From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: MerrickGarland held in contempt - DOJ refuses to uphold the law
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 16:29:47 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2024-06-15 15:34, michael cook wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2024, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> posted some
> news:v4kqvm$3jvgd$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 2024-06-15 12:42, Loran wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-15 12:32, Loran wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 12:18, Loran wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 12:04, Loran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jim Jordan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HERO!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> William Barr
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Traitor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Scott Perry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ooo ra!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andy Biggs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1!!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So disobeying ILLEGAL subpoena's is alright with you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what way were they illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way were they not?
>>>>
>>>> You've made a claim that they were illegal.
>>>
>>> Oh dear, and that piqued you too, lol!
>>>
>>>> You can't even support that claim.
>>>
>>> No need, I have full confidence in my observation.
>>>
>>>> But I'll play.
>>>
>>> In traffic?
>>>
>>>> The Garland subpoena I now assert it illegal, and by your own rules,
>>>> you must prove it is not.
>>>
>>> Are you Kent Wills in drag?
>>
>> So you agree that the Garland subpoena must be illegal because you can't
>> prove it's not.
>
> He doesn't have to prove squat. You made the claim, you support or
> retract it.
Tell him that.
He's the one who first claimed that certain subpoenas were "illegal"...
...or is reading the entire thread too much for you?