Whistle Pig said:

---

7 pages in three days - "doth protesting too much" about how little they care.

---

6.5 pages of you and your lil cabal spouting nothing but lies. There could be a discussion if you took a legitimate interest in the topic and not reposting what arrives in your inbox from your Brian Stelter fan club.

Literally enough is enough with you. Post something new, engage in an actual discussion, or move on lil piglet.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Where have I lied on this thread? I haven't.

---

Just did.

Where's your stupid little FBI prop picture? Haven't seen it in a while. It's funny.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Where have I lied on this thread? I haven't.

---

Did not you post that Trump's lawyer lied like it was a stated fact?

I do not believe that has been proven, correct?

And of course, you did say Trump will be indicted.

We will see how that works out.

Quote:

---

Did not you post that Trump's lawyer lied like it was a stated fact?

---

Yes but I didn't say which one. It was probably Evan Corcoran that prepared the false statement.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Where have I lied on this thread? I haven't.

---

You actually live a lie which means just about everything you say and type is a lie. HTH

Whistle Pig said:

---

Quote:

---

Did not you post that Trump's lawyer lied like it was a stated fact?

---

Yes but I didn't say which one. It was probably Evan Corcoran that prepared the false statement.

---

Has that proven in a court of law?

And if so, has there been sentencing? Is it a lie if you say someone is guilty when it has not been proven?

Do you believe people are innocent until proven guilty?

dermdoc said:

---

Whistle Pig said:

---

Quote:

---

Did not you post that Trump's lawyer lied like it was a stated fact?

---

Yes but I didn't say which one. It was probably Evan Corcoran that prepared the false statement.

---

Has that. Been proven in a court of law?

And if so, has there been sentencing?

Do you believe people are innocent until proven guilty?

---

marxists just need you to show them the person and then they'll find the crime.

Whistle Pig said:

---

7 pages in three days - "doth protesting too much" about how little they care.

---

No. It's just when you come back to the thread to keep it going and to build your post count, folks can't just stand by and let you fabricate.

Due process doesn't apply to our thoughts and discourse. What a silly test you invented, that no fact in the world can be known unless it's litigated in courtroom.

They have stated earlier on this thread that the search warrant can be agnostic to the specific crime and the potential perpetrator of the crime, just that maybe a crime occurred and maybe there is evidence there and that is all it takes in their world to toss the whole place looking for anything and everything.

Just a different understanding of the US Constitution I guess. But I want NO PART in their fantasy.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Due process doesn't apply to our thoughts and discourse. What a silly test you invented, that no fact in the world can be known unless it's litigated in courtroom.

---

Were you lying when you said you knew Trump's lawyer was lying?

You stated it as fact, correct?

Shouldn't you have said I think he was lying?

If you are an attorney, surely you know this.

That's literally how search warrants work. Happens every day. A judge agreed evidence of a crime is likely to be found.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Due process doesn't apply to our thoughts and discourse. What a silly test you invented, that no fact in the world can be known unless it's litigated in courtroom.

---

You have nothing to support your opinion stated as fact. Multiple folks have indicated the lawyer did not lie. We know they didn't as they would have already been perp walked.

And that has nothing to do with Cannon's order. Per you, the photo showed they lied in that statement / affidavit. So which is it comrade?

And the lawyer is not a political candidate so there is no off ramp there. And today ol Merrick is talking about the Chinese for the first time since Biden took office. Polling data has changed from Time magazines and golf hats.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Due process doesn't apply to our thoughts and discourse. What a silly test you invented, that no fact in the world can be known unless it's litigated in courtroom.

---

And it is not about due process.

It is about making a statement as a fact that you do not know is true.

If I say, it is a fact Obama lied about Benghazi, I would be lying, correct? Now if I said I believe Obama was lying about Benghazi then I am not lying and merely stating my opinion.

You sure operate a lot on emotions and bias for an attorney.

It's the truth. The statement has falsehoods and tricking Bobb into signing it is no better. It was designed and presented to mislead.

Whistle Pig said:

---

That's literally how search warrants work. Happens every day. A judge agreed evidence of a crime is likely to be found.

---

Then why is there any crime in America? In your fantasy, a judge can issue a warrant on the FBI's muh feelz but not be specific as to the crime and who was supposed to have committed the crime,

Can the roll into the local government housing complex and toss the entire place and arrest anyone for drugs, guns, etc? Would you support such a lawful search?

Be honest now. I know its tough.

Whistle Pig said:

---

It's the truth. The statement has falsehoods and tricking Bobb into signing it is no better. It was designed and presented to mislead.

---

So it had been proven? Or is that what you believe?

Link?

And if so, where is the indictment?

When is the trial and sentencing?

What are you talking about? Specific statues were cited in the warrant affidavit. Do you have a problem with search warrants in general or are you just having difficulty understanding how anything works?

Whistle Pig said:

---

What are you talking about? Specific statues were cited in the warrant affidavit. Do you have a problem with search warrants in general or are you just having difficulty understanding how anything works?

---

I know how it works.

And you are stating "facts" that have not been proven.

And you may very well be right.

Just say it is your opinion or belief.

Quote:

---

And if so, where is the indictment?

---

Trump has done a good job slowing down the investigation. The criminal investigation is barred from reviewing most of the documents(except the classified ones) for the time being.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Quote:

---

And if so, where is the indictment?

---

Trump has done a good job slowing down the investigation. The criminal investigation is barred from reviewing most of the documents(except the classified ones) for the time being.

---

So you have zero proof of what you stated as fact, that Trump's lawyer lied?

If you have some, I would love to see it.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Quote:

---

And if so, where is the indictment?

---

Trump has done a good job slowing down the investigation. The criminal investigation is barred from reviewing most of the documents(except the classified ones) for the time being.

---

All non-classified documents are NOT subject to any criminal prosecution...those would be PRA violations, which are civil issues...

HTH...

dermdoc said:

---

Whistle Pig said:

---

Due process doesn't apply to our thoughts and discourse. What a silly test you invented, that no fact in the world can be known unless it's litigated in courtroom.

---

And it is not about due process.

It is about making a statement as a fact that you do not know is true.

If I say, it is a fact Obama lied about Benghazi, I would be lying, correct? Now if I said I believe Obama was lying about Benghazi then I am not lying and merely stating my opinion.

You sure operate a lot on emotions and bias for an attorney.

---

He's not an attorney. He's a sock...and not of an attorney.

Ag with kids said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Whistle Pig said:

---

Due process doesn't apply to our thoughts and discourse. What a silly test you invented, that no fact in the world can be known unless it's litigated in courtroom.

---

And it is not about due process.

It is about making a statement as a fact that you do not know is true.

If I say, it is a fact Obama lied about Benghazi, I would be lying, correct? Now if I said I believe Obama was lying about Benghazi then I am not lying and merely stating my opinion.

You sure operate a lot on emotions and bias for an attorney.

---

He's not an attorney. He's a sock...and not of an attorney.

---

Oh I know. No lawyer would mis speak like he has.

Whistle Pig said:

---

What are you talking about? Specific statues were cited in the warrant affidavit. Do you have a problem with search warrants in general or are you just having difficulty understanding how anything works?

---

Piggy, I have a lot more experience in life and on these topics than you do, and likely ever will.

You seem to think you can spout your nonsense about his lawyers going to jail as fact and as some sort of basis to justify your TDS. In the real world, your statements would be libelous and there would be repercussions. On an internet forum, you are offered anonymity and some protection.

And it is NOT how search warrants work. I laid out an example of how your fantasy would apply to a housing project. In typical lib fashion, you avoid the discussion and try and work a veiled ad hominem in there.

I don't get my validation from your comments, post counts, star counts, or bragging to my "boyz" over soy lattes about how I "owned this dude on TexAgs".

I genuinely like the discussion on this forum and on this topic. My perception is that you are just hear to be antagonistic to other posters. And many of us are politely asking you to cut it out.

The statement represents that no documents marked classified remain. The FBI seized documents marked classified. I've seen the picture.

That is strong evidence, overwhelming, that the representation was false. And no innocent explanation has even been floated.

Whistle Pig said:

---

The statement represents that no documents marked classified remain. The FBI seized documents marked classified. I've seen the picture.

That is strong evidence, overwhelming, that the representation was false. And no innocent explanation has even been floated.

---

So you BELIEVE that Trump's lawyer lied.

Just admit it has not been proven.

Otherwise I would assume you are lying.

Whistle Pig said:

---

The statement represents that no documents marked classified remain. The FBI seized documents marked classified. I've seen the picture.

That is strong evidence, overwhelming, that the representation was false. And no innocent explanation has even been floated.

---

Many of the folders were empty. Classified markings do not determine whether information contained within is classified. Trump had ABSOLUTE authority to declassify, and no procedure has to be followed. He merely has to think it declassified (Source: US Constitution and SCOTUS Ruling NAvy v Egan).

Instead of bragging about how much you know, why don't you demonstrate it? You seem utterly confused about the concept of search warrants.

Why don't you state specifically what your problem is with the Mar a Lago warrant?

fka ftc said:

---

Whistle Pig said:

---

What are you talking about? Specific statues were cited in the warrant affidavit. Do you have a problem with search warrants in general or are you just having difficulty understanding how anything works?

---

Piggy, I have a lot more experience in life and on these topics than you do, and likely ever will.

You seem to think you can spout your nonsense about his lawyers going to jail as fact and as some sort of basis to justify your TDS. In the real world, your statements would be libelous and there would be repercussions. On an internet forum, you are offered anonymity and some protection.

And it is NOT how search warrants work. I laid out an example of how your fantasy would apply to a housing project. In typical lib fashion, you avoid the discussion and try and work a veiled ad hominem in there.

I don't get my validation from your comments, post counts, star counts, or bragging to my "boyz" over soy lattes about how I "owned this dude on TexAgs".

I genuinely like the discussion on this forum and on this topic. My perception is that you are just hear to be antagonistic to other posters. And many of us are politely asking you to cut it out.

---

I just want him to be honest.

Whistle Pig said:

---

It's the truth. The statement has falsehoods and tricking Bobb into signing it is no better. It was designed and presented to mislead.

---

This has been explained earlier in the thread.

And there is NO EVIDENCE that Bobb was "tricked" into signing anything. Heck, there are no allegations by the DOJ the lawyers statement is false,

Do you not find it interesting that the statement is even relevant? I mean it supposedly is the basis (now, as the basis keeps changing) for the search warrant in the first place. That the lawyer said there were no documents, someone said there were, search warrant, docs found with classified markings, easy charge for lying to the court.

So where is the venerable Merrick on this "crime"? He busy talking about corruption in Ukraine and arresting "spies" whose only offense was probably only giving 8% to the Big Guy.