I don’t see how anyone could conclude that from what is quoted

jimbasil 55037 posts Joined: Nov 15, 2007

Posted 11:13 pm on Sep 5, 2022

Something tells me you and FOX TV are construing a narrative sympathetic to your political beliefs.

Why invent a story?

Jack, he is a banker
and Jane, she is a clerk

Replies 24

I don’t see how anyone could conclude that from what is quoted jimbasil 11:13pm · 9/5/22
- Check out this excerpt from Baron's FOX link... TyroneIrish 11:39pm · 9/5/22
  - You disagree? The DOJ has not come under criticism? Stark Raving Dad 12:01am · 9/6/22
  - It’s exhausting trying to buffet the trumpians here. jimbasil 11:51pm · 9/5/22
    - The law is a funny thing. You think you have something dead to rights. Stark Raving Dad 11:54pm · 9/5/22
      - No, you’re inventing a fact from a direct quote. If you have another quote jimbasil 12:03am · 9/6/22
        
        Are you gonna start with that crap again? Stark Raving Dad 12:06am · 9/6/22
        
        Did he threaten whistleblowers? No, he did not. jimbasil 12:10am · 9/6/22
        
        Again the timing leads one to infer that it was indeed intentionally. Stark Raving Dad 12:26am · 9/6/22
  - Stick to the subject. I think Ive heard that recently.NT Stark Raving Dad 11:49pm · 9/5/22
- So Garland didn't issue this memo? Stark Raving Dad 11:37pm · 9/5/22
  - Your post says Garland is threatening whistleblowers. If the jimbasil 11:44pm · 9/5/22
    - I think the implication is clear. No more speaking out of school. Stark Raving Dad 11:46pm · 9/5/22
      - Um, no they don’t - your deflection from facts is more of the same. jimbasil 12:00am · 9/6/22
        
        "We’ve got one poster claiming he’s an attorney..." Who would that be Jim? Are you the oracle of the JarHead4ND 1:43am · 9/6/22
        
        This is classic Silent J. He’s uniting people with his truth. Spent the day yesterday arguing Link TampaIrish 7:59am · 9/6/22
        
        I wasn't really sure who he was referring to in that post. Stark Raving Dad 10:14am · 9/6/22
        
        "Possible" espionage charge correct? That was the language used? Stark Raving Dad 12:03am · 9/6/22
        
        He’s being investigated for a crime under the espionage act. jimbasil 12:08am · 9/6/22
        
        Looks like it would be 18 USC Ch 37 section 794 or 798. Stark Raving Dad 12:19am · 9/6/22

View Full Conversation