DOJ to unseal Mar-A-Lago warrant

[OldTerrapin]

3 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

I'm sure all the lawyers he's paying big bucks too for all his legal messes would have a good laugh at this ^.....😉

[Warrior]

2 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

yea....he's been proven right..just like you!...the guys who think Trump won!!....🤡...🤡

All you got? DJT broke this poor child.

[Warrior]

7 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

yea..sure Champ...NY Times...Washington Post...ring a bell?....probably not...way over your head...stick with Fox news..it fits you like a glove....😪

ASSuming again.

[DBP66]

1 minute ago, Warrior said:

All you got? DJT broke this poor child.

and fooled your dumb ass!....😉

[Warrior]

5 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

and fooled your dumb ass!....😉

Guy hasn't been in office for almost 2 years and you post and bring him up all day every day and you're worried about me? You got problems.

[DBP66]

19 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Guy hasn't been in office for almost 2 years and you post and bring him up all day every day and you're worried about me? You got problems.

he's running for Pres....😉

[I AM IRONMAN]

3 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

he's running for Pres....😉

For the past 2 years? Worst case of TDS. Curious how many posts ( mostly cut and paste op Ed articles) from you since 2016.  Has to be several thousand 🤔😳

[DBP66]

37 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

For the past 2 years? Worst case of TDS. Curious how many posts ( mostly cut and paste op Ed articles) from you since 2016.  Has to be several thousand 🤔😳

he's involved in several legal cases in 3 different states and has been for the past 2 years...I' m keeping you up to speed...it's a difficult task being that he's in the headlines almost daily...and not for good reasons....you don't think it's unusual for an ex-Pres. to be up to his eye balls in legal trouble??....this clowns is making history for being in the legal status that's he's in now...he's a f*in mess and a disgrace to this country despite not being Pres...and he's still pushing the BIG lie for clowns like you....2 years later.....I'm pointing out reality...and not all op-eds as you wrongly claimed many times...if FACT there isn't 1 op-ed.....you can't seem to handle the NY Times or Washington Post...just like the other guys here with their fingers in their ears and their blinders on like you....😉

[Warrior]

On 11/17/2022 at 3:30 PM, GoBigBlack said:

Thanks for sharing.

Just gonna leave this right here GBB. I know you won’t honor YOUR bet. But this is about as clear a winner as it gets in today’s DC.

With the 2022 midterm elections now in the rearview mirror, the Washington Post quietly reported that documents obtained from the FBI’s raid on Mar-A-Lago did not include “top secret” intelligence. Democrats and corporate media outlets breathlessly reported that former President Trump stored a number of documents relevant to national security, including nuclear secrets.

“Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter,” the Washington Post 

 

The report went on to state that the FBI reviewed classified documents that were taken from the residence in order to determine what information they contained,

“That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said,” the report continued. “FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.”

“Agents and prosecutors found no discernible business interest in the Mar-a-Lago documents,” the report continued.

The Bezos-owned newspaper previously reported that former President Trump was storing documents pertaining to “nuclear secrets,” citing two anonymous sources familiar with the investigation.

Can’t get anymore clear. Tell you what keep the $1,000 you were never paying and just admit I was right it was a hit piece before the election in a coordinated effort to influence and we’ll move on.

[Blueliner]

3 hours ago, Warrior said:

Just gonna leave this right here GBB. I know you won’t honor YOUR bet. But this is about as clear a winner gets in today’s DC.

With the 2022 midterm elections now in the rearview mirror, the Washington Post quietly reported that documents obtained from the FBI’s raid on Mar-A-Lago did not include “top secret” intelligence. Democrats and corporate media outlets breathlessly reported that former President Trump stored a number of documents relevant to national security, including nuclear secrets.

“Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter,” the Washington Post 

 

The report went on to state that the FBI reviewed classified documents that were taken from the residence in order to determine what information they contained,

“That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said,” the report continued. “FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.”

“Agents and prosecutors found no discernible business interest in the Mar-a-Lago documents,” the report continued.

The Bezos-owned newspaper previously reported that former President Trump was storing documents pertaining to “nuclear secrets,” citing two anonymous sources familiar with the investigation.

Can’t get anymore clear. Tell you what keep the $1,000 you were never paying and just admit I was right it was a hit piece before the election in a coordinated effort to influence and we’ll move on.

Wait. What? They lied about Trump? Color me shocked. That’s part of their playbook. Just lie and make up shit until the objective is met, and then quietly walk it back. Then on to the next news cycle and more lies. When it’s brought up down the road, the dumbasses claim that it’s “old news”. See Biden laptop as a prime example. Same with Benghazi. 
 

And GBB. As Teddy KGB once had to say, “He beat me. Stdaight op. Pay dyat mayan hees mowney”. 

[GoBigBlack]

On 12/15/2022 at 3:50 AM, Warrior said:

Just gonna leave this right here GBB. I know you won’t honor YOUR bet. But this is about as clear a winner as it gets in today’s DC.

With the 2022 midterm elections now in the rearview mirror, the Washington Post quietly reported that documents obtained from the FBI’s raid on Mar-A-Lago did not include “top secret” intelligence. Democrats and corporate media outlets breathlessly reported that former President Trump stored a number of documents relevant to national security, including nuclear secrets.

“Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter,” the Washington Post 

 

The report went on to state that the FBI reviewed classified documents that were taken from the residence in order to determine what information they contained,

“That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said,” the report continued. “FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.”

“Agents and prosecutors found no discernible business interest in the Mar-a-Lago documents,” the report continued.

The Bezos-owned newspaper previously reported that former President Trump was storing documents pertaining to “nuclear secrets,” citing two anonymous sources familiar with the investigation.

Can’t get anymore clear. Tell you what keep the $1,000 you were never paying and just admit I was right it was a hit piece before the election in a coordinated effort to influence and we’ll move on.

So now you want to believe the WaPo? I thought they weren’t credible. If they’re saying there were no nuclear secrets, wouldn’t you now believe the opposite, or do you only choose what to believe based on whether or not you think it supports your argument?

 

Anywho, let’s reread the WaPo “quiet report.” Nowhere does it say “there were no Top Secret documents.” Nowhere does it say “there were no documents with nuclear information.” Nowhere. What it does say is that he likely wasn’t using them for business or to influence anyone. Cool, that wasn’t part of the bet, nor was using information from the WaPo part of any bet discussion. If it were, I’d have won months ago. But I’m not dishonest and unfair like others here, so I won’t claim victory where there hasn’t yet been one.

But for the future, this site is excluded from being used as a source for truth when determining the winner of a bet —

Their reading comprehension is better than yours, but their “interpretation” is a tad bit nefarious. But, hey, they tell you what you want to believe. 
 

P.S. hope this helps

nowhere

1 of 3

adverb

no·where ˈnō-ˌ(h)wer  

-(h)wər

 

1

: not in or at any place

The book is nowhere to be found.

2

: to no place

I've gotten nowhere with my research.

Arguing will get us nowhere.

3

: not at all : not to the least extent  

 

—usually used with near

nowhere near as serious

[Wildcat Will]

On 11/18/2022 at 3:52 PM, I AM IRONMAN said:

For the past 2 years? Worst case of TDS. Curious how many posts ( mostly cut and paste op Ed articles) from you since 2016.  Has to be several thousand 🤔😳

Get some new material.

 

[I AM IRONMAN]

9 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said:

Get some new material.

 

Get a new life 😂

[Warrior]

17 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

So now you want to believe the WaPo? I thought they weren’t credible. If they’re saying there were no nuclear secrets, wouldn’t you now believe the opposite, or do you only choose what to believe based on whether or not you think it supports your argument?

 

Anywho, let’s reread the WaPo “quiet report.” Nowhere does it say “there were no Top Secret documents.” Nowhere does it say “there were no documents with nuclear information.” Nowhere. What it does say is that he likely wasn’t using them for business or to influence anyone. Cool, that wasn’t part of the bet, nor was using information from the WaPo part of any bet discussion. If it were, I’d have won months ago. But I’m not dishonest and unfair like others here, so I won’t claim victory where there hasn’t yet been one.

But for the future, this site is excluded from being used as a source for truth when determining the winner of a bet —

Their reading comprehension is better than yours, but their “interpretation” is a tad bit nefarious. But, hey, they tell you what you want to believe. 
 

P.S. hope this helps

nowhere

1 of 3

adverb

no·where ˈnō-ˌ(h)wer  

-(h)wər

 

1

: not in or at any place

The book is nowhere to be found.

2

: to no place

I've gotten nowhere with my research.

Arguing will get us nowhere.

3

: not at all : not to the least extent  

 

—usually used with near

nowhere near as serious

Expected response. 

[GoBigBlack]

1 minute ago, Warrior said:

Expected response. 

You can tell by the lack of lies.

[Warrior]

5 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

You can tell by the lack of lies.

Your interpretation (spin) was expected. No truths or facts. The WaPo posted directly from the FBI report and gave their Opinion on it and made some logical assumptions. You won't even address the FBI report - instead attack the source as to be expected like I stated earlier. 

[GoBigBlack]

4 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Your interpretation (spin) was expected. No truths or facts. The WaPo posted directly from the FBI report and gave their Opinion on it and made some logical assumptions. You won't even address the FBI report - instead attack the source as to be expected like I stated earlier. 

“WaPo reported there were no top secret or nuclear docs.” 
 

That’s what the headline of your conspiracy site article says. And that’s not what WaPo reported. They never even say the words “nuclear” or “top secret.” What you posted is called a lie. 

Now you’re complaining that I’m not reading something that’s never been linked or discussed. Expected response.

[Warrior]

3 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

“WaPo reported there were no top secret or nuclear docs.” 
 

That’s what the headline of your conspiracy site article says. And that’s not what WaPo reported. They never even say the words “nuclear” or “top secret.” What you posted is called a lie. 

Now you’re complaining that I’m not reading something that’s never been linked or discussed. Expected response.

Let's use your logic - EVERY major news source wrote without confirmation the FBI found top secret Nuclear info just a couple months ago and you idiots jumped all over it without confirmation from anyone.

I quickly said I doubt but wait and see - you placed a wager now the FBI writes a report saying “Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter" The report went on to state that the FBI reviewed classified documents that were taken from the residence in order to determine what information they contained, “That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said,” the report continued. “FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets.

So you buy the unsupported leak but not the FBI? If they found anything about Nuclear Doc they would have reported it and at the very least it would have been leaked everywhere. 

It's ok - you Dems will never admit when you lose. 

[GoBigBlack]

4 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Let's use your logic - EVERY major news source wrote without confirmation the FBI found top secret Nuclear info just a couple months ago and you idiots jumped all over it without confirmation from anyone.

I quickly said I doubt but wait and see - you placed a wager now the FBI writes a report saying “Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter" The report went on to state that the FBI reviewed classified documents that were taken from the residence in order to determine what information they contained, “That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said,” the report continued. “FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets.

So you buy the unsupported leak but not the FBI? If they found anything about Nuclear Doc they would have reported it and at the very least it would have been leaked everywhere. 

It's ok - you Dems will never admit when you lose. 

No, every major news source did not report that. Set up a zoom. Invite the trolls. Let’s just settle this live.

[Warrior]

34 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

No, every major news source did not report that. Set up a zoom. Invite the trolls. Let’s just settle this live.

Do a quick Google search….

[GoBigBlack]

19 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Do a quick Google search….

“The Washington Post reported…”

”A Washington Post article stating…”

”Washington Post reports say…”

”Yesterday evening, The Washington Post broke the blockbuster news…”

 

I’ll do you one better than google, slugger. I’ll read. Not one of them claimed it’s true or gave their own version, they all merely reported on the one article from WaPo. 

What’s there to confirm? The existence of the WaPo article? 🤣

Set up the zoom and let’s settle it live.

[Warrior]

22 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

“The Washington Post reported…”

”A Washington Post article stating…”

”Washington Post reports say…”

”Yesterday evening, The Washington Post broke the blockbuster news…”

 

I’ll do you one better than google, slugger. I’ll read. Not one of them claimed it’s true or gave their own version, they all merely reported on the one article from WaPo. 

What’s there to confirm? The existence of the WaPo article? 🤣

Set up the zoom and let’s settle it live.

Haha, I never said “major news” source reports No Nuclear info - I posted ALL reported there was as shown with the google search above. 
 

Spin away but not one source has proven nuclear docs found but now we have an FBI report without any mention of them found. 
 

You Loose.

[GoBigBlack]

6 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Haha, I never said “major news” source reports No Nuclear info - I posted ALL reported there was as shown with the google search above. 
 

Spin away but not one source has proven nuclear docs found but now we have an FBI report without any mention of them found. 
 

You Loose.

Wtf?

The article you posted as “proof” literally said that the WaPo (a major news source) reported there were no top secret documents and no nuclear info (which is a lie). 
 

Again, set up a zoom and we can clear it all up a lot faster. You’re all over the place.

[Warrior]

51 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Wtf?

The article you posted as “proof” literally said that the WaPo (a major news source) reported there were no top secret documents and no nuclear info (which is a lie). 
 

Again, set up a zoom and we can clear it all up a lot faster. You’re all over the place.

Dude stfu show me ONE source that has CONFIRMED nuclear anything. Not “sources say” bs.

I’ve been consistent throughout.

Wtf is this Zoom call bs, hate those fucking things at work - certainly not wasting my time with some idiot welcher on a HS message board. 

[GoBigBlack]

3 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Dude stfu show me ONE source that has CONFIRMED nuclear anything. Not “sources say” bs.

I’ve been consistent throughout.

Wtf is this Zoom call bs, hate those fucking things at work - certainly not wasting my time with some idiot welcher on a HS message board. 

You keep claiming I said it was confirmed. That’s another lie, because I never said that. You invent things that didn’t happen and point to them as proof. It’s fucking pathetic.

I’m sure you hate those things. Is it because you’re obese? Ugly? Live at mom’s house? Afraid you’ll get steamrolled without having time to pull up your Q conspiracy sites and recite what you’re told?

You have been super consistent… consistently full of shit.