366

:rofl:

Of course he is. But I understand why you won’t acknowledge it.

I’m not “claiming” anything. Just pointing out lies, and hypocrisy.

367

Look at first blood.

368

But you’re not. Your “but” applies how?

369

Oh wait! It was you!

370

Ask the prosecutor.

371

You’re the one claiming lies. And now you run back to the motte.

How sad.

372

Because Tolman lied. It’s what he does for a living.

It’s ok, you can believe him.

1 Like
373

:rofl:

As I said, it’s ok. We understand.

Maybe one day they’ll find a cure for the brainworms.

374

You haven’t proven that. Certainly not in this case.

375

You quoted it. If you want to claim special circumstances, what are they?

376

“We” whom?

377

Well that’s your choice my friend. It’s one or the other so I choose the lessor of the evils. How about you?

378

Uh, huh…every ■■■■■■■ source whether it’s been the mainstream media, the FBI, the CIA, the DoJ or let’s now add the FISA court justices have been after him for years. You’re damn right how Trump has been treated is being compared to how Hunter has been treated. Now…you tell me…have they been treated equally?

379

The “Ashcroft Memo,” and all of superceding memos, are guidance to prosecutors.

If you believe Mr. Tolman’s “analysis”, and you want to know the reasoning behind Mr. Weiss’ charging decisions and plea deal in light of that guidance, you’ll have to ask him.

380

You quoted his analysis. What special circumstances or other “but” are you claiming?

381

No, I quoted the Holder Memo.

382

Which says exactly what Tolman says.

383

…except he left out the part that explicitly contradicts his claim that “DoJ policy was violated.”

384

You haven’t shown even a little bit that anything after “but” applies.

Are you under the impression that after but cancels before but?

Trying to make the exception become the rule?

1 Like
385

I don’t have to.

If Mr. Tolman wants to claim that DoJ policy was violated, then he can show that the exceptions don’t apply.