On 8/19/2022 7:15 PM, RichA wrote:
> Yet the administration does not, despite making a big show of the fact Trump had them, as if some dire state secrets were at risk. Does anyone smell a redacted rat coming?

Trump wants to know who squealed. Character assassins are standing by.

On 8/19/2022 10:15 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/19/2022 7:15 PM, RichA wrote:
>> Yet the administration does not, despite making a big show of the fact
>> Trump had them, as if some dire state secrets were at risk.  Does
>> anyone smell a redacted rat coming?
>
> Trump wants to know who squealed.  Character assassins are standing by.

Any idea what Mr. Brain Dead means by "redacted rat?"

On 8/20/2022 1:17 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 23:15:11 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>> On 8/19/2022 7:15 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Yet the administration does not, despite making a big show of the fact Trump had them, as if some dire state secrets were at risk. Does anyone smell a redacted rat coming?
>> Trump wants to know who squealed. Character assassins are standing by.
>
> Why would the papers mention that?

Yes, like most things you don't comprehend what is happening.

af·fi·da·vit
/ˌafəˈdāvit/
Learn to pronounce
nounLaw
noun: affidavit; plural noun: affidavits

a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as
evidence in court.
"a former employee swore an affidavit relating to his claim for
unfair dismissal"

Being clear about the evidence that will compel the judge to issue the
warrant is obvious to me. You should intelligent people and try giving
a shit about the facts.

More likely, the DNC doesn't want something in them coming out.

No shit? The DNC (sic) doesn't want the informant's name revealed? Oh,
and this has nothing to do with the DNC, just the DOJ. That means Dept.
of Justice, which operated independently of the rest of govt. in the
name of Justice. Corrupt assholes have trouble comprehending this, I know.

> moviePig
> > RichA
> >
> > Yet the administration does not, despite making a big show of the fact Trump
> > had them, as if some dire state secrets were at risk. Does anyone smell a redacted
> > rat coming?
>
> Trump wants to know who squealed. Character assassins are standing by.

Seems to me the best legal and political move is forcing the government to justify
and explains it's action against a former President. Why should Trump do Biden's
Justice Dept. a favor and dance to their tune? Let them lay out the evidence and
Trump's lawyers can then pick it apart.

On 8/20/2022 3:33 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 8/20/2022 1:17 AM, RichA wrote:
>> On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 23:15:11 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 8/19/2022 7:15 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> Yet the administration does not, despite making a big show of the
>>>> fact Trump had them, as if some dire state secrets were at risk.
>>>> Does anyone smell a redacted rat coming?
>>> Trump wants to know who squealed. Character assassins are standing by.
>>
>> Why would the papers mention that?
>
>
> Yes, like most things you don't comprehend what is happening.
>
> af·fi·da·vit
> /ˌafəˈdāvit/
> Learn to pronounce
> nounLaw
> noun: affidavit; plural noun: affidavits
>
>     a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as
> evidence in court.
>     "a former employee swore an affidavit relating to his claim for
> unfair dismissal"
>
>
> Being clear about the evidence that will compel the judge to issue the
> warrant is obvious to me.  You should intelligent people and try giving
> a shit about the facts.
>
>
>
>   More likely, the DNC doesn't want something in them coming out.
>
>
> No shit?  The DNC (sic) doesn't want the informant's name revealed?  Oh,
> and this has nothing to do with the DNC, just the DOJ.  That means Dept.
> of Justice, which operated independently of the rest of govt. in the
> name of Justice.  Corrupt assholes have trouble comprehending this, I know.

Rich may have been referring to the papers Trump stole, whereas I
thought he was talking about the warrant, including the affidavit.

On 8/20/2022 8:17 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > moviePig
>>> RichA
>>>
>>> Yet the administration does not, despite making a big show of the fact Trump
>>> had them, as if some dire state secrets were at risk. Does anyone smell a redacted
>>> rat coming?
>>
>> Trump wants to know who squealed. Character assassins are standing by.
>
> Seems to me the best legal and political move is forcing the government to justify
> and explains it's action against a former President. Why should Trump do Biden's
> Justice Dept. a favor and dance to their tune? Let them lay out the evidence and
> Trump's lawyers can then pick it apart.

If nothing else, we'd get a virtuoso exhibition of 'whataboutism'...

On 8/20/2022 9:00 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/20/2022 3:33 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 8/20/2022 1:17 AM, RichA wrote:
>>> On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 23:15:11 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/2022 7:15 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> Yet the administration does not, despite making a big show of the
>>>>> fact Trump had them, as if some dire state secrets were at risk.
>>>>> Does anyone smell a redacted rat coming?
>>>> Trump wants to know who squealed. Character assassins are standing by.
>>>
>>> Why would the papers mention that?
>>
>>
>> Yes, like most things you don't comprehend what is happening.
>>
>> af·fi·da·vit
>> /ˌafəˈdāvit/
>> Learn to pronounce
>> nounLaw
>> noun: affidavit; plural noun: affidavits
>>
>>      a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as
>> evidence in court.
>>      "a former employee swore an affidavit relating to his claim for
>> unfair dismissal"
>>
>>
>> Being clear about the evidence that will compel the judge to issue the
>> warrant is obvious to me.  You should intelligent people and try
>> giving a shit about the facts.
>>
>>
>>
>>    More likely, the DNC doesn't want something in them coming out.
>>
>>
>> No shit?  The DNC (sic) doesn't want the informant's name revealed?
>> Oh, and this has nothing to do with the DNC, just the DOJ.  That means
>> Dept. of Justice, which operated independently of the rest of govt. in
>> the name of Justice.  Corrupt assholes have trouble comprehending
>> this, I know.
>
> Rich may have been referring to the papers Trump stole, whereas I
> thought he was talking about the warrant, including the affidavit.
>

Or the other obvious conclusion: Rich is mentally deficient.