the assassination in the first place.

It was talked about for a week and when we saw Iran didn't reply as they said they would, we moved on.
Click to expand...

"We"
 
AWilder said:


womp womp
Click to expand...

Sounds like an outbreak of TDS, how dare they prevent Trump from baselessly attacking Engoron's law clerk resulting in hundreds of pages of death threats, hacks, doxing and harassment... how is he supposed to run a presidential campaign if he can't attack a random law clerk with unhinged conspiracies?
 
Damien Karras said:
Hey guys, apparently Presidents never swear to support the Constitution so that excuses Trump for engaging in insurrection activity (as per Trump's lawyers which he endorses)

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-oath-support-constitution-colorado-insurrection-1847482
Click to expand...
I'm not even a lawyer but I can see it's a nonsense argument on its face.
AWilder said:


womp womp
Click to expand...

mr-burns-excellent-mr-burns.gif
 
Striderxdj said:
Sounds like an outbreak of TDS, how dare they prevent Trump from baselessly attacking Engoron's law clerk resulting in hundreds of pages of death threats, hacks, doxing and harassment... how is he supposed to run a presidential campaign if he can't attack a random law clerk with unhinged conspiracies?
Click to expand...

His latest target has been the judge's wife. A true American hero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HOLA
Crime Special counsel charges FBI informant with lying to the bureau about Hunter and Joe Biden
14 15 16
Replies
316
Views
10K
jefferz
jefferz
panem-et-circenses
Crime Hunter Biden indicted on tax charges in California in new criminal case/Hunter’s interview with Moby
10 11 12
Replies
237
Views
9K
Chesten_Hesten
Chesten_Hesten

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,239,031
Messages
55,600,587
Members
174,845
Latest member
sosadus

Share this page

Back
Top