Jump to content

DOJ to unseal Mar-A-Lago warrant


Wildcat Will

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Warrior said:

 

 

Umm you can't show/prove a negative. The benefit of the doubt goes to the person accused until Proven otherwise. But for one second you believe if they were there it wouldn't be front page you're foolish. 

I knew this would happen - it was expected. 

you missed the pictures of several the top secret files on the floor...and what about the file they found in HIS DESK DRAW...I wonder how that got there...🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warrior said:

 

I know this is difficult - show me anywhere that it says they found "NuClear Docs" in the article? The've already posted prior "Sources say" DJT has NuClear docs. Now they wrote a soft piece and don't mention NuClear docs found anywhere? Because they didn't find anything to report. 

You Lost - it's fine I knew the outcome before it started. 

I don’t have to show anything because I’m not making the claim that it was confirmed there were nuclear docs. You are making the claim that it was confirmed he didn’t have nuclear docs. All I’m saying is show me. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Warrior said:

The bet is on the nuclear docs you’re doubting. If it turns out the leak was made up, you win. If it wasn’t then I win. $1,000 is fine unless you want to bump it up. I’m on board with the deadline, but we don’t need to go that far out. Let’s call it 12/31. You in?

Here's your bet - - the leak was MADE UP. I win.

There is a constant you keep harping on. That there was a leak. It does not matter if there was a leak or not, documents on nuclear preparedness, from foreign countries, were found at Mar A Lago.

Consider this, there was no place for a leak to come from other than in his home. The docs were found.

Simple Mr. Simpleton.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GoBigBlack said:

I don’t have to show anything because I’m not making the claim that it was confirmed there were nuclear docs. You are making the claim that it was confirmed he didn’t have nuclear docs. All I’m saying is show me. 

You made the bet and now your welching when you lose YOUR bet. Expected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Warrior said:

 

I know this is difficult - show me anywhere that it says they found "NuClear Docs" in the article? The've already posted prior "Sources say" DJT has NuClear docs. Now they wrote a soft piece and don't mention NuClear docs found anywhere? Because they didn't find anything to report. 

You Lost - it's fine I knew the outcome before it started. 

LOL...so they didn't mention it huh...so that makes the first article go away?...it never existed??...LOL..you're as silly as they get...desperation...😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warrior said:

You don't see how this works - 

The FBI has now leaked, one week after a pivotal election, to the Washington Post that the Regime’s raid on Mar-a-Lago was basically a political-op: “Agents and prosecutors found no discernible business interest in the Mar-a-Lago documents”
 

 

Your proof is this — since he wasn’t using them for business purposes (allegedly, right?) there were no nuclear docs. Correct?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said:

There is a constant you keep harping on. That there was a leak. It does not matter if there was a leak or not, documents on nuclear preparedness, from foreign countries, were found at Mar A Lago.

Consider this, there was no place for a leak to come from other than in his home. The docs were found.

Simple Mr. Simpleton.

Show me any confirmation of NuClear Docs at Mar-A-Lago and I'll gladly pay they bet. It's what I do. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Warrior said:

You don't see how this works - 

The FBI has now leaked, one week after a pivotal election, to the Washington Post that the Regime’s raid on Mar-a-Lago was basically a political-op: “Agents and prosecutors found no discernible business interest in the Mar-a-Lago documents”
 

 

Link that.

No new news has come out related to the search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Show me anywhere NuClear docs - that's what the bet was. Anyone can stage anything. 

do you honestly think the DOJ is going to print pictures of what's in the top-secret files??....how about a little common sense here?...we'll never see pictures of any of the top secret files Trump stole...that's because they're TOP-SECRECT!....😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Highlight. Where. It. Says. None. Were. Found.

Highlight where it shows they were found. They are going to report what wasn't found? It was fluff piece to cover the FBI's ass now the R's have the house. It was a leaked BS story that you took and ran and now lost a bet you never intended to pay. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warrior said:

Just show confirmation - it's not hard if true. 

confirmation was/is the Washington Post story...but you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and close you eyes and ignore the story because you don't like it....sad way to go through life...🙄

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warrior said:

Highlight where it shows they were found. They are going to report what wasn't found? It was fluff piece to cover the FBI's ass now the R's have the house. It was a leaked BS story that you took and ran and now lost a bet you never intended to pay. 

We’ll go slower this time.

I (me, GBB) cannot show that. It doesn’t exist, so I cannot show it. It doesn’t exist, and I never said it did. I’m not making the claim it was confirmed. I didn’t say it was confirmed. I have no proof of a claim I never made being supported by something that doesn’t exist. You’re asking for something that doesn’t exist and at the same time claiming that something else that doesn’t exist exists. Neither exist. They aren’t real. One of them might exist in the future, but neither do now. There is no confirmation the docs were there. There is no confirmation the docs were not there. It’s impossible to know either way. You don’t know yet. 

I made the bet that a touchdown will be scored in the game, and you made the bet that there wouldn’t be. It’s 3-3 at the end of the first quarter and you want to get paid. Gtfo.
 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

confirmation was/is the Washington Post story...but you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and close you eyes and ignore the story because you don't like it....sad way to go through life...🙄

See that's where you and I differ - you take 3rd party hearsay as facts and I don't. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Warrior said:

See that's where you and I differ - you take 3rd party hearsay as facts and I don't. 

so if you don't see something with your own eyes or hear it with your own ears it didn't happen huh??.....nice way to go through life...deaf, dumb and blind....good luck!

Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...